HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem I - Urban Center Extended Areas
~ CITY OF AUBURIl1 ~
URBAN CORE'TASK FORCE .
Final Draft Report
"Creating a vibrant, green, walkable urban core
with connections to multiple activities and destinations in Auburn"
November 29, 2010 .
. ~
.
~ k
47 - p, .
m,~ ¢ I .
~ h
~ ~ ` i~'- 1' t_ 'L .~•T44~ ~4, .
. . 4 vs✓ 1 r'`^Y~ r i ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ r. t _ ,.r~ ~ '
~ l
. { ZQ. Y
_ t`!1 S F y~~ 1 ~ ' j li} . : t . . • .
♦ ~ s ~ 1 tr
~ t _ ~ k> 'F ~ ~ ' . ~'A~~
~ 9~C5
C~F';
s.r
~ ~ j ' C~+~ 44,yJ K\l Y y
~ f , 1 Y .
Task Force Chair
Terry Davis
Task Force Co-Chair
Gail Spurrell ~
Task Force Facilltator
Kathryn Rogers Merlino
City ofAubum Staff
Elizabeth Chamberlain
Urban Task Force Final Report2010
URBAN CORE'TASK FORCE MEMBERS
TFie UCTF was oomprised of many dedicated citizens of Aubum who are invested in the future of Aubum as a livable
communityfor generafions to come.
City of AuburnUrban Task Force: Walter Acuna, Plaza Bank
Pat Bailey; Aubum Regional Medical Center
Nancy Colson, Windermere Real Estate -
Mike Clark, Citizen
Cam Cutler, Northwestem Fnanaal Services
Tetry Davis, Comcast (Chair)
Val Erickson, Citizen,
Tom Fleck, Global Tech Plastics
Greg Fleser, SuperMall of the Great Northwest
Karen GraFiam, Mufticare _
Sarah Hansen, Keimig and Assoaates
Steve Harris, NW Corporate Real Estate, Inc.
Dawn Heilbrun, Citizen
_ Kathleen Keator,Aubum Downtown Association -
Janice Nelson; Trillium Employment Services
Ken Nelson, Nelson`s Jewelry
Michele Oosterink, Columbia Bank
Ronnie Roberts, Gosanko Chocolate
Jack Saelid, Aubum Downtov+rn Association
Way Scarff, ScarFf Ford Aubum
Gail Spurrell, Citizen (Co-Chair)
Jay Thorpe, One Main Building Branka Vukschich; Citizen
Nancy Wyatt, Aubum Area Chamber of Commerce .
Report compiled and written by:
Kathryn Fiogers Merlino,.Urban Core Task Force Facilitator
2
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
TABLE OF CON'TENTS
EXECIJTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................4
PART ONE: MISSION AND SCOPE ............................................................•-..................................5
. 8
PARTTWO: GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ~
Guiding Pdnciple One:
Capitalize On Aubum's Uniqueness ...............................:....:.............9
Guiding Prinaple Two:
Promofe A9ixed-Use - Mixed-Income Residential DevelopmentAnd Urban Infill ~
. In The Proposed Ur6an Core Boundary ..................•-•...............................................:.....:.:.18 _
Guiding Principle Three:
Provide For Economic Growth In Tire City Through A Diversiry Of Means ..................................:29 .
Guiding Pdnciple Four.
Provide A l/ariefy Of Connectivity Choices 30 .
Guiding Pdnciple Five:
Expand, ProtectAnd Enhance Ciry Open Space ...............................•-•--..................--•---•--•...33
Guiding Pdnciple S.ix:
Encourage Deve/opmenfa/ Practices That Lessen The lmpact On The Environment
and Encourage Economic Development . :...........:.................................................•--..........:36
PARTTHREE: APPENDIX ..................................................:...............•---•••-•.....................--••-......27
Letter from Mayor Peter Lewis Appendix A.
Meeting Agendas, Notes and Exeroiises ..............:..:.................................................Appendix B
. Fnal Report from Mayor's Institute on City Design, Aug/Sept 2009 ......................:........Appendix C -
Storefront Studio, University of Washington, Main Street Guidelines ..........:...................Appendix D
Selected Facilitator Preseptations Appendix E
Supplemental information from UW Green Futures Lab
Chicago Green Alleys
~ Portland Green 3treets ~
, Schoolyards ,
Boulevards and Parkways ...........................................................................Appendix F
3
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
`
EXECUI`IVE SLIIVIMARY INTRODUCTION
The City of Aubum; Washington was incorporated in June of 1891,.and since that time has coritinued to develop as
a unique city with assets like no other destination in the state. Strategically situated between Seattle and Tacoma,
Aubum sits in a scenic valley with dramatic views to Mt Rainier, large green: parks and two rivers as well as straddles
iwo nations and spreads across two courrties. Currently, Aubum is a popular city in which 4o work, play, shop, rest, .
leam, build a business, and citizen surveys reflect this. However,_since the current population of just under 67,500
continues to grow, the Urban Core Task Force was asked to look at a vision for anticipated growth, including up
to 50,000 people I'nring in the center urban area in the next four decades. The most recent 2009 atizen survey
reports nearly 2 in 3 respondents had visited:Downtown Aubum 12 or. more times within the past year, but is that
enough to support a vibrant urban core? With great economic opportunity, historic character and cuftural venues,
planned growth must oocur with excellerrt housing choices and amenities that would bring more people, more often
to downtown Aubum, and support a denser, walkable and more attractive downtown core. In order to anticipate this
, growth, this report communicates the work of a group of dedicated atizens of Aubum who envisioned a sustainable
future for the city focused on growth, prosperity and livability.
RECOMMENDATIONS ,
The Urban Core Task Force felt it was important to have a core mission driving their process and final recommendations,
and formulated the following Mission Statement: "Creating a Vbranf, Green, Wa/kable Urban Core with Connections
to Multip/e Acti►rities and Destina6ons in Aubum." The Task Force feft this characterization of a future Aubum should focus on livability, density, accessibility and sustainability while always beneffing and developing economic support
and growth. In this context, the UCTF then defined a new Urban Core Boundary that would draw a line around a new
dense city core, allowing for infill, new development, housing, open space and green streets, as welt as connections
to nearby Aubum destinations. This new Urban Core Boundary enoompasses both natural, man made and eoonomic
boundaries and focuses its oenter around the cuRent aty core and Main Street. By creating focused, sustainable,
dense growth within this boundary following the recommendations of the Task Force, a'vibrant, green, walkable urban
core with connections' could be realized.
Six Guiding Principles form the final reoommendations of the Urtian Core Task Force, each with Sub Principles to
reinforce the ideas and suggest specific initiatives to reach the Guiding Principle goals. Outlined as recommendations
that support the overall mission of the group as well as support the new Urban Core Boundary, these strengthen
existing amenities by building upon the successes Aubum already has; and moves positively toward a vibrant, denser
walkable and sustainable city. While some of these goals sudh as increased housing and services would need to
occur with economic and population growth, the UCTF feft many of these recommendations could be implemented at
little «osst immediately.
The Task Force realizes that Aubum is uniquely situated in a location that could easily become a bedroom community
for Seattle or Tacoma, a destination for more affordable business growth, and an eas'ily connected aty byrail or.airport.
Building on these existing assets is a critical part of the recommendations as outlined in Guiding Prinaple One. In
orcfer to sustain corrtinued population growth, a planned, dense and walkable city utilizing cunen# °smart growth" and
"transportation orierrted design" as well as other urban planning poliaes occumng nation wide is an important part of
Aubum in 2050. Walkable, green, sustainable buildings and streets that build upon the historic character that makes
. Aubum unique is an important goal outlined by suggested density profile maps with Guiding Prinaple Two, as well
as tiistoric preservation and adaptive reuse recommendatiens in Guiding Principle One. Guiding Principle Ttiree
^ focuses on the economic prosperity that must grow in order for Aubum to reach its fufl potential. Creating places for
businesses to move irrto Aubum at a large scale, supported by rail and the airport, builds upon existing assets.
4
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
Supporting a dense, walkable urban core allows for small bus'iness, senrices and restaurants to support a pedestrian
and accessible urban core, Guiding Principle Four buitds upon the idea that Aubum has great connectivity, and
is well seated for a future system that is susfainable and multi-modal. Working with existing rail lines for more
, commuter activiry allowing people to easily connect to Seattle and Tacoma would allow for greater flexibility and
~ growth for the city. Bus and bike routes that easily connect residential areas writh sustainable technology would
improve both the economic base and the quality of life in the downtown core. Aubums extens+ve park system is
agreed to be one of the best in the area, but most major parks are only accessible by car. Creating a system of
green walkable stteets, smaller neighborhood parks and pocket parks would allow more useable open space by
pedesfians and focus onthe mission statement goals of livability in the city of 2050. Guiding Principle Five illustrates
the variery of open space opportunities that both enhance and support existing parks in the city. Guiding Principle
Six focuses on renewable energy souroes, sustainable infrastructure such as walkable, denser development, onsite
_ water treatment, recyGing and conservation of natural resources as a way to a sustainable future. The Urban Core
~ Task Force creates recommendations to instill values of sustainability in the city for more cost efficient, productive
and renewable resources.
While some principles focus on specifics, .others give.general recommendations that could be incorporated
immediately without high cost or investment. Growth,.prosperity and Iivability must be focused on simuttaneously
to get the character of the citythe Task Force envisiones for the future of Aubum.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY
The first section discusses the formation and the mission of the Urban Core Task Force and the mission statement
development. The second section gets into specfic ideas that support the overall mission in the framework of Six
Guiding Principles. Each of these principles represents a separate overall character and direction for the city that
Task Force feels is critical to meet the goals of the mission statement and a quality of life in Aubum by 2050. While
some of the Guiding Principles are. unique, others overlap and cross into many categories to reinforce their value.
~ Images to.support ideas and maps that illustrate exercises and charette by the group are placed alongside the
principles for more clarity. The final part of this report is a series of appendices that provide additional information
including meeting agendas, photographs, presentations shown at meetings, and supporting documents that illustrate
eithec previous studies that need revisiting or examples of suggestions outlined in the Guiding Principles.
The following report summarizes the work done by the Urban Core Task Force beginning in January 2010 and
concluding in November2010.
5
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
,
PART ONE: SCOPE AND MISSION
On January 12, 2010, Aubum Mayor Peter Lewis appointed a citizen based Aubum Downtown/City Vision Task
Force that brought together a broad based set of interests, communities and experiences. The Task Force was - charged with developing ideas for continued growth of the downtown.area, including a broad vision for the city
with the consideration for a projected growth of up to 50,000 more residents in the urban core by 2050 and
tieyond. Once these ideas were developed, they would be presented to the Aubum City Council to consider and
potentially take action on at a future date.
At the first Task Force meeting, the group renamed themselves the °Urban Core Task Force° (UCTF) as they felt
it reflected more of the core values of #heir assignment. The Urban Core Task Force then formulated a conase
mission statement that would guide them through their months of planning a vision for a vibraM, livable and
successful Aubum over the next few decades. The visionary plan was to make a beaut'rful, walkable center that
both residents and visitors would retum to again and again. TFIE: MISSION STATEMENT
"Creating a vibrant, green, walkable urban core with connections to multiple activities
and destinations in Auburn"
As a starting point the UCTF prioritized the issues that were most important for Aubums planning, such ,
as: Current and future urban core boundaries; connectivity befinreen the major attractions of the city and the
downtown; planning for density; walkability and living in the historic core; marketing of Aubum as a unique
destination and building up unique amenities; understanding the exceptional character of Aubum and how to
preserve it; and how to make the city a walkable; green, accessible dovmtowm oore while planning forfuture
population growth. Much of the first few ineeUngs were discussing fhe growth boundary in the urban core to
promote smart, transportatioNpedesfian oriented growth in the city, building on existing fabric and promoting the
best development locations. The WCTF began by reviewing an inventory of assets currently available in the City
of Aubum and surrounding areas. The following is a summary of the discussion points that were brought up to
begin the conversation about a vision for Aubum.
CURRENT RESOURCES AND ASSETS IN AUBURN
Citywide:
Dedicated and invested mayor and staff
Unique set of nearby destinations for all ages and interests
Extensive park system, espec;ially larger. parks
Abundance of natural resources
Vew corridors to Mt. Rainier and other views
Strong sense of civic events and cultural identity
. Excellence in public art, performing arts and cultural resources
Downtown Core: -
Great historic main street that should be preserved
Historic buildings, nice walking area
Proximity ta transit (rail and bus) with great future linkage to new systems
Intact sVeet grid / alleyways / good urban framework
' Grocery stores + amenfies
Medical services nearby Walking distance to schools
g.
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
Main Street:
Good sense of place:
Local and independent businesses
Pedestrian-fiendly scale
Abundant street plantings
Distinctive sidewalks and pedestrian experience
Variety of historic buildings and textures promote visual interest
Nearby Destinations:
Supermall
Emerald Downs
Mary Olsen Farm ,
Muckleshoot Casino
Crystal. Mountain,
White River Amphitheatre .
Paric 3ystem
~ Interurban Bike System
White River Trail, and other park systems
The following report summarizes the work the Urban Core Task Force in the form of Six Guiding Prinaples for the
Ciiy of Aubum. Each of these Prinaples are detailed with Sub=Prinaples, giving speafic recommendations for
what the UCTF felt was a priority in the areas of growth and development to meet their mission for the future of
Aubum. Some of these Guiding Principles are illustrated with maps or images to show the recommendations in a
general sense the task force discussed.
The UCTF also reviewed the work that had been recently done bythe Mayors Institute on City Design, that
was held in Aubum in August-September 2009. While the UCTF was charged with a larger vision for 2030 and beyond that encompassed a larger scope, the UCTF felt the recommendations were retevant to the larger
discussion of growth and vision for the City of Aubum. These and other resources have been included in the
appendix of this report. ,
~
~
7
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
: PAR'T'TWO: RECOMMENDA'TIO.NS SIX GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
Resulting from the Urban Core Task Force, the following recommendations are summarized below as Six Guiding
Principles, and outlined in more detail in the following section:
1 Guiding Principle One:
Capitalize On Aubum's Uniqueness
2 Guiding Principle Two:
Promote Mixed-Use - Mixed-Income Residentia/ Deve/opment And Urban Infill in The
- Proposed Urban Core Boundary
3 Guiding Principle Three:
Provide For Economic Growth ln The Ciiy Through a Diversity of Means
4 Guiding Principle Four:
ProvideA 1/ariety Of ConnectivityChoices
5 Guiding Principle Five: Expand, ProtecfAnd Enhance City Open Space
6. Guiding Principle Six:
Encourage Developmen#a/ Practices That Lessen The lmpact On The EnvironmenfAnd
Enaourage Economic Deve/opment..
. 8
• Urban Task Force Final Report 2010 -GL1II)I111G P1~II~ICIPI.E OIVE:
CAPITALIZE ON AUBURN'S UNIQ4JENESS
Aubum is strategically situafed between the two major ports of $e+attle and Tacoma; presently served by
the 40 busiest airport in the state and major rail lines, these existing assets must be hamessed to connect '
both commufers and Visitors to Aubum. While retaining its smaller town feel, by 2050 Aubum aould be
easily connected to outlying areas by commuter rail or piane to makes Aubum a desfinafion for livability and
aocessibility. In addition, heritage tourism, shopping and walkability on one of the best-preserved main sbeets
in Washington State must be kept to retain the uniqueness thatis Aubums downtown cone.
Its beautiful setting, collection of historic buildings, dedication to public art and surrounded by unique
desitnations that include entertainiment venues, historic sites, parks and retail are all qualities that set Aubum
apart from other cities in the region.
Sub Principle 1.1 '
Connect the Urban Core with outtying destinations to support the character that is uniquely Aubum.
1. Hamess the possibility of the airport as a major commuter and freight hub to support economic growth
forAubum.
2. Connect the newly expanded downtown Urban Core with existing (and proposed) outlying Aubum'
destinations such as the Supermall, Emerald Downs, Mary Olson Farm, city parks and the Aubum
airport.
3. Make sustainable transportation methods a high priority for oonnectivity between all things Aubum.
4. Design and support transportation modes to Aubum neighbofioods that easily bring people downtown
firom their homes easiy without need for cars to make way for a pedestrian focused downtown.
. 5. Identify 'green' connections (green streets, boulevards) that establish major car, bus, bike and -
pedestrian routes from center to to include additional street trees, street plantings and places to sit,
stay and walk creating 'destination routes' through the city. Work with Bicycle Task Force to bring thess
methods of transportation in a clear system that works together.
6. Focus on street improvements that create pleasant, safe, walkable streets in the new Urban Core.
Sub Principle 1.2
Protect and revitalize Auburn's historic main street as the unique center of Auburn and extend these
values to the new Urban Core boundarfes.
1. Create financial incentives to restore historic storefronts. Consider tax credit rebates, or similar
measures to incentivize owners to upgrade the downtown core f.or a more vibrant, save, walkable
downtown in preparation for a highertraffic flow, and repeat visits by residenis of Aubum.
2. Consider developing guidelines to determine a consistent scale for the historic core.
Offer help in the form of mini grants to owners willing to update their properties using the guidelines.
3. Rehabilitate existing buildings, valuing the existing over the new. The historic and textural quality of
Aubum is in danger of being completely lost, which is part 'of the unique character of the city. Create a
culture of sustainable preservation over new construction wherever possible.
4. Relook at the work done by University of Washington Professor Jim Nicholls `Storefront Studio' to
preserve the main street character. Guidelines were designed and drawn that could recapture the
historic feel while upgrading to current uses. If done well, these guidelines suggest inexpensive
upgrades to preserve the historic character and,promote heritage tourism - as well as provide a setting
. for dining, shopping and walking around the urban core (See appendix for full Storefront Studio report
-
by the University of Washington, Spring 2005).
9
Urhan Task Force Final RepoR 2010
Sub Principle 1.3 Capitalize on the downtown core's proposed growth area with an attractive, walkable, sustainable
downtown:
1. Develop design strategy for banners, planters, benches in strategic locations for main street that attract _
more pedestrian traffic.
2 Develop lighting sVategies for safery at lower light levels.
3. Add street trees and decorative tree grates to identfied `green' streets that channel pedestrian routes in
the new Urban Core.
4. Create slower vehicular passages through the pedestrian centers by introducing a paving pattem
change in the street, or lower cost painted pattems that identify a higher rate of pedestrians in area.
5. Review possible locations for pedestrian-priority or pedestrian-only street locations. These streets could
close forevening events, markets, special events or set times to promote open space in the core.
6. Design and create a dynamic civic square that supports the new Cityr Hall plaza, and incorporates
places to play,sit, eat and gather.
Sub Prineiple 1.4
Identity and protect historic buildings, districts and cultural places important to the character and
history of Aubum. As the.historic center of the City, the Urban Core has a unique array of historic buildings and n.eighborhoods
with distinct historic attributes that contribute to the character of the core. Unfortunately, a number of these
character-defrning assets have been lost to demolition over the years, many to pave way for development
which never occurred. Maintaining and preserving these assets is crfical to capitalizing on the uniqueness
arrd r+svitalization Aubum's Unban Core. This can be by designations such as the infer-loca/ agreement, with
Krng County Landinarks, National Register Historic Places designation and it needed, city Historic Disfricts.
Retaining, rehabilitaring, and reusing these assets through historic preservation will help revitalize fhe Urban
Core and promote its stnengfhs. Some buildings are listed on the Nafional Register of Historic Places, some on
Krng County Landmarks but there are many more which are not Regardless, the Nafiona/ Register offers a
tax incentive only and does not ofier protection fiom demolition: Local (Kng County or a newly created Aubum
Historic Commission) historic designation is the most effective tool to preserve these assets.
1. Identify places that are culturally relevant for Aubum's future through a historic inventory of atl buildings .
older than 40 years. (Or a time frame mutualiy agreed upon by preservationists and council. Forty .
years is the IGng County Landmarks Commission age requirement for historic structures.)
2. Establish an Aubum Historic Landmarks Commission that provides stewardship and direction for
historic properties, as well as guidance and information on non-historic, existing assets.
3. . Establish and promo#e the use of historic districts, landmarks, and landmark sites for the education,
pleasure and enjoyment by the city of Aubum and its visitors.
4. Paint and/or identify historic names on landmark buildings.
5. Retain res+dential fabric that is historic in nature, as suggested by density maps. .
6. Develop an effective strategy for the City of Aubum and the Arts Commission to work together to
promote cultural heritage tourism and education.
7: Promote and identify locabons for diverse public art and integrate into new urban public spaces.
10
Sub Principle 1.5
Create new opportunities for commercial and retail uses that support existing uses and maintain
and enhance a' sense of place' in Auburn.
1. Work with SBAC to ensure new & existing businesses are viable to the urban center; create a
coalition of the Chamber, ADA and SBAC.
2. Incentivize opportunities for more entertainment, retail and service establishments downtown to
bring a more vibrant demographic to the core.
3. Identify existing buildings that can bring in new uses, and limit `big box' store construction in the
urban core which detracts from the `sense of place' Auburn currently exhibits.
_ r -
, ~ ` , ~ ~ • ~ Vr-
r,
~
~
~i}~ 1V.~i$ ~ * . • { 7 ~
r+ y ~ f
a ~ . ~ .
- _ -.~'r• . .81~y t''~~
~ l~• . ~ ~ ~ i .
R • n~ • ' ! ~ ; ~,~.15 _ ~ 'S ~
. j F l ~`t . . • l . . ( - ~ f.- _ ~a y ~ . . . ~ ( .
y i i ~II ♦ . . . . • ~ t • ~ '
~ rL- f _t L ~4 "1' ~ . . 4 ' ~
~ : a(' . . • . r ' A ys ~ ;t~ . ~
~ ~ ~ ; ~ . . r . _ ~ 4" e' L
Auburn is situated strategically in between Seattle and Tacoma, with great connectivity through road-
ways, freeways, rail lines and the Auburn Airport.
Building preservation, adaptive re-use and new construction, when used together, contribute to vibrant city life with a typo-
logical variation of buildings in the urban landscape. Having a variery of buildings also promotes reuse, preserves cultural
memory and provides for a variety of economic choices for retail and business.
~
bLJilt form typological variation
~
.
~ S
city life
Downtown Auburn Historic Character
Urban Design Guidelines
Introduction
In the Autumn Quarter of 2005, Gracluate Architecture Students and Faculty from The StoreFront
Studio at the University of Washington, working in collaboration with the City of Auburn, the
Auburn Downtown Association,the Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce and the King County Historic
Preservation Program, hosted a series of public open houses, exhibits and information exchanges to
develop a visual analysis of Auburn's historic Main Street. Through archival research, photographic
documentation and digital collages the students generated before-and-after streetscapes and
~ individual building renovation proposals.
j Business owners, property owners and residents provided feedback to the students and helped to
' shape and influence the development of the students' work.The ideas were illustrated with computer-
j altered photographs of individual buildings and proposals for a complete facelift of the entire
Main Street. These full color images showed the current assets of downtown Auburn transformed
with ideas for enhancing economic vitality through new development and historic renovation and
enhancement.
I
The vision for Main Street that was generated in the first phase of this project was condensed
into a proposed set of Design Guidelines for powntown Auburn. These guidelines have the dual
goal of maintaining the existing historic character of the pedestrian oriented Main Street while
i encouraging new development. They are proposed as a tool for the community to use to guide
' historic building renovation, new tonstruction and to assist in the development and implementation
; of design standards for the city's recently designated urban center.
~
~ The Storefront Design Studio is a unique partnership funded by a grant from the State Office of
~ Archaeology and Historic Preservation and administered jointly by the University of Washington-
College of Architecture and Urban Planning, the City of Auburn Department of Planning and
~ Community Development,the Auburn Downtown Association,the Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce
I and the King County Office of Business Relations and Economic Development.
Prepared by:
i-- StoreFront Studio at UW Department of Architecture
' Forthe
City of Auburn
>V
I and - ~ King County Uffice of Business Relations and Economic Development:
j ~ Historic Preservation Program
-
Downtown Auburn Historic Character
Urban Design Guidelines
Contents
1. The Main Street Setback
2. Main Street Land Use
3. Main Street to Retain Continuous Street Wall
~
~ 4. Main Street to Retain One and Two Story Parapet Height
5. Retain Retail Frontage that Maintains Historic Parcel Width
6. Retain Retail Entrance Rhythm on Main Street
~ 7. Retain Historic Window Divisions and Transparent Ground Floor on Main Street
8. Incorporate Architectural Features in Sidewalls Off Main Street
9. Materials and Color To Highlight Historic Character and Architectural Features
10. Highlight Architectural Detail and Pedestrian Amenities With Lighting
11. Provide Pedestrian Weather Protection With Historic Canopies and Awnings
12. Provide Pedestrian Scale Historic Signage
13. Encourage Historic Painted Murals and Building Scale Signage
14. Provide Screened Parking Lots,Vehicle Access and Utility Areas Off Main Street
I
--.4~:-
The Main Street Setback
IIL
-
_ 1_- _ i
,
T?_
A. Existing
~I
' i
- - B. Allovjzible
- ~
- _ ~
C. Proposed
The American small town character of Main Street Auburn has been References:
retairied through a century of developrnent. This has resulted in the Auburn Downtown Plan Design
preservation of the pedestrian oriented historic streetscape. The massing C,uidelines:5ection BD 1.1
relationship between buildings, the street, and pedestrians plays a pivotal -National Park Service Preservation
role in maintaining this small-town feel (A). To meet the demand for Brief 11: Rehabilitating Historic
increased density (B), setbacks should be used above three floors to Storefronts
preserve the pedestrian scale, daylight access, and historic character (C) that -The Secretary of the Interior's
are unique assets to Downtown Auburn. Standards for Rehabilitation and
Illustrated Guidelines for Rebilitating
Historic Buildings
_
Main Street Land Use ~
,
~
is
T 3.
.J 1 I
i~
2.
`T..i
I
1 _
- 4
1.
_
; -
" _
1. Retail or Service uses oriented ta the pti blic should accupy all References:
,torefronts on the ground floor levef of Main Street. -Auburn Downtown Plan Design
Residential or Office uses are encouraged on upper floors along Main Guidelines: Section SP 1.5
' Street.
3.Visibility and ouidoor access increase the connection between Main
Street and upper level occupants, promoting the safety of "eyes on the
st reet."
4. Residential entrances located on side street provide additional life to
Street.
4
.
Main Street To Retain Continuous Street Wall
41
.s , ~~~~,d►
~
~
_ i (J
B
U
- R
N ~
~
I
~
T
3.
f z.
~i=--
-
F M~ i
Z ~y
1. Buildings shoufd be oriented parallel to lot lines with primary facades References:
and public entrances lotated on Main Street. -Auburn Downtown Plan Design
2. Buildings that face Main Street should occupy the entire frontage and Guidelines: Section SP1.1, SP1.2, BD1.7,
maintain approximate alignment of horizontal architectural features and BD1.11
visible elements of adjacent buildings, reinforcing cantinuity of the Main -National Park Service Preservation
Street District. Briefs 17:Architectural Character
3. Corner buildings should have special architectural treatments induding -Secretary of the Interior's Standards
turrets, bay windows, accentuated cornices and historically precedented for Rehabilitation and Illustrated
entrances. Guidelines for Rebilitating Historic
Buildings
J ~ ~ l~~ !i.I ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ . ^ L ~.~"i' ~br :
PROMOTE MIXED-USE - MIXED-INCOME RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN
INFILL IN THE NEW URBAN CORE BOUNDARY
The next 40 years of development needs to focus on a livab/e, wa/kable downtown, with diverse options for
residentia/ development in the urban core boundary. Proximiry to basic needs such as services, grocery stores,
pharmacies, c/othing, restaurants and entertainment must be walkab/e and accessib/e by a'/a to %z mi/e distance to
support the mission of the Task Force that supports a susfainab/e, wa/kab/e environment.
Sub Principle 2.1
Adopt the proposed new, larger Urban Core houndar that supports the urban core of the city, historic Main
Street and the civic center area.
1. Adopt the new urban core boundary for city expansion as recommended by the task force.
2. Together with professional urban designers and planners, create a strategic plan for the newly defined Urban
Core that builds upon the recommended diagrams and zoning densities provided by the UCTF.
3. Provide a civic 'center' plaza in the center of the urban core that becomes not only a civic gathering place for
major events in Auburn, but a place that draws people of all ages to spend time in.
4. Identify pocket parks and open space in center that support the walkable nature of the core, and places for
people to lunch, rest, play and gather.
Sub Principle 2.2
Identify sites for redevelopment, adaptive reuse and infill with sustainable development.
1. Encourage infill development in West Main St, area around Environmental Park and A Street as higher
density, as suggested by density maps.
2. Add incentives for developers to buy and rehabilitate existing buildings throughout the city of Auburn, both
within the new core and outlying areas.
3. Identify and develop properties for identified pocket or neighborhood parks around targeted multi family
housing.
4. Create infill density and form that keeps in character of proposed existing character, and that maintains the
historic 'urban grain' of the city.
Sub Principle 2.3
Create a range of housing opportunities and choices
1. Create market based, mixed income, single and multi family (rental) apartments and (owner) homes focused
around Main Street, the newly expanded urban core and adjacent to Transit Center.
2. Encourage re-use of existing homes rather than teardowns and rebuilds to encourage the historic nature of
the residential fabric.
3. Establish codes where priority is given to remodeling existing buildings rather than demolition, remodeling to
update codes and functions when possible.
Sub Principle 2.4
Redevelop downtown streets with walkable, bike able pathways where needed with new development.
1. Refer to plan being developed by Bike Task Force, wider sidewalks with places to sit, stand and rest.
2. Create incentives for maintaining clean streets.
3. Identify pedestrian prioriry streets that are visually pleasing and pleasant experiences to occupy.
Sub Principle 2.6
Identify retail corridors and/or clusters, and concentrate highest density of housing around these areas.
Sub Principle 2.7
Coordinate with the school district for projected school populations and future location possibilities within
the new Urban Core given future population projections.
lJ,'~-,i'~ Fn i R
New Urban Core Boundary
Map 1. The blue line represents the existing urban core, while the red line represents the new, enlarged urban core
boundary as proposed by the Urban Core Task Force.
-~-1i~.
, . ~ k
~
. ~
, • ~ ~ ,
~ .
~ -~.,;r" • f : . ~ ~ ~ , y,, ~ _I~ ~ n`C1'7 _
~~r - ' . . ~ , £ ~ L , ~'~1~~ i~ ~ 'r. j~l~~~~~ •
F
.
i,
+ 1
i'--~ M ~~/777// '/~/J~',~~- Ll `"•`yjj T. ~4p.+~.~
f•7
!
4,1
i
I ri~~
t~ IIr~L-"~r~
,
~
.
~f1~~~ ~
~ 'U'R ~ A1*1r
ER
~C
"~i
i.,
~
~r , - ~ ❑ ~ •y ~ ~
,,~l U~
LT,
j _ 1. .
~ ` ~ •i: I -r .
.
; (`i_1:h)I-
I
~Ti - ~ • ~ ~
~
Planning for the character of the city through codes that consider FAR and density together is important to ensure the look
~ and feel of the core; FAR alone can produce different results, as can zoning only by density.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
1: H,itjc>
NI ~
~
a
~
i
Single Faflllly HO(11eS T~awnhumes Apartnients
(4-10 ciur'ac) (20-40 dulac► (50-100 du~ac)
~
Form and Density for the New Urban Core
` O 4-10 Dwelling Units Per Acre
7hese irrages illus:rate a vanQ;y a€ low density
forrn~s of residenti.al drrHopment from single family
ats to dijplex properrys. Thpze !mages reprFsent
aFProx.ir^ax-iy 4-1 Gdwellv3g unfis per acre. ar.d are
I~#.~„i Wresen;aiive fOf d-?n5(h/, f)Ot 3fCI?R?CilFt3l SSyIE.
, IL ~
~ : ~ ~,~f ~ ~
~ ~ca~'°~/ ' •~L~~=~~
a=
.~r~ .
~ ~ ~
- »w Cweaiin8 Units PerAcre
~ ^ese images i I~stra:e a vaneiy of ined,urru densi:•;
r r-s of •es~den;ial ceve'aprrent `rcm 3-4 story ali
-s 3ertal d=~a-lovmert ta rr-red use res:den-isl ~ ~ c A~I +R ~r
^-•-reets shcultl be identiled fcr rnixed ~ a:cne rtajor,
+vz- kable s:reets. `hese irrages reprc-sert a van?,y af
,;prammately 2G-40 cwe!'ir.a unrs per acre ard tn=
:!)aracter 7f +J+e street tne LCTF felt w3s approF•riatQ.
images are representat~ve for densi.y. not arc.",i-c-o-
t_iral style.
,lDf~~~~~~
, - , ~ .~s►-=~_
Q 34 Dwelling Units Per{Lcre
1 j~ • These irrLages i17us:raze a wartety of higher ciensi:y for.ns of
P - aommercal and resia-ental developrrert in the ±den39led
densESt areas in the urban core 5tr--e:s shou,?d be iderstfied
for mixeG use alcng major, walkata~e strc.Ets 'iese imag?s
1-7~ reprRser; a variety of aFproximatety 40 + dtiel; nc inrs pe-
acre and the character of :he stree*, the' CTF selt was
aporop~ate ~o aesare rooreserttatV: t~~~~,'?~~'^J~^~ 1Gt
an~-~ii~Yr~rl sYy e
' IT:"
New Urban Core Boundaries and Densities
Map 2. The UCTF worked in groups to come up with general recommendations for density and growth in the
newly proposed urban core. his map represents a compilation of all areas of density as discussed by the group,
while the following maps focus on individual Iocations within the core.The historic core and main street feel of the
downtown was of criticai importance to the UCTF.
I
T(ir
' ~ ~
r
r ' *~~.+~p~~~~- ~
. j~
'.~7 ~ ~s; . ,k-~ fz',~ . ~ # ~ ~ • - , ~.:..__I~. T` '
_ I`-~;-
. r ~ . '
F Ir 'yj.J~L . ~
I r,$: -!S• ~ - ~'"W"GY.~.~-+'r1_l.1--4. t , ,T-~. 'I.' ~i.._ . ~~z--. .
~
~
ol
I
~
~ - - -
. --Y .it-~~ _ . ~ _
. ~ . + - 'z►a+t . .
•~t T
i i ~ I ~ ~ -
11
- . . . ~ + ~4.
+~.~~Ief~~~L .1. ,y •
_ . ~
'i t i
~b ~ . ~
~
.
. ~ .
~ • . .J . . _ . .
~A "R r . .
~ ~ ~ '
~
Aj
f ~ ~ F..,i-_ 1._ ~ ` ' . . . • .
i F. ~ 1~~ r u' I . : ~ ".,yi ••.Y
. •'•+~x ~:.f. ff~'~'~rr..}y,( ' _ . , . ' I - - r ~ ~
4-10 D-Nellhng Units Per Acre F Atctrum Ciry Limrts
1=
~ 20 _ 40 Dweiping linirts Per Acre Propased Uroan Core Soundary
0 40 + pwell+ng Units Per Acre
I
Historic Main Street and Downtown
Map 3. The UCTF felt that the historic core must keep the present character and feel of inedium mixed-use density whiie incorporating
new residential fabric into the area. Keeping the Main Street character was of highest importance, and buiiding around it in a way not
to overshadow the walkable character that makes it a successful urban Main Street core of the city. Infill should occur around existing
buildings and suggested scales are shown in the map. Images are not architectural suggestions, but illustrate ideas of density and
form.
, ~ t •:.~~-'a "Lr,,.-+..~~ ! y.. ~ ~ .4 ` ~ f'-~~ . i
n ~
,IM1M {
7,p 1 R~►,,,,t T.~I I,•. r 4- t,,;_~4 = ~ .
, r^ ` ~ ~ -y,- :~..a„~~~ ~Q
~ -
:
.t. ~ = . . ' ~ -7 . ~ -~.~•f ~
~r~ ~~:c'- ~.,t ~ ~ . I I ~..~--~~ry ~ ~ ~ I . _ . _ .
~ a..~ t, I _ l t . , ~'c'~• - j
i~`~ ~ ~ , -•p~.,~ " ' { ~ J ~ +~-""-0" T ~ _ 1 °
V_T7'
;[~_2,
~~~.J
f1 . k.~. 1i T.
- ~-~f /~n...~ . . „ ' _ . 1. ~ I _
. .•~i~f y y,•.; IM y
41
J•• t ' ~ r~~-~.,
. ; ~•.n.rj C( i y~
4dL
:4
P"R
r~ ~ It• ; ~~`v; ~ t: ~aC'- T
, I ~~,,~-~r.•"►-.~.- - T - :g~ 7 ' ~ ~~A.
,
.e,,•. . _
c'
~ :.,t t
~ ✓ _ . . ~ - _ . . i.~
• . ~ ~ ~ Y I F .I l..
~ Y
, P
f . , r
•T'.
- - ~ ' k~ ' ~~`~~r . i~ ~ . ° ~n~ ~
~a I,_t,.'W
:t - ~ . , ( • ~ ~ i . ~ e~r~- ~l,ilf":i? _ -
T
_ p-„
~,-t~.. ~~1W.'i 6 . _ ~ _ ~ iT: J~Jia . ~l ~ i LLi_~l°_ y _ y
_1 1i J~1
CD 217 - 10 Cwziling Units Pe- Acr-
. Auburn Gity LimRs
Froposed Urban Care 3oundary
"West Village" and South of Environmental Park
Map 4. This area seemed best fitted to keep the residential density of single family, but also incorporating some higher duplex or
denser units since the proximity to the urban core, train station and Environmental Park give excellent walking opportunities. Since the
rail line divides it from the center, it could develop its own character with some other infill of mixed uses, as well.
TT" .
~ ~ ~ 7
' " ' . R_ ± ~~h~ - • ,.~.'rr--~ i~~ I.,,~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~1_ '_,:.~.L° u' ''.~'yi 1
: ~ • ' ~ . L~
r-~~ ~ r ~~'C' s. ~ ~'ir4 ~ y'~•."~ +i~~!, ~
I~ . . ~ ~ i .~K '.w . : ~r ~~_1 7,+~ ~j~~~'ff^Y
. i r. ~ _ F~s,~:hr~Tr.. 1
4'! VqT,(
ti~ "ayi. _s._.i +.~j ' • ~ ~Pr . ~
~au. ``•,,.T -
7
14~~.
; ~ ir_::. 1•~, ,y~~~.,-,.r,ra~J~r;;._s.~-t~ ~'9
i'
•-i"sy, J-.... ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~.y~
v-
I
i ~ `r"" 1 f 1 r~ 1_~ ' ~ ~i'~ ,".'1'~T 1 Yy * L,•+-~.. , ~'°'Z.. yA ~ i;~~"~ ~
1f + 7
; 4,'
~ . . ~ r'Y>~' - _ I r~y- ' j d t ~r~ • ; ~ a L --1 P"`~ .
ra{'~ ` ~
.a
t7-4
, - 1 ` • - ..p r'~~ ?Y' _ i
-W
_ _ .
~ . ~ , r,.-. , • =w-
~
_ ~y. _ ~ s."f"`°~.' '"~-3,`~~~'y}•~-.~-,,q ~ ~.n ~ `t
'T~...~~.aid .~LiY~ J I~y~,m~S
_ FiJir
*
~t✓ ~ ~?7.: ~i...s,;.:~
•1` 71. f!'L.qt4f; 4.,~
' ~ i k 4 i J~g e:,_
,
M-ro
~ -3~..1-~ . • ~ ~s : ~r ...t,~ , ; ~.,4 ~ -
. ~
' . .,/'~~1`~ A+~p" ",,,y qF 5~~~ ~ ~ ~~i , _~J.
L ~
t p r = . ~ s
.Y-Id,:Ta ~ • ~ ~~..r ~ ~ . . ~ , ~
~ 14 D•.velling W1its Per Acre
~J
-i
,4utovm Gi2y Limrs
i P*cpo-spd Urbar Core Bounoary
-
North of Center and South of the Airport
Map 5. The area north of center toward the airport was targeted for higher densities around the B street corridor and the airport. Some
mixed use along main streets and walkable boulevards, residential and office could be mixed in a higher density, with a business district
feel that remains close to center and transportation to and from the airport, rail and major roadways.
J
'~r
. 4
j. • . . ~ J .
x ~ ~U •7 ~ 'wf { i -.1~,_~ ~•~,-_..1~~~
j }r - ~ s. ~74.- ' . , ; .y~ r yr-~ ~ y .-p(+tr i
~.`_W TM` . ~ ,n'~...~~..M,~~_~~r~ ^iITT'
T•....r..~ ➢ ~ - ~+r
f
~ I + ~ ' i`~Y . 1 '1'r
, J- ~ . ~ ; . . , ~ ~ ~ , ~ , ,f.~., .~r _
w~ ~~F ~ ~ :r•rr,~"~`-,,`~.~"i ~p 7~1;~~~r~~~`~h~
j• ~ 1 ! { ~ r l ~l~-t'sa ~ 11~'~ ~~r i
'
i ; _ i l. rj~a r}t"l; y!~ "jli`-;'~~+~ 4 i_ I
w I
?T, ;X7~~
~I;z
~ + i 'P1~ ~~'"'f• ~ J n `Y_
u 1 r+~ f ~
a iy""t 1.X,L~T*
~ ^ ; . ~ P_t~r;y.!"~~ _
~
.--_7_4
#%"'~t~..
~ ; i, • a L-
. ~ :
~
F
~ „
~f'b ~ _ . T ~ r 1~f~ ~ '9•,~1 ~ . i ~ Gwb[' ~ 4 7_1-~.~+~--
j~~ • .
y_ ~ '
~
1
C) 40 C'weiting Units PerAcre
r.ut-urn Cip}• L.mrc
s
i FrCoGSed Lr!:,3n Crre HD_.nd3 j
~
East of Downtown
Map 6. The residential fabric east of the urban center was considered an important neighborhood in Auburn, and it was felt it should
keep its character as detatched single family homes. Where opportunities develop, similar scaled infill should be considered with
similar density. In keeping with the mission, the UCTF felt more small, neighborhood parks, pocket parks, play spaces and pea
patches shou'd be developed within this area in unused areas or empty lots.
+ ~i , .1~ ' ♦ h,p. .~k f •3~^-~ °~c,,~.`li=n~,~_j ~ ~ ~ ~ - .
t ' '-z-~.. . - ~i I } --:;4 .r '
` s' b~,e^ - • ; ~ -:~i...r . il,~!'., 4~ E~
~ Y : ~ ~ t 4 _ ~ ! ~ r
w-~~~
A . f~ .
^ •~t' s~~ ~
Y-
~,V , ~ :tl ' L Y~..~~. ~ ~°r t t.
l ~.•4
..iL
-T
• ~ j ~
~ A L:1 N
I , ~'~:r r~ 1- ;I~ r a ~
' w-
b~
~ ~ r ~ L - f,~,, • . s . ' I~
'S ♦ Y'T
i
- i _ [74, ~t
. _ ` Ti~
t.~, ~ ~ . ~ .
-ji Ji ~ 'qI1~1 . i- • ~'~i...~- ~ ~ ___l J ; tlc" \ I C- , _
..J . ( . , ` •-r 1 i~ ^~.r 1 F :
~`h Vi~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'~~~~_...~~~=~1~~
0 4-10 Dweflinfl Wniis PerAcre
Auoum City Limits
_r
~Proposea urbe►, c«e ao,ndaLry r fi
~
Medium Density in North, South and along Auburn Way
Map 7. These areas of inedium density should be mixed use residential above commercial and retail with active ground facades and
activities on major walkable routes. Other streets could be developed as dense mulit-family market rate and mixed income housing. A
diversity of populations and incomes could generate a strong business and service base in th downtown core.
~ - i { , v! .A.. ~ ~ ~ _ _ _
- i ~ ~ • i
`V!
k
~ _ ~ r• -
1
.
~ ~ ~
. _...i `r4 F
'
. ~
. • ~ s
. t ,
t~ ■ ~~fi - ~ ~ , r.~.t;.l_
~d' ' ; [ M♦ A ~y~~, ~~~T~~t
(C✓''Y~'M15,f'1'.,~
~
,_.4". ~ ii ' -i._.:: _ l
_ p~
r (
7~~~~ • ~qq~ i -
p ~
R
- n 1 ~ .
``~1 _Ta' ~
,l l ~ ~ ` ' ~ ~ ~ ~ = i~-- _ ~ F,7
T' C1~
k
r A
~
~ . L~~y~.•~~.~
f~.- r~~ ~ ~ ~,~'J.... ~ - _ .M-e•.
-4'j~~ : ~ 't'' ' `tE~„ • . 14 I {L.
L''
~ ~
g-
X~~ ~ ~
r,
r.
~ . . . ` -
=
~~1' " ~,a' .t, • ,~`r".-1
-`~_iti~'".~;, ; , , i 1 , .~~.~.,i.~«.~..rer-~.ef+r~*er,ip•'.. ,1.
Cl 20 - 40 Dwelling Units Per A.crn
~ ,4uburn Gi:y V:mits
~
Propasea Jfiar Core Boundany
South of Downtown
Map 8. The area south of center near the industrial area was targeted for higher densities. Some mixed use along main streets and
walkable boulevards, residentiai and office could be mixed in a higher density, with a business district feel that remains close to center
and transportation to and from rail and major roadways such as Highways 18 and 164.
'~~e ~ ` i ~ • ~ ~ y
tw,
i'~`` . ~ _ _ ~ ~ t - r~', .rT~`_ ' I
~14f?'~• r;
=+a
--=r
, 6 `J L~
. W.
= ~ h.___.,_---~ rt~. F
f J' ` Y-L---
}t 'S~ ~I■ ~ 11~ Y_ : ~ (~i ~;:i r ,-~`~-rNk~'-.`.
4_ •`t' 4_ - . ' r t;r ~~~iT
. ,i_~ + ; E,~"',~ 7 r 5~+ ` i,,,,~,,-~' 1 :
s~
-'i5Q 1.
T7T~~a' ~
I
r !L-
r
,
J J~.
-+'I, I Jt . ~
i..~~L.
L .y_ ~I ~-'f
...W%7 h~..~
~
L2
;C,-~-~- ~.7t
~ ~ , ,_'~l` ~~,.r~ ~ _ ;
lkif '
.
~a,., - ~ ~ ■ ~ r.
cl~t • . ,w-~3RT^T~--,~ ~
~il~ ow.i=:wtiys
j a
. - i ~ -~~D-~' ,~r~ ,.`Mt~~.-~-w~t~ a;~ .
~~e-`` ~S r. ` ; _ i ~ _ ' ~.~"'i . "7p)F•t't' a 4 I ~ ~
~ r 1. ~r~~k~"''~"~~ ~ h •~~j~
LSflll~ *~c~ L ~ - l.bi_~c'`
` t r ~ ~ s ~ r-3-- ~°.1 _ c -
~^~i. ~ti_.a'___~.~~~"• ~j ~ tt~f/ ~4-rr , ~ ~ ~--t ,~,._~l ~r.
' `.rs0y~- i `f 7 e . , ► ~
. ~ r f. ,.~.r ~ ~ ~ - ti-v
-~,..`~~~-"4''.,~., :!~fi ~ ~ ~ x '•z.i h~ ,l_-i-?~..
C) 40+ Dwelling Unrts Per Acre
~ Aubim C'r.y Li^ nits
~
Prc_~oseo J•tar Coro 6oLIc3y
~
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
GLIIDIIVG 1'RI1vCI1'LE THREEo-
PROVIDE FOR AP1D SUPPORT ECONOMIC GROWTH IN AUBURN
A strong economy and worlcforce in the city supports vibrant city life. -By ensuring a diversity of economic strengths,
including bnnging businesses in to create new jobs as well as supporting existing, local businesses in the ciry provide for
a sustainable cycle of economic prosper+ty in the city for the future.
Sub'Principle 3.1
Preserve, Support, and Enhance existing economfc assets.
1. Communicate with existing businesses economic assets to ensure meeting their needs.
2. Capitalize on existing assets in transportation for economic benefit; airport, rail lines and freeways that
connect to.the greater PugetSound region. -
Sub Principle 3.2
Explore new opportunities for economlc development
1. Idenfify the missing retail and service locations for future residerrtial growth.
2: Encourage manufacturing opportunities throughout the urban core that are compatible with existing uses in -
Aubum.
3. Promote mixed-use that benefits economic development in the new Urban Core through targeted shopping and
entertainment districts.
Sub Principle 3.3
IdentHy the areas of the R¢gional Hospital, Environmental Park and Airport for future growth possibilities.
1. Encourage partnerships for regional hospital and educational community/opportunfies for growth.
Sub Prlnciple 3.4 ~
Develop and support the growth of the airport to enhance new opportunities within the urban core:
1. Consider extending the runway 5000 feet to support airport growth and future economic development. _
2. Encourage.light manufacturing, small businesses at airport such as restaurants and hotel space.
3. Develop areas around the airport as a light commeraal and mixed-use zone.
29
,
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
GLIIDING PRINCIPLE FOiJiz: .
PROVIDE A VARIETY OF CONNECTIVITY CHOICES
The city needs to develop permanent routes through the municipal'~t}~ that can adapt easily to new methods of
transportation that is energy efficient, easy to use, and adaptable for future methods thaf might not be developed or
affordab/e yet.
Sub Principle 4.3
Create walkabte and connected neighborhoods to and from the Urban Core.
1. wden sidewalks and provide improved and pleasant accessibility from parking and transit to retail destinations,
as well as in between retail and entertainment venues themselves.
2: Identify connections between neighborhoods for walkable streets
3. Identify the best connective streets to be used as safe, populated walking streets to and from the urban core to promote more people on streets and more, eyes on the street as safer routes.
Sub Principle 4.1
Connect the downtown with major city of Aubum destinations that are easy to use through multf-modal methods
(pedestrian; bike, car, bus, streetcar).
1. Develop strategic plan for easy mutti modal transportation (walk, bike, drive, bus, rail, train) .
2. DeVelop an urban model of destinations to promote mass transit between major locations
3. Consider built projects for permanent infrastructure such as bus stations and bike parking that incorporate
public art and architecture into the cityscape.
Sub Prindple 4.2
Connect city to larger regional destinations.
1. Create an easy oonnection to Seattle and Tacoma on rail Sub Principle 4.4
Identify concentrated 'parking areas in the Urban Core.
1. Reduce on street pa,rking to concentrated areas that make accessibility easier and improve the
appearance of pedestrian-oriented streets.
2. Encourage mass transit systems such as shuttles, busses and trains as well as bike and pedestrian
pathways. 3. Identify locations for electric vehicle charging stations
A more walkable urban core means reduang vehicle miles travelled and
requires less parking. This graph shows Aubums typical commuting pattems,
which the Task Force would like to show with more mass transit, biking and
walking. (Source: Data.com from 2008)
Means of transportation to work
, . t~~e^~ • Droye a car alone: 13,800 (73%)
_ T : ' •r'•""' • Carpooled: 2.873 (15%)
- ' Bus or trolley bus: 931 (5%)
: .
_ _ _ a+x~w • Taxi: 7 (0%)
• Motorcyde: s (0°6) -
• Bicycle: 95 (1%)
Walked: 666 (3%)
30
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
Great streets are defined as walkable and frequented by pedestrians. The chart below illustrates the amount of vehicu-
~ lar traffic that makes for a good or poor quality street in an urban center (image courtesy of Gehl Arohitects)
. . . k . k . .
WMAT ES A GREAT STR£ET fOR PEDESTRIANS?.
_ . aa-~.v . :•d ~ . _ e. :~•SD v ro f3tl-G{J rarTP. ~w wro:r c, e,a~,rr ~ -i t~_se.u - ....r. ~ . r~:. ~ncrm . ~.v~ • i. u.~,~iu.f F=~rec,t~.ir.n<;. . ,
' . ^k4i~.AGC {,ty11!,Y iCL~ESTYPAhI C~11 0.P}.'4lCf':trr ~..1'IApMA!F>37A1 FAC'i(1R$ " $~[YG;( 54ffi1' ji ~ .
. T4Snl ~ ' .KDISL.' Mbi+aTlO,V . (Ikl~°P^RL::i . •
. . GkCAY SY6tff:l ,~2t7G0 cn~a it~ci xa ahm,' r:~~ .xc ~ ru..it..e. ' "cs.' r.~ ' u..,.
P'v~ t t1~ 1'.?U( G• TM i ➢3 4ats
' YLt~i'~~ ~t4. CHt 4~ ~f It Ddd.e CuH4~t«1e5 0.
' - erfJOtS :AAi¢ fCI:R(e t. e.Ytf~tR:i. . .
. . . G099 $TA[f.l :SMJ0 t.cr an~i xin•.,.nuv. mr.c~r~ ~.,s o<w ~~a.ni ...c,s var.o~rw,. ~ - .e::x~.a uox . .
. . . . ' f , :iP•S .~.ISe^ {y~lJyiYn'.[;4lt'1~?R.i 4<~tir , ~.~w .
1f KAtff A4 9~fS 'I -6. Q 1' ht; 4 i.. E<sjr,~(a+r,
axl-
1
~ . ..e~4e~e.eF;.nv.un~~, . ' . . . . ~:~CG•. G~~ M1t+~.~. tv .Gir,'S. . .
. OKAY 4TR[ET
. r.a~~.mi~.~ex~r.var~;~.c. (en.suts~azar¢~c:~enu««+<r s<e~Y<,.c~e~r-e~~_wse.~.ce.~ .
. s 4~6^q.^vf+. t CvA1tIC uGtlat. . 1T/:~FLD. f:.~.i 6t aF Ci~t
. . ~ . . T~\'~ ~.x~' ..t. tY, m, a'f ftY Y YsA i 4 e SSKLl'! 4~ U«!tl nt~.
C N s~t
' ~ . F A G+}( ttJ t1~ ~ ~
.Ve•.w~n n~ i r.ii rOi4V.'.a.~, k
. . POdTR SIREYfi
i ~ t. c - ei - ~ ~s u~ u - - , c . . 0 = I ~ - UA 1 I.. . t. 6 a 4:t fv u~~1 SpWYS9.+* NttS 5 1{ . .
~ . . . . . . ~ ~ . .
' . P7FtD StRCET
.
. JJJ . w•~t 'r. t t t .t te. +t c a raus•. ' .
' ' ~ ~ St. CSe44'tC ) 1 t."~li ' . K tk ` U 4tt 4. iJ r. 5 a+Nl Ya~R ~ 4 l G I~.~w kY.kx:~ 1~'f 5>.A
' ' ' , ciA3r. Qd+LI°~ f~atua ,..n • 44M ta{.v¢'Er~. .i8 - .
1
31
- , Urban Task Force Final Report 2010 . ~ Planning for proximiry creates a more vibrant core, especially when s_treets are marked as main thoroughfares, and way
finding is made easy for both visitorsand residents alike (image courtesy of Gehl Architects)
PROXI~ITY
. . ~ h.:_ ~,Z ► ~ . , .
Jkconnections destinations
. q
' . . ' . '3 . .
Y
, . . , ~ / ~r . f+ '.ti'Y~ / ` •
city life
bf `
functions
lntuitive way-finding makes for better pedestrian use and bike/walkability, which in tum results
in more vibrant economic activity in #He urban core (images courtesy of Gehl Architects) -
~
.
~ ~ .
f .1'..
~
r:,.
~*k 5
V r~
7:
. . . ' ' . ' ~~.=i} .
32
.
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
GUIDING PRINCIPLE FIVEo
EXPAND, PROTECT AND ENHANCE CITY OPEN SPACE Aubum is home to excellent city parks such as Les Gove, Aubum Game Farm, Mary Olson Park, Environmental Park and _
others. While maintaining tfrese valuable resources, a focus on appropriaUng unused space for `pocket° parks, tree-Iined
boulevards and wa/kable sfr+eets in the Urban Core area can add more. open, public space for new residents in the cbre: A
diversity of parks built l+or a diversity of ages and interests can add ro the vision of Aubums fuiure opens space.
Sub Principle 5.1
Provide the Urban Core with a centralty located urban civic park and smaller parks (play parks, dog paHcs, pocket
. parks) within the newly idernified boundaries. -
Sub Principle 5.2
Provlde additional parks/places, gresn corNdors and pocket parks etc. to sit, stay and play within Urban Core.
1. Develop right of ways that connect with proposed / identified destinations and greening them with places
to rest along the way. 2. Build upon and expand work with school disficts for `leaming' gardens, parks and green space of schools
to be used during off hours and provide space for urban living for children and adulfs 3. Partner with school districts on projects for creafire uses such as arts schools, pea patches, axessible
and public uses. Such as play, leaming, growing.
4. Create a master park plan study that looks at existing parks and how to incorporate new parks into the
new core. Employ designers who can provide parks that are interactive places to play, sit, talk, rest,
exerase and usable for all ages and accessible by all.
Sub PNnclple 5.3
. Improve and support existing parks and uses, especially for the next 20 years
1. Identify bike rack locations to improve transportation to and ftom parics
2. Ident'rfy commUnity garden locations and pea patches.
3. Identify and use exisdng parking strips as green spaces for streets
4. Provide lighting thaf allows safe passage through parks at night
,
33
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
City Open Space ~
Liap 9. As the dty grows m population, more diverse types of parks will be needed. Improved 'green' streetways for waildng, green
boutevards, urban parks, pocket parks and inf'ill parks, bike paths and other types of open space are critical br the success of a livable
aty. These maps represent UCTF exercises implementing the suggested amount of °green" or °open" space for 50,000 people in
the ary. Environmental Parlc, while outside the new core, was highlighted as a major destination and opportunity for the city, as were
present and new school locations with leaming, growing greenspace for all ages.
~ n - ` ~,y ~
r,,. ti, y~ , ► •
i~~ •
} ~
. . _
i__,.
.
/ , 1 ; . .
. 4
4
Y
~ t' _ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ; .
f ;
1 +
_ ~ ~ o ~ ~ - _ ~,~t_.f.
~
.
S-'
X7. _ ` wt
j r'~~~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ .
4+-r
- ' y ~ - 'r--~.""'► _
~ - ~ r* M,,,,.,,~~ '~'t -
~ w ~.T~ ~ r tAJUI~ ,
Y l~~p'~y~' 4~ ~ ~ {Y
`i . 91 y ~ .v '
~y~~a~,~ .•w,,,.„~~: I',(( ~ .i ~ _
.j
~ - ' . . r, . 7 ~'1►r ~ r. f ',,.A. ~4• .
t~i
J~+~TM ~ ~k.~Y.~♦_
34
Urban Task Force Finai Report 2010
Smail Urban Pocket Parks
A pocket park is a small outdoor space, usualiy no more than '/a of an acre, most often located in an urban area
that is surrounded by commercial buildings or houses on smail lots, with no places for people to gather, relax, or to •
enjoy the outdoors. There is no set design for a podcet park; each one is different depending on the size and use of
the space. These and other open space additions add to a walkable urban oore. See Index for more information.
~ 3a -C
4p
_fi
~ 1 F
. Appropriating leftover ~ ~ ~ • r _ a;, ~ , p ~ ~ , c. ~ f space and filling with
small places to sit, ~~y ~y " ti-- 4 ~ ~
stand, talk, play, eat or
gather could connect
walking routes and provide nearby outdoor ^ _ • ~~'k.
publie space.
3
. ~ .
Waterplay at parks and
$r ' °
a variety of seafing _ • , _ . ~ '
aRangemerrts provides
for people of all ages.
~ a
`~t'f`"r!~ '
~ . ~ µ . 'SF`' ' •;~N 1~^~~. ~ .i ~ rK .
. ~ cCAR~ ~ ✓ ~ t~'~~ y ,
✓L ~W'_ -T` . ' , '
1-4;;~ ~ . .
~
- • ~ ~ ,.t ~E•, ` w,
.
~
J s S 4`P'~M. ."t ,'A:C'' '1~' r~V'•. .
rk'~• v"~ `4~ - r 'S
35
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
r
GUIDING PRINCIPLE SIXe
ENCOURAGE DEVELOPAAENTAL PRACTICES THAT LESSEN THE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
Sustainab/e development is tlie futune, and one that has a critical impact on our na#ural resources such as rivers and
watersheds, air qualiry, food production and waste treatment. By investing in infrastructure and services now, we can see
both eco»omic and environmenta/ benefits in the city. Regulations that create °green" standards through building coales,
recycling and waste reduction, on site storm water retention and ofher sustainable initia6ves create cycles of renewal thaf
are both environmentally and economically benefrciai. .
Sub PHnciple 6.1
Encourage developmenf and building projects that reduce energy consumption, encourage recycling, and use
sustainable building practices. 1. Require city to keep up on latest 'green' building code requirements.
- 2. Make recycling as accessible as possible for commercial and domestic customers, and provide
incentives. Mixed recycling bins in clearly marked, city-supplied oontainers.
3: Provide Education program through schools to promote "green" education
, Sub Prlnciple 6.2 - -
Provide multiple opportunities for,fuel$fficient cars; ease of transportation connections such as pedestrlan-bus-
train; and easy, safe and enjoyable bike
and walking paths to lessen the need for automobile transportation between shorber distances. ,
1. More bike routes and racks through city - Sub PNnciple 6.3
Plan for and design to lessen the impact of water treatment and infrastructure through on-site water retention .
and water recycling, use bioswales and urban landscaping as well as other sustainable design methods. ,
1. Require commercial buildings to install roof runoff storage containecs for collecting storm water for
recycling a percentage of water, watering landscape and/or provide onsite water retention.
, 36 -
~
i
PART TI-iREE: APPENDIX I
~
APPENDIX A
Letter from Mayor Peter Lewis
. 1 _
QF .^-•w_..~""`^':u"''''/ T. . . . . . .
Peter B. lewis, Mcryor
25. West Main 8heet * Aubum; WA ;48001=4998 * www:aubumwa;goy 253-931 3000
WASHINGTON
. r . . . . . _ : . . . . . ' '
January 12, 2010 Re: Aubum Downtown/City Vision Task Force
Dear:
You have been nominated by the Aubum Area Chamber of Commerce and the Aubum
Downtown Association to be a member of the Aubum Downtown/City Vision Task
Force. I appreciate your interest and time in participating on this important community
advisory board. The Task Force, building on the successful model of the Aubum Arterial
Stteets Task Force, wiU bring together a broad based set of interests, experiences and
knowledge. The Task Force will develop ideas and reoommendations for downtown
Aubum and potentially other key areas of the City for the Aubum City Council to
oonsider and potentially take action on at a future date.
The Aubum Downtown/City Vision Task Force will assist the Aubum City Council in
planning forthe continued growth and development of the downtown and other key
areas of the City. While the actual mission and scope of the Task Force's efforts will be
determined by the Task Force, I and the Aubum City Council request that its efforts
include the creation of an updated vision for powntown Aubum and 'other parts of the
City, as appropriate for 2030 and beyond. This vision could address a variety of issues,
such as, potential expansion of the downtown planning area, continued downtown and -
citywide redevelopment planning strategies and actions, mixes and locations of different
types of land uses, business retention and recruitment strategies and potential
regulation changes.
I anticipate that the Downtown/City Vision Task Force's worlc will occur over a 6 to 9
month period; however, the actual timeframe will be set by the Task Force. Similar to _
the Arterial Streets Task Force, City staff will advise and act as a technical resource to
the Task Force throughout its work, but, will not be in a direct leadership role. The Task
Force members will appoint a char and vice-chair at the January 20"' meeting. At this
same meeting, the members will be asked to give inpuf and direction for the selection of
a professional facilitator who will assist the Task Force in its conversations and work
efforts.
The first meeting of the Aubum Downtown/City Vision. Task Force is Wednesday,
January 20, 2010 from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in the City
Council Chambers on the 18t floor of Auburn City Hall, 25 West Main Street,
Auburn, WA 98001.
AUBURN*MORE THAN YOU [MAG[NED
APPENDIX B ;
Meeting Agendas, Notes and Exercises
Auburn Downtown/City Vision Task Force
Recommended Aqenda -
January 20, 2010
3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Aubum City Hall
1st Floor - City Council Chamber
25 West Maih Street -
Aubum, WA 98001
1. Welcome and Introductions (10 minutes)
, .
IL Selection of Chairperson & Vice-Chairperson (5 minutes)
III. Discussion of Future Meeting Dates and Times (10 minutes)
IV. Presentation by City of Aubum Staff on Past & Present Planning Efforts for
Downtown & City (20 minutes)' _
V. Discussion of Task Force Mission (40 minutes)"
VI. Input & Direction on Professional Facilitator (30 minutes)"'
VIL Meeting Wrap-Up (5 minutes)
VIIL Adjoum
Agenda items that are starred have written infortnation items associated wkh them that will be
distributed prior to or at the meeting
Final Urban Core Task Force Membership
, March 2010
: ,
l _ <EmaiilPfione
,G.Name ._.aniza#ion ,
1 Windertnere Real ncolson(&-windermere.com
Nan Colson Estate Realtor 253-670-1191 -
2 Northwestem nfscocnCcDaol.com
Cam Cutler Financial Seroices 253-931-8008.
3 Director of Franchising & terrv davisCa~cable:comcast.net ,
Terry Davis Comcast Govemmental Affairs 253-288-7496_
4 SuperMall of the Qfleser(a-alimcher.com
. Gre Fleser Great Northwest General Mana er 253-833-1790 5 NW Corporate Real President & nwcreiCcDnvenfure:com
Steve Harris Estate, Inc. Desi nated Broker 253-852-5860
6 Aubum Downtown kathleen(a)dtaubum.org
_ Katfileen Keator Association Ececutive Director 253-939=3982
T Senior Employment
Trillium Employment Consultant/Program ianice@trillium.org
Janice Nelson Services S ecialist 2537735-1553 .
8 nelsonsiewleryandgiftsC~hotmail.com
Ken Nelson Nelson's Jewel Owner 253-833-3580
9 Vice-
President/Aubum moosterinkCaD-columbiabank.com
Michele Oosterink Columbia Bank Branch Mana er 253-288-1751
10 ron(aDaosankochocolate.com
Ronnie Roberts Gosanko Chocolate Owner 253-333-7567
11 wavCaDscarff-ford.com -
Wa Scarff ScarFF Ford President 253-833-1500 •
12. ctvanke123CaDQmail.com
Gail S urrell Citizen Citizen 253-833-0700
13 Aubum Area Chamber PresidenUChief nancvCaD-aubumareawa.orq
Nanc W att of Commerce O erafin Officer 253-833-0700
14 Aubum Downtown isaelid(a-comcast.net
Jack Saelid Association Vice-President 253-931-8120 15 wiavthor)CcDcomcast.net
Ja Tho e One Main Buildin Property Mana er 253-350-9273
16 vukshich(aDearthlink.com
Branka Vukshich Citizen Citizen
17 mlcinc06CaD-comcast.net Mike Clark Citizen Cfizen
. 18 " tomCaD-alobaltechalastics.com Tom Fleck Global Tech Plastics
19 dawnheilbrun(a)comcast.net
Dawn Heilbrun
Zp karen.QrahamCaDmulticare.or4
Karen Graham Multicare
21 Pat Bailey Aubum Regional Assistant pat.bailevOuhsinc:com
interim Medical Center Administrator -
22 Sarah Hansen Keimi and sarahlhansen@_qmail.com
Associates -
23 Assistant Vice wacunaCaDalazabankwa.com
Walter Acuiia Plaza Bank President
24 valhoilvCaDhotmail.com
Val Erikson Observer Citizen 253-939-8043
25 krm(cD-u.washinaton.edu
Kathryn Meriino Task Force Facilitator 206-355-1261
Ci Staff Su ort to Task Force
; u
0u.,anization ._4.,. ' ~ O°{ ~EmaiUPfione .;~z~: `
26 Kevin Snyder City of Aubum, Interim Director ksndver(c~aubumwa.gov
Planning & 253-876-1982
Developmenf
De artment
. 27 Elizabeth City of Aubum, Principal Planner echamberlainCaDaubumwaaov -
Chamberlain Planning & 253-931-3092 .
Development
De artment
28 Dennis Selle City of Aubum, Public City Engineer dselleCaDaubumwa.gov
Works De artment 253-804-5077
0
Version 6
March 3, 2010
Page 2
, CITY OF_
~T URBAN CORE TASK FORCE
~ ° _ ~Ltl
~ WASHINGTON JANUARY 20, 2010 MEETING SUMMARY
I. CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 PM, COUFICIL CHAMBERS
Meeting began at 3:00p.m. in the Council Chambers located on the first floor of Aubum
City Hall, 25 West Main Street, Aubum, WA. Task Force Members present were:
Nancy Colson, Terry Davis, Greg Fleser, Kathleen Keator, Janice Nelson, Ronnie
Roberts, Way Scarff, Gail Spurell, Nancy Wyatt, and Jack Saelid.
Staff present included: Interim Director Kevin Snyder and Prinapal Planner Elizabeth
Audience Members present were: Val Erickson.
II. AGENDA
A. Welcome and Introductions
City staff welcomed the task force members and provided binders for the task force
members. Introductions were made by each task force member.
B. Selection of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson
The task force selected Terry Davis as the Chair and Gail Spurell as tFie Vice-Chair.
C. Discussion of Future IlAeeting Dates and Times
The task force decided the regular meeting date and time would be the third
Tuesday's of the month from 2-4pm.
D. Presentation by City Staff on Past & Present Planning Efforts for
Downtown and City .
_ City staff presented a PowerPoint discussing the pasf and present planning efforts
for powntown and the City. Reviewed were the two new developments completed in
Downtown, the One Main Building and the Medical Office Building/Parking Garage.
Also discussed was the Promenade project on South Division Street and the 4 block
redevelopment called Aubum Junction. Staff also reviewed other development projects in the City such as the Super Wal-Mart, Green River Community College's
new Salish Lodge, the Community Center at Les Gove Paric, and the 2009 Code
Update. ,
To assist the task force in their work, staff also provided the Vision 2016 map which
outlines the City Council's vision for ten years (2006-2016). The Economic
Development Strategies document was provided to the task force as well which has -
six key strategy areas within Aubum to focus economic development.
Urban Core Task Force Wleetina Summarv Januarv 20. 2010
E. Discussion of Task Force Mission
The task force began their discussion of a mission statement and started asking
, themselves several questions -
• What are the boundaries of Downtown?
o Is the current airport location at 1Street NE the right location?
o Should there be retail on South 277"' Street?
• How do we get connectivity between different districts of the City?
• What is the vision of the urban center?
The discussion continued;along the following themes:
o Downtown-Aubum °blends° throughout the City
• Look at attributes/amenities of different areas of the City
e Distinct districts make-up Aubum, market fhose districts ,
o Specific marketing - guides/website
. • Beneficial to have medical/hospital in the community
• Urban Core task force - look at elements in urban area and how it connects
with the rest of the City
• Look at the current retail/residential mixes
o Look at the "character" and what want to present to community
During this discussion, the task force decided to rename themselves from DowntowNCity
Visions Task Force to the Urban Core Task Force.
IIL ADJOURNMENT
There be'ing no further business the Urban Core Task Force meeting ended at 5:00 pm.
Submitted By: Elizabeth Chamberlain
Page 2 of 2
. , ~
: U rba~nC o.re ._Task ~ F~i:orce~
~ V
n _ 1
February 16, 2010:
- < - 2:OOpm 406pm
' ' - 2"~ Floor: 'Annex Room 211,.
- .y ~ ~ • One East Madn' Street:
- - .u
98001;
° :.y . - - -
77;.
Agenda Topics:
2 00-210: Introductions ofTask Force~Memtiers ~ ~ .
.
, .
.
~ 210 .-2 40 FacilitatorDiscussion
Establishhow Facilitator and Task - _ ~
, yForce Woric Together ` t ry
Definition of .Consensus
. . .
_ rules -
Establish ground
~ ; . . .
~ -
2 40-3 00 Review January 20, 2010 Meetmg Summary
~ h
' _ . - . . _ . , _
. - . c. . ' . : .
3:00-3 20 Formulafe a Mission- Statement. ~
.
.
.
: . .
. _ .
. . .
r _
<
' 3:20=3 45" Identify Bamers':~nnthin Downtown antl Beyond
~ . ,
_
-
.
}
. , .
. .
_
: _ . . , . ~ . . . .
. , ~ . . :
~ 3 454 00 Meeting :Wcap=up
. .
- - ~
• ~Y ~ 1` rd ,
U m
AdJO _ -
CITY OF_
URBAN CORE, TASK FORCE
WASNINGTON FEBRUARY 16, 2010
MEETING SUMMARY
1. CALL TO ORDER - 2:00 PIIA, ANNEX ROOIIA 211 -
Meeting began at 2:00p.m. in the Annex Room 211 /ocated on the second floorof One
Main Building, 1 East Main Street, Aubum, WA. Task Force Members present were:
Chair Teny Davis, Vice Chair Gail Spurell, Greg F/eser, Kathleen Keator, Janice Nelson;
Ronnie Roberts, Way Scarff, Nancy Co/son, Steve Harris, Cam Cutler, Michele
Oosterink, Branka Vukshich, Dawn Heibrun, Jay Thorpe, Tom F/eck, Nancy Wyatt, Jack
Saelid, Va/ Erikson, Ken Nelson, and Kathryn Merlina
. Staff present included: Interim Director Kevin Snyder and Principa/ P/anner Elizabeth
Chamberlain
II. NIEETING
Mission Statement Draft 2.18.2010
Creati ng a pedestrian friendly, green, vibrant urban core with proximity to multiple
activities and destinations. This destination downtown core should be easily accessible
by a Gear network of vehiGe traffic (car and bus), bicycle to the greater Aubum
community
Notes to Scope / Mission:
1. Enlarge downtown design scope beyond existing catalyst area? Create a vision for
urban core -'destination downtown' Three layerd vision of downtown scope.
2. Outlying destinabons: clear system to link: which are most important?
Emerald Downs
Supermall
. Mary Olson Farm
Parks
PerForming Arts/ High School
River Parks '
Connect with bike paths
3. Consider what we can tackle with multi modal transportation:
`Easy: peds; bikes, parking .
Challenging: Bus (piece/king county?), trains
Plan for future, thing broadly. 4: Parking: too much, keep out of sight, but make user fiendly. 5. Way finding system clear
Page 1,of 2
Urban Core Task Force Meetina Summarv Februacv 16. 2010
6. Need a civic center to bring people downtown: Urban Park.
7. Quick Wins:
Bus stops Reclaim Space (skate park, etc)
Transform space for tempora .ry uses (kids activities, etc.)
Activate Facades
Paint textures/sidewalks Page 2. of 2
y
- ~ T _ . .
v
J: M A. _ . . .
, , . . ' .
- l ' .
. . ' . r. . . . . p . 7~ .7~ 11_ -EL J^
~7 tL . 11%_4
,..r~..~- .~...-LV .
~ ~.iL' ll_ _II..
URBAiV CORE TASK FORCE
"Creating a vibroni, green, walkable urb.vn core with connections to muliiple activities and
destinations in Auburn."
March 16, 2009
2:00-4:00 PM
Urban Core Task Force Meeting
Location: Annex Room 211 located on the second floor of One Main Buildingl East Main
Street, Aubum, WA
Chair. Terry Davis
Co Chair: Gail Spurrell
Facilitator: Kathryn R. Merlino
City of Aubum Staff: Elizabeth Chamberlain, Kevin Snyder
Meeting Agenda:
2:00 Sign -in and introductions of new members. Discussion and vote on final mission
statement
2:15 Mayor Pete lewis addresses the task force 2:30 Presentation by K. Merlino
2:45 Introduction to'Boundary and Connedion Exercise'
3:00 Groups break off for B&C Exercise _
3:30 Groups present results
3:50 Wrap up and conclusion
[City of Auburn Urban Core Task Force 20101
-
C IlY O F_ * .,_.,.r-,.~-%✓,i * -
URBAN CORE TASK FORCE
WASHINGTON MARCH 16, 2010
' 11AEETING SUwAAAARY
1. CALL TO ORDER - 2:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meefing began at 2:00p.m. in the Council Chambers located on the first floor of City Hall,
25 West Main Street, Aubum, WA Task Force Members present were: Chair Terry
Davis, Vice Chair Gail Spurell, Greg Fleser, Kathleen Keator, Janice Nelson, Ronnie
Roberts, Nancy Colson, Steve Hams, Michele Oosterink, Branka Vukshich; Dawn
Heibrun, Jay Thorpe, Nancy Wyatt, Ken Nelson, Sarah Hansen, Mike Clark, Walter
Acuna, Pat Bailey, and Kathryn Meriino.
Staff present included: Interim Director Kevin Snyder and Principal Planner Elizabeth
Chamberlain
Absent Excused: Way ScarFf, Tom Fleck
Absent Unexcused: Cam Cuter, Jack Saelid II. AGENDA
Introductions of Task Force Members and Facilitator, Kathryn Meriino, were made.
Mission Statement
Keep it simple, keep it focused. Review the recommended mission statement provided
by facilitator and chair for review and approval. -
Mavor Address
Mayor addressed the task force asking that they work on the vision for next 30-years.
Not today, we have a downtown redevelopment committee that is dealing with the
current but the future when Aubum is 100,000 people.
Bring the vision to the downtown committee at the end of the task force work and we go
with the recommendations of the task force.
Presenfation bv Kathrvn Merlino
Kathryn presented a PowerPoint presentation to get the group thinking about different
concepts. Kathryn posed questions to the group; what are the boundaries? What are
the oonnections? Part of the discussion will be people first; think of what people are
doing first, then the space they live in, and then think of the building. This is a different
thought process then development which is build the structure and then the people wi11 come.
One of the goals today is how to make the city legible; intuitive way-finding; public
space, etc. Another point to think aboutis Densityvs. Proximity/Intensfication and
understanding the difference. Density is having a lot of people in.one spot and proximity
to the uses (easy, to find food, shopping, activities).
Page 1 of 3
Urban Core Task Force Meetina Summarv March 16. 2010
Boundarv and Connection Exercise
Task force members broke into four groups to discuss key areas in the City (destination
places) and what the groups felt were important and identifying those locations on a city .
map. The groups were aiso to take on a role of another person (e.g. a single 30 year oid
female) and how that person would use the destnations identfied.
Then the groups came badc together and discussed their findings. Key destinations to
and from downtown center the groups identified: 1. Supermall (car, bus, bike, skateboard, bike path)
' • Uses: shopping, food, movies, hanging out, exercising, mall walk
• Connections: C Street (Booth Bridge), Interurban Trail
• Improvements: Healthy restaurants, cooking lessons, live music, haunted
house
2. Les Gove (walking, biking, bus, car, parents)
• Uses: seniortyouth, library, museum, church, camp, waterpark, City
funcctions, special events, senior center, bocce ball, new community center,
festivals
• Connections: Aubum Way South (car/bus), F Street to Main Street
3. Muckleshoot Casino (car, bus) .
~ Uses: gambling
P Connections: Aubum Way South
4. Golf Course and Mary Olson Farm (walking, car, bus, golf, dining)
~ Uses: Tourism, education, golf, walking from Isaac Evans Park, trail that
circles park, dining
~ Connec6ons: A Street, M Street, Main
• Improvements: fishing, educational at Mary Olson Farm, golf course, dances, , lessons, driving range
. 5. Emerald Downs and Airport region (car, bus,.bike, walk)
• Uses: employment, meetings, gambling, races
• Connections: C Street (car), Interurban Trail (walk/bike), 15"' Street P&R
, (bus)
. • Improvements: horse riding lessons, children, wifi, live music, restaurants,
lengthen runway
6. Green Riyer Community College
• Uses: classes, theatre%vents, speakers, lectures, library, evening workforce
and youth classes
• Connections: Aubum Way to 8"' Street, bus, car, biking for the strong
~Improvements: career path information, tours/visiting, sewing Gasses, more .
nearby shops, open gym, health fair
7. Game Farm Park (car, biking)
• wldemess park, only ovemight camping, outdoor sports, disc golf, bbq,
family
Page 2 of 3
. ' - ( • - . - . . .
~ Urban Core Task Force Meetina Summarv March 16. 2010
8. Lakeland Hills (car, commuter bus)
• Health services; maybe more, park, shopping; eating
• Improvements: taxi service as future possiblity Next Mee6na
Mapping exercise of the downtown core and destinations within the urban core and what
are the natural boundaries.
III. ADJOURNMENT
There being no fturther business the Urban Core Task Force meeting ended at 4:00 pm.
Submitted By: Elizabeth Chamberlain
. Page 3 of 3 -
-T- Y C:10 F
. ,u.. ,
,
. . . f FP .g .P:a . ' . . . .
. . 4 . .
- ~
' Y, q . . .
_T_(C:D>.
~ CITY VISION TASK FORCE
°Creating a vibrant, green, walkable urban core with connedions to multiple activities and
destinations in Auburn."
Boundary and Connections Exercise 3.16.10
Goal: To identify major destinations in the city and strategic ways to connect them to the .
Downtown Core.
1. BOUNDARIES AND DFSTINATIONS (approx. 15 min.)
In this first exercise: .
1. In the first ten minutes, work independently with your post it notes and place them on five key areas
- of the ciry you can envision with priority connedions to the downtown core. On your post it note, write
down the name: of the destination and the adivities that ocwr there. (5 minutes)
2. For the next ten minutes, discuss among yourselves the destinations and come to a quick consensus -
of no more than five and no less than three major destinations. Highlight these areas with
agreed upon boundaries with a highlighter on your maps in yellow.
11. CONNECTIONS: (approx 25 min.)
In this next exercise:
1. Each assume two character types you think would be using-or you would like to be able to use-your
sites, and how they would do so. .
Here aresome examp/es of charocters (do not choose yourself!): Middle aged car sales rep, High
School male basketball player, 32 year old female Aubum City Employee, Downtown S5 year old male
real estate broker; native american teenage female; young and beautiful unmarried girl; Second
generation japanese restaurant working mother with toddler, Junior high girl scout/student; 43 year
old mother with two kids; 52 year old male nurse, female community college student, male school
teacher, local artist., etc. Each person should represent a young and old(er) person in their charader
assumptions.
2. Select a post-it note color for your group/characters. '
a. Write the activities your character would like to see on the site, one per post-it note, and place the
note on your copy of the base map where that activity would occur. Also define when this adivity wiU
occur. Season - summer/winter - weekday/weekend - day time/night time. If new destinations arise
from this exercise, add them on.
b. Write the mode of.transportation your character would most likely use both to and from the site.
(15 minutes)
3. Take off your single-character hat and be all users; add, discuss and refine the content and position of
the notes. Combine your post-it notes to make one base man, retaining the locations you've used.
- Take highlighting pens and create connections based on best access routes that could be developed, to
the downtown core, imagining walking, biking, bus and vehicular routes. Do this as a group for each
character. (10) minutes. Groups then will present some of theirres.ults to the group: All information will be recorded and disbursed to
the group for next months meeting, where another exercise will look at the expansion of the downtown urban
core. -
[City of Auburn City Vision Task Force 2010]
.
.~_U77tr C~D.~ _ . .ri .:..--:;~-y- • >0-
0 _
s 1-1~.. 1 ry.Jl. 4 ~ ~ ~C:> r ~ j . .
CITY VISIOIV TASK FORCE
"Creating a vibront, green, walkable urban core with connections to multipie adivities and
destinations in Auburn."
[City of Auburn City Vision Task Force 2010]
. ' . . " . . . . . . . . . ,^/Y .
,
_
, .
.
. ' . W...
.
~
~ - . Y.. . Y . .
. 'i_: . " . .
,
- _ ' _ _ . ' . . ' '
. . . . - _ . .
. . r . , '
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . ' ' .
~~^~}j, pg~`~ 'qY
. ~L ~ o..J 3l'. ~.1
+ URBAII9 CORE TASK FORCE `
"Creating a vibront, green, wclkable urbon core with connections to multiple octivities.and `
destinotions in Auburn."
April 20, 2010
2:00-4:00 PM ~
Urban Core Task Force Meeting
Chair. Terry Davis , .
Co Chair: Gail 5purrell
Facilitator: Kathryn R. Merlino City of Auburn Staff: Elizabeth Chamberlain, Kevin Snyder
- Meeting Agenda:
2:00 Review of Boundary/Connection results.
2:15
Diswssion of urban core boundaries:
• What physica/ boundaries naturally define.the urban core? ~ • What cultura/ boundaries divide the urban core?
0 Where sfiould the next urban core/downtown boundary be drawn? Discussion of urban core land use:
~ What physical (building/park) resources are needed for and expanded the
urban core? .
• What cultural resources are needed for an expanded urban core?
' 3:00 Groups break off for Urban Core Boundary Mapping Exercise
3:30 Groups present and combine; resulfs
[City of Auburn Urban Core Task Force 20101
l _
URBAN CORE TASK FORCE
April 20, 2010
MEETING SUMMARY
1. CALL TO ORDER - 2:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting began~at 2:00p.m. in the Council Chambers located on the first floor of City Hall,
25 West Main Street, Aubum, WA. Task Force Members present were: Chair Terry
Davis, Vice Chair Gail Spurell, Greg Fleser, Kathleen Keator, Janice Nelson, Ken
Nelsori, Ronnie Roberts, Nancy Colson, Steve Harris, Michele Oosterink, Branka
Vukshich, Dawn Heibrun; Lymaris Herrera, Nancy Wyatt, Ken Nelson, Sarah Hansen, Mike Clark, and Kathryn Merlino. `
Staff present included: Principal Planner Elizabeth Chamberiain
Absent Excused: Way Scarff, Tom Fleck, Pat Bailey
Absent Unexcused: Walter Acuna
. II. AGENDA , .
• Connections to Golf Course with pedestrian bridges across river, better access
for vehicles
• Betterconnection befinreen the golf course and Mary Olson Farm.
- • Driving ran~e at, golf course
• Extend 22" Ave NE across the river
• Connection to Robertson Property GroupNalley 6 .
• Emerald Downs/Airport Region - how expand uses at airport; move entrance
. ' right off of 1e SVeet NW; grow commercial base, flex car opportunity,
• Connection with GRCC for student housing in downtown '
• Game Farm Park - connection for recreation use, keeping as open
space/recreational area, better trail connection (White River Trail) -
0. Lakeland Hills - link the ICON/Segale property with Lakeland as future
, development area once property is reclaimed; health services, bus routes,
expand retail at Lakeland Town Center, improve East Valley Highway. -
Urban Core Boundaries
Where physical boundaries naturally define urban core? The group talked about the
boundaries of the urban core: They then broke into groups and worked on drawing the
physical boundaries on a map and whether what they discussed as a group was correct.
North -15"' Street NW -
South -12"' Street SE
East - M Street SE
West - Union Pacific RR
What cultural boundaries that divide urban core?
0 Industrial uses within boundary identified aboVe that would have to transition to
new locations (Teny) , .
0 A Street SE developing first before industrial areas along C Street NW (Ronnie).
~ Within a walkable urban core what needed that does not exist: downtown park, arts/gallery, sit down restaurants, places to window shop
Page 1 of 2
Urban Core Task Force Meetinsi Summarv ' Apri120. 2010 Next Meetin4
Discuss what each group drew on their map identifying the urban core boundary. Also
begin working on what land uses should be in the urban core. ,
III. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the Urban Core Task Force meeting ended at 4:00 pm.
Submitted By: Elizabeth Chamberlain
Page 2 of 2
1. ~ ~
~
~
_
~ x... _ .
. . . . ~ . f . 'F' . .
- . s... . . . ~-i .
, . _
. . ' . . . . . . .
. . . , ' . .4 ~ °r> .
f ,
- . . . , _
. - .~.v~..... . . . . . ~Y .
. , ~ .
, _ - . . , •.4. X~. . . . . ~ . : ~ ~7. pp~ . ' . - . . . ; . . .
;r . . ' V -,-S ~7
'O
~
vRSAN coRE TAsK FoRCE
°Creating a vibrant; green; walkable urban core with connections Lo multiple adivities and
destinbtions in Aubum:
May, 2008
2:00-4:00 PM
Urban Core Task Force. Meeting
Location: City Hall Council Chambers -
Chair. Terry Davis
Co Chair: Gail Spurrell
Facilitator: Kathryn R. Merlino _
City of Auburn Staff: Elizabeth Chamberlain, Kevin Snyder
Meeting Agenda
1. Discussion on moving July 20 meeting to July 13.
a. Discussion of alternatives: July 12, other dates?
2. Discuss final deliverables and schedule.
a. Introduction of developing 5-6'Guiding Principles' for fina) report.
I. Discussion of developing principle sub-com'mittees.
c. Print and presentation format
3. Urban Core boundary discussion and decision.
4. Other issues presented.
_ fCitv.nf Auhiim Urhan Cnra Tack Fnrra 7n1(11
-5.::~, . _ DRAFT
URBAN CORE TASK FORCE
Ma 18 2010
y
~
MEETING SUMMARY
1. CALL TO ORDER - 2:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting began af 2:00p.m. in the Council Chambers located on the first floor of City Hall,
25 West Main Streef, Aubum, WA. Task Force Members present were: Chair Terry
Davis, Vice Chair Gail Spurell, Greg Fleser, Kathleen Keator, Janice Nelson, Ronnie
Roberts, Nancy Colson, Michele Oosterink, Dawn Heibn.m, Lymaris HeRera, Sarah
Hansen, Mike Clark, Way Scarff, and Kathryn Merlino.
Staff present included: Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberiain
Absent: Nancy Wyatt, Steve Harris, Cam Culter, Ken Nelson, Branka Vukshich, Pat
Bailey, and Walter Acuna
II. AGENDA - Mavor Lewis
' The Mayorattended the task force to discuss with the group that their work is visionary
and the input is looking out 30-40 years out when Puget Sound has 1.6 million people
and Aubum has 100,000 people and this population focused downtown; how as community will we handle that?
Also discussed were the exisfing airport capacity, vehicle travel, and other modes of
transportation.
The Mayor challenged the task force to be bold and remember to not think about the
now but 30-40 years from now and what will downtown Aubum and beyond be like.
Task Force Deliverables and Schedule
o Move July 20"' mee#ing to July 13t'; same time 2-4 pm but likely in the One Main
Building '
• Reviewed the draft guiding principles; made modfications based on discussions. .
The revised document will be provided to the task force at the June meeting.
Urban Core Boundaries - discussion and decision
o Discuss at next meeting.
- Next Meetina
Mapping exercise of density (FAR) and open spaces.
. ~
III. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the Urban Core Task Force meeting ended at 4:00 pm.
Submitted By: Elizabeth Chamberlain
Page 1 of 1
~C ~ l.`T' ~ F` ,wc~--.,~:.;r..~ : .
~
'~i~.~1►..'~ I~ ~ ~
-~URBAIV CORE TASK FORCE
"Creating a vibrant, green, walkable urban core with connections to multiple activities and destinations in
Auburn. "
June 29,-2010 ,
2:00-4:00 PM
Urban Core Task Force Meeting
Location: City Hall Council Chambers
Chair: Terry Davis
Co Chair: Gail Spurrell ~
Facilitator: Kathryn R. Merlino ~
City of Auburn Staff: Elizabeth Chamberlain, Kevin Snyder
Meeting Agenda
Action Items:
1. Review and Approve Guiding Principies, and discussion of adding / consolidating (15
minutes)
2. Boundary review and decision. Maps handed out for second exercise of boundary and
border decision (45 minutes)
Discussion Items: .
1. Presentation on what zoning / planning codes; Definitions and results (20 minutes)
2. Density profile exercise (40 minutes)
Reminder that the NFXT meeting Ts schedule at 2pm on Juty 13, 2010
[City of Auburn Urban Core Task Force 2010]
~
~ T'1„"Y.
• :~.3:~.. - . -
l1RBAIV CORE TA59C FORCE
"Creating a vibrant, green, walkable urban core with connections to muitiple activities and
destinations in Auburn."
July 13, 2010 1:304:30 PM
Urban Core Task Force Meeting ,
Location: City Hall Room 3
Chair: Terry Davis
Co Chair: Gail Spurrell
Facilitator: Kathryn R. Merlino City of Auburn Staff: Elizabeth Chamberlain, Kevin Snyder
Meeting Agenda
Action Items:
1. Final Draft of Guiding Principles handed outfor final approvaL
Meeting Items:
1. Densitydefinition reyiew and presentation if needed (10-15 minutes).
2. Density profiling.mapping exercise within newly established Urban Core Boundary 2050 (45
minutes) and discussion (15 minutes)
3. Open Space and Green Street mapping exercise (30 minutes) and discussion (15 minutes)
[City of Auburn Urban Core Task Force 2010] '
. ~
l9RBAN CORE TASK FORCE '
"Creating o vibront, green, wolkoble urban core with connectionsto multiple activities and
. destinations in Auburn."
August 17, 2010
2:00-4:00 PM
Urban Core Task Force Meeting
Location: City Haii Council Chambers
Chair; Terry Davis
Co Chair: GailSpurrell
Facilitator: Katfiryn R. Merlino
City of Auburn Staff: Elizabeth Chamberlain, Kevin Snyder
Review Items: 1. Review complled notes, key concepts and maps from previous dens'rty exercises.
(10 minutes.)
Meeting Items:
1. Open space definitions and discussions (KRM,15 minutes)
2. Open space Planning and vision discussion and charrette:
A. Civic Park: What do we want and where should it be? (20 minute)
B. Environmenta) Parkc Opportunities and Vision (20 minutes)
C. Les Gove Park: Distinct characteristics and vision (15 minutes)
D. Open Space charrettec Streets, small and pocket parks (20 minutes) 3. Assignment: Guiding Principles Four-Six for next week.
[City of Aubum Urban Core Task,Force 2010]
i
~
Y'
, . ~ .Y.. CD~.F ' . ~ ..T..J ~ .
t
_ . ' a.....: . "
'
. ' . . , Fr .
' - . ' .
. . . . . _a.-.... 1., .
, .
~ ~ .
.,t, . _
, . r
. . . ,_..e...
.
;
' ,F" . , ,
. ...1
1~.S ~ ~ ~r.~ .1--4 . . .
. URBAN CORE TASK FORCE
"Creaiing o vibrant, green, walkdble urban core with connections to multiple adivities and
destinations in Auburn."
August 17, 2010 Open Space Vision Exercise
, Provide opportunifies for outdoor recreation: playing, resting, eating and drinking;
Provide contrasts to the built environmenf;
Preserve scenic qualities of the city;
Provide forums for public events and gatherings;
Protect sensitive or fragile environmental areas;
Preserye the capacity and water quality of the stormwater drainage system;, and
Provide pedestrian and bicycle transportation connections. -
Provide community connections. and strengthen neighborhoods.
Open Space / Park Types
Urban Parks
Neighborhood Parks, Commons
' Pocket Park
Multi-use/Hybrid Urban parks
Children's play areas, playgrounds
. Views, view corridors viewpoints :
Active Recreation, Sports Fields
Regional parks and urban habitat Environmental Leaming Parks
Greenbelts
Wildlife Preserves
Flowering/Edible Urban Gardens
Community Garden/P-Patches
Farmer's Market
Healing Gardens
Parking Strip Gardens
Botanical Gardens
Urban Waterfront , Stream corridor parks
River parks, Linear parks
Infrastructure and Institutions
' Botanical Gardens
Natural Drainage ,
Reservoirs
School Grounds
College Campus
Hospital Grounds
Retirement Homes.
[City of Auburn Urban Core Task Force.2010]
cC n:-IF Y CD~ Y
- -
' , . _.,,•^z- ~ " _ C a
' ' . . . , . . .
' v-'. . _ . .
v
.
. . .t.. - . ,
, - . . . . y ,..v .
. . - . . . . i.' .
. . . _ . ii . ,.'Y. .
.N,~.... r. -~-.w....,, . .
. . . : , . .n . . . . , . . .
.i.l
_1W_. . „.~Ji+~ `r ~ . .
fURBAIV CORE TASK FORCE :
"Creating a vibrqnt, green, wa/kable urban core with connedions to multiple adivities'and .
destinations in Aubum."
Streets and Trails.
Pedestrian only streets
Traffio-restricted Streets (woonerf, transit malls) -
PedestriaNbicycle priority streets
Parkways and Boulevards
Multi-modal comdor
Bike/Pedestrian Trail
Wdened Sidewalks and Cafes
Corridors
Celebrated intersections
Structures
Rooftop gardens (and balconies) Atriums, greenhouses, arcades .
Green walls, green structure
Community gathering and leaming
Outdoor recreation - courts, playgrounds
Measurements of how much varies: -
Experts say 4 and 17 acres per 1000 residents.
(NYC has around 7 acres per 1000) Auburn Urban Core
If 50,000 people live in the proposed core of 1,572 acres, the the suggested amount is
around 200-850 acres. Each sheet of green paper is 200 acres. Use up to three of them, -
' give or take.
Walking distance is crucial:
Denver: 3-6 city blocks to a parlc or
10-15 minute walk
Minneapolis: 6 blocks ,
Long Beach: 1/4 mile
, Seattle: 1/4 -1/2 mile
Chicago: 1/10 mile to pocket
Boundary and Connections for Open Space Vision
Then the groups came back together and discussed their findings. Key destinations to and from downtown center the groups identified:
1. Supermall (car, bus, bike, skateboard, bike path)
• Uses: shopping, food, movies, hanging out, exercising, mall walk
[City of Auburn Urban Core Task Force 2010]
r-r ' y .
~ ..............;~Y
O F
-5 M
A. r..... _ .
~.i
. _ ; - a d
. .
i ;
. .
_p
~ . i . . . . . . . . .
..-.»s.1 - r'"" .
.
URBAIV CORE TASK FORCE -
"Creating a vi6rant, green, walkoble urban core with connections to multiple activities and
destinations in Aubum."
• Connections: C Street (Booth Bridge), Interurban Trail
• Improvements: Healthy restaurants, cooking lessons, live music, haunted
house '
2. Les Gove (walking, biking, bus, car, parents) ~
• Uses: senior/youth, library, museum, church, camp, waterpark, City -
functions, special events, senior center, bocce ball, new community.center,
festivals
• Connections: Aubum Way South (car/bus), F Street to Main Street
3. Muckleshoot Casino (car,' bus) •
• Uses: gambling -
• Connecfions: Aubum Way South
4. Golf Course and Mary Olson Farm (walking, car, bus; golf, dining)
• Uses: Tourism, education, golf, walking from Isaac Evans Park, trail that
ciccles park, dining
• Connections: A 8treet, M Street, Main
0 Improvements: fishing, educational at Mary Olson Farm, golf course, .
dances, lessons, driving range
5. Emetald Downs and Airport region (car, bus, bike, walk)
0 Uses: employment, meetings, gambling, races
• Connections: C Street (car), Interurban Trail (walk/bike), 15"' Street P&R
(bus)
0 Improvements: horse riding lessons, children, wifi, live music, restaurants,
lengthen runway -
6: Green River Community College
0 Uses: dasses, theatre/events, speakers, lectures, library, evening
woricforce and youth classes
• Connections: Aubum Way to 8'" Street, bus, car, biking for the strong
• Improvements: career path infortnation, tours/visiting, sewing classes,
more nearby shops, open gym, health fair 7. Game Farm Park (car, biking)
• Wildemess park, only ovemight camping, outdoor sports, disc golf, bbq,
family
8. Lakeland Hills (car, commuter bus)
0 Health.services, maybe more, park, shopping, eating _
• Improvements: taxi service as future_ possiblity
[City of Auburn Urban Core Task Force 20101
. . . . , . . . . . . , r' ~ .
. CC I~ ~ (C>.F
~ a a
-••.-•,,.r;n:.'-~ _ . . ' . ~p . ~ry
URBAIV CORE TASK FORCE
' "Creating o vibrant, green, walkable urban core with connedions to multiple activities and -
destinarions in Auburn." -
August 17, 2010
Urban Co're Task Force Upcoming Schedule Tasks in preqaration for September 21 meeting:
Merlino:
1. Compile draft report of Urban Core Vision in graphic and written form and distribute by
September 1.
2. Write ezpanded draft'Guiding Principles narrative as submitted by Task Force membecs
and distribute for discussion one week prior to September meeting.
Task Force:
1. Email Guiding Principle addendums 3-6 by September5, review revised list priorto
meeting for vote.
2. Review draft report of Urban Core Vision as sent by Merlino for 5eptember meeting vote
and further discussion if needed.
3. Review powerpoint presentations and handouts from past meetings, to be emailed and/or .
available if needed:
Mayor's:Institute Recommendations (pdfl
Meeting notes (any meeting, pdf/word)
March presentation on Livable Gties (pdf) .
April handout on proximity/connections (pdf)
July presentation on Density (pdfl
Open space and park handouts (pdf) Guiding Principles Draft (word)
Urban' Core Task Force Boundary guidelines (pd fl
Life Space Building Exercise (word)
Boundary Exercise (word)
Promenade and Auburn Junction (pdf, from City)
Storefront Studio Recommendations for Main Street, UW (pdf, by request) -
City:
1. Prepare and assist with graphics and printing drafts. Provide additional information as
needed on Downtown Development and Bike Task Force Committees.
September 21 Meeting: Action Agenda Items:
1. Review and vote on Urban Core Vision draft.
2. Review'and vote on Guiding Principles draft.
, [City of Auburn Urban Core Task Force 20101
C~.F
_
' . . . ' •r : . ,1 . _ ,w _ . , . . . . ':4 . x.`. '
.
~
,
.
` .
-
~
.
. . . - . " . . ,
. . . .
. . ~ - . . "~._~a._ . ' . it-.... .
~ . J J _ . - . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . .
' . s "i.~ff : iL. (C3 r_-4
° URBA'N CORE TASK fORCE
"Creoting a vibran~ green, walkable urban core with connedions to multiple activities and
. destinations in Auburn."
Discussion topics for further meetings:
1: Economic incentives, policies, development, recruitment? How can we work with the
future vision we have set forth cultivating new economic prosperity?
2. Airport location discussion; many thoughts have been presented on this. Further
. discussion warranted. -
3. Aubum Identity: Is eurrentslogan working with our vision? Auburn 2050 was discussed
earlier; a different context, for our Urban Core Task Force? Thoughts on visionary name that
captures our ideas? 4. Review notes frorti February 16 from task members. Have we addressed all concerns,
thoughts in our workshops and considerations? Review plans in 2001 and 2012 once again
for our final report to the Downtown Committee. _
5. Parking structures and future plans for car placement.
6. Re-address "development hurdles° for existing downtown: Hospital, Saveway property,
north of city hall in between A Street and N. Division. Auburn Way/SR-18/A St-Auburn Way/
Railway. Do we still think these are hurdles, or opportunities? What immediate
recommendations can we consider recommending based on our findings for our vision?
7. Other ideas for discussion for upcoming meetings that we need to consider? ~
[City of Aubum Urban Core Task Force 2010]
CIIY OF_.-°~'"
URBAN CORE TASK FORCE
WAS H I N GTO N October 19, 2010
f MEETING SUMMARY
1. CALL TO ORDER - 2:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting began at 2:00p.m. in tfie Council Chambers located on the first floor ofi City Hall, -
25 West Main Streefi, Aubum, WA. Task Force Members present were: ,
Staff present inGuded: Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain
U. AGENDA Presentation on the Aubum Aimort and Future Plans .
Jamelle Garcia attended the meedng to present to the Urban Core Task Force about the
Aubum Airporf and future plans. A fact sheet was provided to the group. Used to be the
, 3rd busiest airport now 4"' by only 8,000 take offs/landings.
Reliever airport to Sea-Tac and Boeing Field; Payne field is 3nd and Aubum 4"'.
Currently has 277 based aircraft. Self supporting enterprise fund, no general fund
monies used. No longer classified as B-1 small buY now a B-1. CuRently 3500 feet and
could use another 1,000 feet of runway to accommodate more planes. How to address hangers? Some hangers do not meet current needs/standards; what to
do to upgrade? Still interested in bringing a restaurant, light commercial uses? Yes.
Also considered moving the airport buf spoke with FAA and not happening in our
mountain region. Scottsdale, AZ airport master plan could be similar to Aubum Airport
but we still have a runway length issue. Seems logical extension is north but the task
force is looking 50 years out and could be possible. -
Opportunities for'helicopter landings? If invest in building at airport could have
availability for office, lease space, etc. 11 of 23 can be built on without disturbing critical
areas.
Fred Meyer_north notify FAA for development, Fred Meyer south no notfication needed.
Ultimate goal is 5,000 feet for runway .
_ Review and Discussion of Guidina Princiale 3
Sub Principle 3.1
Revise to say Preserve, Support, and Enhance existing economic assets.
1. Communicate with existing businesses/existing economic assets to ensure meeting
their needs. .
Sub Principle 3.2
Revise to say Explore new opportunities for economic development.
1. Identify the missing retail links for future residential growth.
Page 1 of 2
;
Urban Core Task Force Meetina Summarv October 19. 2010
2. Encourage manufacturing opportunities throughout the urban core that are
compatible with existing uses.
3. Mixed-use that benefits economic development. Mix of uses do not need to be the tradfional mixed use of residential and retail/office.
Sub Principle 3.3 Identify the areas: Regional Hospital, Environmental Paric, Transportation, and
Educational Communify ,
Encourage partnerships for regional hospital and educational community/opportunities
for growth. -
Sub Principle 3.4
Develop and support the growth of the airport to enhance new opportunities within the
urban core.
1. Extend the runway 5000 feet to support airport growth and future economic
- development. ,
2. Encourage light manufacturing, small businesses at airport such as restaurants and
hotel space.
3. Develop areas around the airport as a light commercial and mixed-use zone.
Sub Principle 3.5 _
. , Put recurring themes from other sub principles in this one. Partnerships of events
connecting the urban core with periphery event venues.
Next mee6ng is November 16"'.
111. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the Urban Core Task Force meeting ended af 4:00 pm.
Submitted By: Elizabeth Chamberlain '
. Page 2 of 2
CITY OF--,:~'"_.~.~j "
URBAN CORE TASK FORCE
~ WASHINGTON October 19; 2010 .
IIAEETING SUMMARY
1. CALL TO ORDER - 2:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAAABERS
Meeting began at 2:00p.m. in the Council Chambers located on the first floor of City Hall,
25 West Main Street, Aubum, WA. Task Force Members present were:
Staff present included: Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain .
11. AGENDA
Presentation on the.Aubum Airnort and Future Plans
Jamelle Garcia attended the meeting to present to the Urban. Core Task Force about the
Aubum Airport and future 'plans. A fact sheet was provided to the group. Used to be the
3rd busiest airport now 0 by only 8,000 take offs/landings. ~
Refiever airport to Sea-Tac and Boeing Field; Payne field is 3nd and Aubum 4"'.
CurrenUy has 277 based aircraft. Self supporting enterprise fund, no general fund
monies used. No longer classfied as B-1 small but now a B-1. Currently 3500 feef and
could use another 1,000 feet of runway to accommodate more planes. How to address hangers? Some hangers do not meet.current needs/standards; what to
do to upgrade? Still interested in bringing a restaurant, light commercial uses? Yes. -
Also considered moving the airport but spoke with FAA and not happening in our
mountain region. Scottsdale, AZ airport master plan could be similar to Aubum Airport
but we still have a tinway length issue. Seems Iogical extension is north but tlie task
force is looking 50 years out and could be possible.
Opportunfies for helicopter landings? If invest in building at airport could have
availability for office, lease space, etc. 11 of 23 can be built on without disturbing critical .
areas.
Fred Meyer north notify FAA for development, Fred Meyer south no notification needed.
Ultimate goal is 5,000 feet for runway .
Review and Discussion of Guidina Principle 3Sub Principle 3.1
Revise to\'say Preserve, Support, and Enhance existing economic assets.
1. Communicate with existing businesses/existing economic assets to ensure meeting
their needs.
Sub Principle 3.2 Revise to say Explore new opportunifies for economic development.
1. Identify the missing retail links for future residential growth.
Page 1 of 2 ~
Urban Core Task Force Meeting Summarv October 19. 2010
2. Encourage manufacturing opportunfies throughout the urban core thaf are
compatible with existing uses.
3. Mixed-use that benefits economic development. Mix of uses do not need to be the
traditional mixed use of residential and retail/office.
Sub Principle 3.3 -
Identify the areas: Regional Hospital, Environmental Park, Transportation, and
Educafional Community
Encourage partnerships for regional hospital and educational community/opportunities
for growth. Sub Principle 3.4
, Develop and support the growth of the airport to enhance new opportunities within the .
urban core.
1. Extend the runway 5000 feet to support airport growth and future economic
development.
2. Enoourage liglitmanufacturing, small bwsinesses at;airport such as restaurants and
hotel space.
~ 3. Develop areas around the airport as a light oommercial and mixed-use zone.
Sub Principle 3.5
Put recurring themes from other sub principles in this one. Partnerships of events
. connecting the urban core with periphery event venues.
Next meeting is November 16"'.
III. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the Urban Core Task Force meefing ended at 4:00 pm.
Submitted By: Elizabeth Chamberiain
Page 2 of 2 ,
. APPENDIX C
Final Report from Mayor's Institute on City Design, Aug/Sept 2009
i
~
Mayors' Institute on City Design [Alumni Technical Assistance Program]
Auburn, Washingwn August 31 - September 2. 2009
The Mayors' Institute on City Design
Final Report: Auburn, Washington
The National Endowment for the Arts -
The United States Conference of Mayors
The American Architectural Foundation
speciat fvnding provided 6y:
The Edward W. Rose III Family Fund of the Dallas Foundation ~
~ . _
~ -
~
. .
_ _
Main Street, Aubum, Washington 2925
MICD Alumni Technical Assistance Program
Auburn, Washington
. August 31-September 2, Zoog -
1
Mayors InstiEute on City Design [Alumni Technical Assistance Program]
Auburn, Washington August 31 - September 2, 2009
Recommendations and Final Report
City of Aubum: Assets
The Resource team began their presentation to the City Council, Mayor end Stake Holder Group on
Wednesday moming. The team began by fiighlighting the assets the City had to work with. Since the
area has abundant resources of a variety of scales, the assets were broken down in relationship to their
scale to the immediate design area.
City-wide:
• Dedicated and invested mayorand staff
• Extensive park system
• Abundance of naturel resources:
• river system, proxim,ity of Mt. Rainier, scenic view corridors .
• Sense ofcivicand cultural iclentity:. =
• public art, performing arts, cultural museums + history
•
Overall Downtown Catalyst Area:
• Proximity to transit (rail and bus)
• Intact street grid / alleyways / good urban framework
• Grocery stores + amenities :
• Medical services nearby
• Walking distance to schools
Main Street: - '
• Good sense of place: _
• 'local and independent businesses
• pedestrian-friendlyscale • abundant street plantings
• distindive sidewalks • variety of buildings and textures promote visual interest
Observations - Opportunities
Overell City Design and Planning -
The design team then listed a series of opportunities that should be drawn from in the regional area
specifically to support the downtown catalyst areas. Many of these opportunities already are hamessed,
but the team feR that they should be improved and pulled from in a more distind way. In addition, .
certain connections could be made between these areas to conned the greater assets together to
connect them to the downtown core of Aubum.
• Hamess energy from satellite destinations: Supermall, Emerald Downs, Mary Olsen Farm,
Muckleshoot Casino, Crysta.l Mountain, White River Amphitheatre, Park System, Interurban
' Bike System, White River Trail, and other park systems
2
Mayors' Instituce on City Design [Alumni Technical Assistance Program] '
Auburn, Washington August 31 - September 2, 2009
• Way finding / Signage: increase visibility of existing businesses & amenities; guide traffic
through downtown
• Conned existing transit to community resources: support multi-modal transportation: consider
future use of "Next Bus" system
General Recommendations Create an urban design.vision for the city -
The design.resource feam felt the single most important thing the city could do is to create, with the aid
of an urban design consultant to work with the city planners and team members, an 'urban design vision'
for the downtown catalyst area. This design vision - a broader perspective and vision of where the city
wants to go with the downtown - could create the beginnings of a'destination' place or'destination
" downtown'that had muhiple amenitiesand pulled from the many assets suROUnding the city. Recommendations were to:
i. Hire urban design consultant to articulate urban design vision
z. Enlarge downtown design scope beyond existing catalyst area to support vision for a
`destination downtown'
3. Consider how to connect easily with multi modal transportation methods to access downtown
to and from residential areas and workplace
4. Design focused parking areasfor easy access by visitors who visit satellite destinations around
Aubum yet retain street character
S. Engage stakeholders for urban design vision
Urban Design Recommendations
i. Build upon existing and historic strengths: main street, historic street grid ,
z. Design with downtown main street pedestrian scale in mind; height, massing, scale and texture
to blend old Aubum with new Aubum through scale, massing, texture and appropriate
pedestrian uses.
3. Re-enforce the street grid, alley system, continuous street wall
y. Revisit'zoos storefront studio design guidelines to revitalize existing buildings and promote
cohesive planning
5. Celebrete your strengths downtown that exist already; historic storefronts, stores, buildings.
. 6. Create a central park that supports cument activity and serves as a destination for citizens and visitors
7. Design with pedestrian scale in mind; places that make people want to walk, stay, play
8. Draw from satellite sites with multi-modal transportation, .
, g. Make destination downtown a secondary stop on way to mall, rece track, historic sites of Mary
Olsen Farm, bike paths, route to Crystal Mt., etc.
io. Design ease of transportation from bike to bus, bus to train, etc.
u. Create a pedestrian downtown destination with a variety of uses
Geate a vision for a larger "Destination Downtown" .
The design team felt that if the downtown was to be a place that continued to grow in terms of
gathering, public amenities, and a Place, it had to be a place where people would want to come for.
multiple purposes. Celebrating th.e historic aspect could bring cultural yalue, and brining in amenities for .
pedestrians - parks, restaurants, markets, stores, and places to stay would reinforce this cultural draw.
They felt this could be referred to as'destination downtown' as promoting a sense of place with both a =
purpose and a history, fowsing on:
3
Mayors' Instiwte on City Design [Alumni Technical Assistance Program]
Auburn. Waihington August 31 - September 2, 2009
• Historic core at center • Design vision for growth around pedestrians, amenities and transportation
To do this,the city needed to establish an identity for design vision for downtown by asking the following
questions: .
• What is unique about downtown?
• What is the quality of lifeyou want for downtown?
• What current strengths can you build upon?
Currently, the downtown core was very vehicle oriented with difficuk way finding, abundant _
parking, and little pedestrian incentive. To build on the uniquely scaled main street feel, the design
team suggested identifjring and designing pedestrian zones for the downfown area, including:
i. Create places for invitation to walk, stay and play
2. Design crossings designed for people
. 3. Lights designed for maximum pedestrian ease dey and night .
' 4. Make it easy for people to move between destinations
5. Paved roads slow vehicular treffic heavy intersections such as Aubum Way
6: Consider creative public art to contribute to way-finding and marking systems
7. Mark Main Street as special by adding brick ortextured paving
8. Consider creative public art to contribute to way-finding and marking systems
Parking
Parking was an issue that came up repeatedly for stakeholders, the city and citizens. Parking is
abundant, it appeared, but spread throughout the city at a cost to the pedestrian enVironment.
Suggestions included:
i. Conc,eMrate parking in surface lots in planned areas
z. Remove street side parking on north side of Main street to allow street activity
3. Consider low cost paid parking to allow ease of parking for downtown (z hour) to keep -
customer base activelyturning overthroughout day (and discourage employee parking)
, 4. Add plantings to parking lots and streets to add to bufferto pedestrians
Pedestrian space / consider existing alleys as pedestrian space
Other suggestions followed up on suggested ideas of playing with the history of the site on the riverand
incorporating more Ptay and park places into the site.
i. Build upon history of river + water -
, 2. Places to sit and rest .
3. Create visual interest and views
4. Places for play
A schematic design was presented that fowsed on all these suggestions, which highlighted a scaled down version ofthe proposed catalyst design area, and which incorporated a public park on main street. '
This park would connect the downtown main street area with the light rail, and feed offtraffic from .
transportation, the weekly merlcef and the retail and arts area to the east (see presentation, enclosed).
4
APPENDIX D _
Storefront Studio„ University of Washington, Main Street Guidelines
~
~
► l ; y ~
M ■ ~ ~ ~j~~ ~ •
■ _ - ;
ku -w~
~
~
» ~ Y, ~ _ 4 ~:,+..r
• v ' ~ 9 ti ^t~ ~ _ ~ ~ _
~ : ~ ` c • t.. ~I ;
`•',y rl i ~ , ~ . • , ~ ~iw-r.~~.~~~ ~ 1~~..
rAd
V, t ~
' y ~ - ~ ~ l 1 ° f. T { ~ w•~
, . ~
~ - ' ,..y~ ~ • t r~. . * d .JI~1
Downtown Auburn Historic Character
Urban Design Guidelines
Introduction
In the Autumn Quarter of 2005, Graduate Architecture Students and Faculty from The StoreFront
Studio at the University of Washington, working in collaboration with the City of Auburn, the
Auburn Downtown Association,the Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce and the King County Historic
Preservation Program, hosted a series of public open houses, exhibits and information exchanges to
develop a visual analysis of Auburn's historic Main Street. Through archival research, photographic
documentation and digital collages the students generated before-and-after streetscapes and
individual building renovation proposals.
Business owners, property owners and residents provided feedback to the students and helped to
shape and influence the development of the students'work.The ideas were illustrated with computer-
altered photographs of individual buildings and proposals for a complete facelift of the entire
Main Street. These full color images showed the current assets of downtown Auburn transformed
with ideas for enhancing economic vitality through new development and historic renovation and
enhancement.
The vision for Main Street that was generated in the first phase of this project was condensed
into a proposed set of Design Guidelines for powntown Auburn. These guidelines have the dual
goal of maintaining the existing historic character of the pedestrian oriented Main Street while
encouraging new development. They are proposed as a tool for the community to use to guide
historic building renovation, new construction and to assist in the development and implementation
of design standards for the city's recently designated urban center.
The Storefront Design Studio is a unique partnership funded by a grant from the State Office of I
Archaeology and Historic Preservation and administered jointly by the University of Washington-
College of Architecture and Urban Planning, the City of Auburn Department of Planning and
CommunityDevelopment,theAuburn Downtown Association,theAuburn AreaChamberof Commerce
and the King County Office of Business Relations and Economic Development.
Prepared by: ~I
f- -S 5toreFront Studio at UW Department of Architecture
.f
' Forthe
City of Auburn
and
, King County Office of Business Relations and Economic Development:
~I Historic Preservation Program
I
Downtown Auburn Historic Character
Urban Design Guidelines
Contents
1. The Main Street Setback
2. Main Street Land Use
3. Main Street to Retain Continuous Street Wall
4. Main Street to Retain One and Two Story Parapet Height
5. Retain Retail Frontage that Maintains Historic Parcel Width
6. Retain Retail Entrance Rhythm on Main Street
7. Retain Historic Window Divisions and Transparent Ground Floor on Main Street
8. Incorporate Architectural Features in Sidewalls Off Main Street
9. Materials and ColorTo Highlight Historic Character and Architectural Features
10. Highlight Architectural Detail and Pedestrian Amenities With Lighting
11. Provide Pedestrian Weather Protection With Historic Canopies and Awnings
12. Provide Pedestrian Scale Historic Signage
13. Encourage Historic Painted Murals and Building Scale Signage
14. Provide Screened Parking Lots,Vehicle Access and Utility Areas Off Main Street
1 ~
•
5
The Main Street Setback 1
f1L 0klIQ1::,471'17,T'F
~s- - x
u.
i .
j \
i ~
I :
- ~
I ~
A. Existing
- I I
~
i
.
B. Allovvable
1 t~l I I
, - -
i !
~ I
C. Proposed
The American small town character of Main Street Auburn has been References:
retained through a century of development. This has resulted in the -Auburn Downtown Plan Desigri
preservation of the pedestrian oriented historic streetscape. The massing GLlidelines:5ection BD 1.1
relationship between buildings, the street, and pedestrians plays a pivotal -National Park Service Preservatian
role in maintaining this sma11-town feel (A). To meet the demand for Brief 11: Rehabilitating Historic
increased density (B), setbacks should be used above three floors to Storefronts
preserve the pedestrian scale, daylight access, and historic character (C) that -The Secretary of the Interior's
<3re unique assets to Downtown Auburn. 5tandards for Rehabilitation and
Illustrated Guidelines for Rebilitating
Historic Buildings
-
-
Main Street Land Use
~ . Wit-
Pri m3 ~ n
,
,0
i k~ • . . _
3
~
i
2.
~
T
~i
I
LJ
4. ~ Jd
1.
1. Retail or Service uses oriented to the public should occupy all References:
storefronts on the ground floor level of Main Street. -Auburn Downtawn Plan Design
2. Residential or Qffice uses are encouraged on upper floors along Main Guidelines: Section SP 1.5
Street.
3.Visibility and outdoor actess increase the connection between Main
Street and upper level occupants, promoting the safety of "eyes on the
street." 4. Residential entrances located on side street provide additional life to
street.
~ -
.
z
Main StreetTo Retain Continuous Street Wall T
~
~ _ . j •
s1
.`R
i
r
F '
- I B
u
_ R
N ~
i ~
3.
2. - - r
~
a
~
1. Buildings should be oriented parallel to lot lines with primary facades References:
and public entrances located on Main Street. -Auburn Downtown Plan Design
2. Buildings that face Main Street should occupy the entire frontage and Guidelines:5ection SP1.1, SP1.2, BD1.7, I
maintain approximate alignment of horizontal architectural features and BD1.11
visible elements of adjacent buildings, reinforcing cantinuity of the Main -National Park Servite Preservation
Street District. Briefs 17:Architectural Character
3. Corner buildings should have special architectural treatments including -Secretary of the Interior's Standards
turrets, bay windows, accentuated cornices and historically precedented for Rehabilitation and Illustrated
entrances. Guidelines for Rebilitating Historic
Building5
i ~
Main Street To Retain One and Two Story
Parapet Height • . ~ Q ; ~ ~
~
4.
r--- ~
3.
~
~ 2_ ~
~ 1.
~
~
lt~
J-
_
_ - -_--==Y----
Roof forms similarto those used historically shouid maintain the scale References:
and character of the historic Main Street (1). Flat roofs and parapets -Auburn Downtown Plan Design
screening a slightly sloped roof are appropriate (2). Cornice and parapet Guidelines: Section BD 1.10
wall treatments should be incorporated into the facade design (3) with -National Park Service Preservation
rooftop utilities shielded from views fram the street(4). Briefs 4: Roofing for Historic Buildings
-Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation and Illustrated
Guidelines for Rebilitating Historic
Buildings
Retain Retail FrontageThat -
Maintains Historic Parcel Width
~~6 ~ .~i4•i~a4`>,
~ -*rR ■•u
oi'
ILX,
8 8 8 8 8~88888 8 8
lr_:t! . ~
On FIEI ❑ E10
25'
Typical
Historic
Proposed Elevation through Rehabilitation
;
~~,iq~AN~/flnlt ~
~LIN~ LA~ J,~.
~
New structures and proposed renovations to buildings should reflect the References:
historic platting pattern that is approximately 25 feet wide. This results -Auburn Downtown Plan Design
in a diversity of storefronts and a shopping street rhythm oriented to the Guidelines: Section BD 13
pedestrian. Large buildings should maintain the repetition of traditional -Secretary of the Interior's Standards
storefronts by organizing the public program into elements of similar scale for Rehabilitation and Illustrated
to the historic platting and commercial pattern. Guidelines for Rebilitating Historic
Buildings
6.
Retain Retail Entrance Rhythm On Main Street
y.
,
~
H H-HODHE
Fl I I I I I I
Li D I
A B C
Entryways provide a focal point of access between the pedestrian and References:
the business and should provide a threshold conduscive to exchange.The -Auburn Downtown Plan Design
frequency of entrances should reflect a composition of small and medium Guidelines: Section BD1.9
sized shops vital to maintaining a small town shopping street. Infill, -Secretary of the Interior's Standards
renovations, and full block developments should maintain the rhythm, for Rehabilitation and Illustrated
scale, and character of the existing historic Main Street storefronts. Guidelines for Rebilitating Historic
Buildings
-
e.. -
Retain Historic Window Divisions i
and Transparent Ground Floor on Main Street ~ ` 1 r
_
Re-open Plate Glass Display
and Transom Windows:
I 5. ' /
•wrar,.w~w. '
- - F.~~ 7
S m
2 Existing - Ciosed ~
~
j;
~oo [Q]00 ~
- ,
Proposed - Open
1.Windows play a critical role in maintaining the historic character. A visible References:
connection between the pedestrian on the street and activities within -Auburn Downtown Plan Design
buildings adds to street level interest and promotes public safety. Ground Guidelines:5ection BD1.9
floor facades should have a high percentage of transparent glazing which is _National Park Service Preservation
not obscured by tinting, reflective film, or extensive window coverings. griefs 9:The Repair of Historic wooden
2.Transom windows above entrances and display windows Windows
3.Vertical alignment of upper story windows reflects historic orientation -Secretary of the Interior's Standards
4. Infill panels should match window forms for Rehabilitation and Illustrated
5. Lintels and sills should be appropriate to material and historical detail Guidelines for Rebilitating Historic
Bu+ldings
i
i
~
Incorporate Architectural Features 7L r ;
In Sidewalis Off Main Street
~ ; `
I
i
I
III gNi
i
~
i
Sidewalls off Main Street should be considered as elevations. Where References:
additional doors and windows are not appropriate, materials, 5ignage and -Auburn Downtnwn Plan Design
murals should be used to provide architectural features. Guidelines: Section BD1.2, BD1.5
9.
~
Materials and Color
To Highlight Historic Character • _ r
and Architectural Features
.4
or
3.
Il
- - r
- Y ~
-n ~F4
TM
~ I I
( . ' n`~ •I 5.
Y u
I
-
,
!
7.
Expose original character
materials:
- -
~ ■
To preserve the historic quality of the downtown Auburn Streetscape, References:
traditional materials such as masonry units, brick, and stucco should be -Auburn Qowntown Plan pesign
used.The replacement of elements, including windows, should conform as Guidelines: Section BD1.8, BD1.12
closely as possible to previous style and design. Color schemes should be -Natianal Park Service Preservation
based on analysis of historic building color and complement the adjacent Briefs 2, 8,10,15,16, 22
buildings and streetscape. Bright colors should be used only for accent, -Secretary of the Interior's Standards
such as on doors and windows. 1.Vertical orientation of replacement for Rehabilitation and Illustrated
windows 2. Historically appropriate expression of lintel and sill 3. Building- Guidelines for Rebilitating Historic
scale carnice 4. Operable transom windows 5. Plate glass display windows Buildings
6.Infill panels 7. Expressed solid infill panel in frame
10.
Highlight Architectural Detail
and Pedestrian Amenities With Lighting
r
s
i ~
,t
J _ Q_.. D 0 ~ C7 CI ~
3 EHI El ~
I I.
3. , -
i~
; i q. 2.
~
i
~ - _ - _ _1_ -
Lighting should be used to create a safe, pedestrian friendly atmoshere, References:
reinforting the intimate scale of the streetscape. Exterior fixtures -Auburn Downtown Plan Design
and lighting should reflect the historic character, hiyhlight architectural Guidelines: Section SS1.8, 551.9
details(1), be integrated with facade design rather than haphazard (2) and
illuminate shadowed recesses. If lighting is incorporated into an awning, it
should provide light to the storefront and sidewalk (3). Lighting should be
incorporated into the design to highlight the historic rhythm af entrances
while increasing the visibility of recesses (4).
~ ' I . '
Provide Pedestrian Weather Protection
. .
With Historic Canopies and Awnings
. ~
~
If
,
_ , - _ _ - - - - ` ~
- --i-_.`
1^ ~ ~
_ - - _ ~
1
~
t -
Relative pedestrian
clearance
Awnings and canopies enhance the pedestrian environment and References:
stimulate commertial activity. The design and attachment of overhangs -Auburn Downtown Plan Design
should reflect historic forrris (flat or sloped, not barreD, and materials Guidelines: Section BD1.14
(detachable fabric and frame or more permanent steel and glass), and not
obscure existing architectural features. Signage should be located only
on the vertical edge or sign band of the awning. The height of overhang
elements should be consistent with those of adjacent buildings to provide
a continuous streetscape.
•~`~~r►~
12.
„ .
Provide Pedestrian Scale Historic Signage ~ ~ i
s . .
,r
Creative sign
shapes that
reflect the
nature of the
business are
- - -
~g encouraged
-
~
t.
r-
j
'
, -
➢d
F;
IA
Z
r ~+!►:.v.
_ ~ ~
~
[I El -
~
J,__,_ goods - services - products - name o( business
~ GOODS SERVICES 2. L.:
rF
,
,
I ~ .
.
~
, . ,
~ r
~
•
- - . i. ~ _
. . ~ i ' ' ~
Smaller scale signage, oriented towards pedestrians should be incorporated References:
into the overall design of the building and not contribute to visual clutter. -Auburn Downtown Plan Design
Professional materials should be used in a manner that reflects the character Guidelines: Mainstreet Area
of the streetscape and building. Streetscape Features ~
1. Flat panel signs, hand-painted lettering directly applied to windows, and -National Park Service Preservation
blade signs, either alone or incorporated with awnings, are well-suited to Brief 25: Preservation of Historic Signs
pedestrians, reflect historic application, and are encouraged -Secretary of the Interior's Standards
2. Sign bands on canopies or awnings can be used on vertical portion of for Rehabilitation and Illustrated
awning only. Guidelines for Rebilitating Historic
Buildings
13.
_q• -V_~~.:
,
Encourage Historic Painted Murals
and Building Scale Signage
~ ~ i _ ; -
-
-~s
- . ~
C. PENNEY
s M I•,1 ~ lf
_ _ - - 1.J1- _ ~ . . . .
1
I ~ , 7 r
FaODS
At - ~
_ e
_ - ~ Retu~V~ to Vernacular pa~r
~
_ . -
- _
I '
i
-
_
- - - Local use of neon
= 1
Remove temporary vinyl signs
Signs should be an integral part of historic Main Street design. They References:
should employ architectural materiats and contribute to the interest and -Auburn Downtown Plan Design
character of the downtown pedestrian streetscape. Impermanent vinyl Guidelines: Mainstreet Area
signs, internally lit awning and box signs, monument, and pole mounted Streetscape Features
signs are not allowed in the Main Street Area. -National Park Service Preservation
Brief 25: Preservation of Historic Signs
-Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation and Illustrated
Guidelines for Rebilitating Historic
Buildings
14.
~ ~
Provide Screened Parking Lots,Vehicle Access,
and Utility Areas Located Off Main Street ~ - ~ ~11 i; ~ •
`L-~.
1 . ~Arj T~.ar ~frr
- - - I
s
- MC".~y~- \ _ ` - ~ ♦ ~ ~V,+al. ~
~
W
rly- ! S~ x
a t' ~ f ♦ + N
Z
Q
To promote a vibrant downtown of pedestrian activity and historic character, References:
parking shall be confined to the street in front of the building or in lots -Auburn Downtown Plan Design
located behind the building. Parking with frontage or access on Main Guidelines: SP1.3, SP1.4, BD1.13
Street i5 not allowed. For new and existing lots located near Main Street,a
combination of masonry wall, fencing, and landscaping should be added to
enhance the street definition and screen the parking area.
I
~
Contacts
StoreFront Studio
University of Washington
Coilege of Architecture and Urban Planning
Department of Architecture
208 Gould Hall Box 355720
~=attle,WA 98195-5720 ~ • ~ _ ' = . tL
1im Nicholls,Director A,
j nicholl(?u.washington.edU ~ „~,j ~ •
~uni Hatcher, Project Lead
City oF Aeaburrt
Planning and Community Development
251Nest Main Street
Auburn,WA 98001-4998
Mitzi McMahan, Senior Planner
mmcmahan(n)ci.auburn.waus
1 f r•yj~s,__~ ' ~ ~ .
King County Offite of Business Relations
and Economic Development
Historic Preservation Program
1 Fifth Avenue Ste. 2000
=._=attle,WA98104
lulie Koler, Historic Preservation Officer
iulie.koler,~<<metrokc.gov
F ~
4-
t~,~_i~
Puget Sound Regional Archives
iiuhard-Fleming Building
Landerholm Cirde SE hhS N i,:
Ilevue, WA 98007-6484
~ a • f w ~
i"'
x ' Y e .1 iL - . ,Se .C f~.:•'.
T :x , .
Selected Facilitator Presentations
, =7
LT . s • • . « . •~Y~
The Livabie City is
City Vision Task Force a City for People
~
"Creating a vibrant, green, walkable urban
' core with connections to multiple activifies • ~
~
'u
~
and destinations in Auburn„
Ka11vYn R. Marlrw . ~
3.16 2010 ~
a
The Livable City is a Sustainable City Livability = Life first!
~
The mission sta[emen[
reflects a city of Aubum
that is lively, healthy, ~,~'i ~ ' ~ ~ ,
sustainable, attractive and
safe - thereby improving
people's quality of life.
14 EI 4 1 1!~ 1 pF
r 'n• ~IIY~'lYp'
•~~~fl e~
rf'Y' t,.,~ +-~I ~
ii$e,;~~~;~•X :•f..:~ , ~~i'~
i ,r a J. , ,
Livability starts with . ~ x<«=
~ f • j~n y ~
understanding people's ' ~►.r. ~ ~ _
~
behavior and needs
r
j~~' ~/'~L~~~~~~+*'~
9~
;fi<= +~;.4 K, y~°~ •r"'~ ,j~"- 4 -
f
~
'~c•'
Yj ~
:
~ y. ,,t. ' f T-• . ,~7~ Cultures and cities are are all unique and different...
_ . . . ~
. . . '.:je
Diversity, Flexibility, • . -
A yt
_
~Z. t,
~
~
. . . planning
-je.. ! .
Y
■ ~ U
underpass: 7 SOl pedestnans (23 % ) ~F,Rj „..7, ~ , . ~~K . . ~ ~
• jaywalking: rML . . . . _ _ . . . _
336 pedestnans (77%) }
Working with existing connections strengthen community
. ' Y ' . a .
t~
A city full of moving objects..... or _
~ :
~ ~ ~ • i . ` 1`
~
r . I i Legibility
' A city full of faces i ,
~ } '~'~„1~ ~ ~ . , • ;
r~
d ~
1 1 ~ ~ - -
~ -
Intuitive Way-Finding Public Space
f1 ~ r~l
"i'1 • ` Y
Uf ' M- .~~J~ ~ r~ r~q~, : ~t ~r~j •
> t. n. .
~ ~ Y . i4 ~ r►i' 7., r - -N.. ~ * ~r •
N~ , r, ti,' ~e'!'!~"`^s~° i:' ,
;.`~e RVp,~ffy ~'.r . . ♦ '~a i .r -4
;s~ ,.~!t y. f~-`. ,y~ • ~,,r
j.m~ ~JN
~ ' ~ ~ hRy r (.~t' . y~ 4 • ~ in~' ~ R' NB . Y
• L 1•` 4 if i t~ ~~~~I ~ 'r
. , _ . *~~'s'~/,° . . ~!@:- _ a . .
1V V.~_,~
t
- r. ~ ~ ; '
, . , I,
;
~
'L ■ ~ , - . ~ des[mauons
4
.
~
~
~Ar~,;~~
ciry life
"'4
~ ~ ' ^ y IIinCLlOlIS
+ w•t ~ . .
Boundaries and Connections Exercise
Pedestrian space / consider existing alleys as pedestrian space
•Design ease of transportation from bike to bus, bus to train, welking, dnving, etc.
MeryOleanFerm•HielancS,loe
^LwF ~7 ~
EimrelE Dwns Externrve PerM SYalem
&ke Mine _ T ~7y i+9Mnn nn.. c im. wpn schmi ~ •
f'=~ I ' • . ~ .
gEFCRC AFTER
r.'`f RrverParkSYSbm
~ • ~ _I',
n~ ul
CHICAGO'SGRCChALIEYVROGRAM
Supermall Stop oven to Cryslal Mt.
WMAi IS I1 GRCAT STRLEf FOR VEDESTRIANS' . y 0 I Y
coooea1-: aesn~anon:
funrnon:
8y K F Memro. UW mW GMI NUwta:ls, CVH
. . ? n _.:o~ n~ zM
. 1~~~3 3
~~~s3~~~~~~~;sY~~O~~~ i
'~a~~~s~~~~~~~,~#~,~ s3~p~°og~~g ~
g~
3 g8i ~m
~ d 3
c <
. ' ~ UJ.1
(
:jSF~~-~~f~f~
. 347mj°fgil~Ql4'a
~ s#~~ ~}~=a _~~~~~3~ $ ~ ~ ~
f ~ ' - '~~§s si;~a ~t 1 ~ao.g~ ~ f
j• i s 3g " ~x ~
~~'s 2~~~i
+ • - .~~i ~ ~~i 4 ~e ~i ~ i
y
. 1.~.'~'~.. ~{•~y~. .
- - - -
-
. . ~ ~ .
- _ ~ ~ _ ; , ~ . • -
. ~
URBAN CORE TASK FORCE
I
"Crtating o vibrant grrcn, walkoble Urbon Core witAconnections tn multiple octivrties and destinaNOnsinAUbum."
.
. Urban Center 2010
i
Uroan i-ore IafK rorce
j
f' ♦ M~ .
w~ a~ £
i .d~~ J+ . .~~.~~r'~~` '~«J"i Urba 2 SOn Core Boundanes Density and Use: Definitions for Exercise
-~"0
Groater Housing Choice - Polls shnw many households
seek more compad homes in neighborhoods cbse lo
Density is a much used term. At its lobs, shopping, schools, and local parks
simplest,density is a number of units in a
Greater Communky Stabllity - When more people work
91V2f1 2f@8, and live in Me same town cnic organizations are stronger
and resldents can participate better.
In other words, Density is a number of Sound Social and Economic BanefMs - Residents of
units-people, dwellings, trees, square compact communrties spend less on cars and have more
feet of buiiding-in a given land area. time ana re50~rce5 far familie5 ana comm~nitie5
We must consider the way [we] humans
opemte,
navegate,
But many aspects of useand
understand the environmeM.
people's behavior are
- - - - -
universal.... - "
~ M' ~ ~ r R,
~
L r
•
lo -5 -
~ ' Y ~ { ~;r _
-7
~a.- -
I
• -
75 % of human
sensory experiences
comes from the sight
72-. ~
40~4`
~ .
I
. _ miles/hr
1,1
E . '
.~ui'"` l ~ +
e, ~.ur
. buildings - ~
Ct r~ ri ~ .
r~
7
• ' - - \ • - • - hurnan -
~ - aspects •
_ t
r ~
iversity of Housing Types
fficient Land Pattems
Intensity of building development is measured wdh several eighborhood Compatibility
physical indicators related to how much built area there is on . BNIC@S 8fld PfO9f8lT1S
cne sice, nfrastructure Improvements
(MOSt measure building bulk and are quite crude. More ransit and Walking Choices
important issues of
design quality are much more ditficult to quantify.) es in My Backyard
Floor Arw Rstio (FAR)
I 1:tHatio : .
~
.
Single.Femily nortres. (410CWac)
Towntwmes, Clustar Homes, Row Hauses (2040 dWec)
Floor Area Ratlo ~ Mase ara all the came Stack plans. Walkup, cou
rryard, mitl-nse, high-nse apartmerns anG condos 140.100 dWec)
Fbor Area Ralion (FAR) 6ulll Iloor area on all Mom High-nse apartments and condor. (100.300 dulac)
dlviCed Cy Ihe parGel area. Ths t'dlculation Is ollen Desetl
on ectual usua0le Iloor area rather than IodpnM arm Iliat
inGudes well Ihidness
r'l <_,o Dwellingunitsperacre
I ~ , ~ ~ 1 ~ ~,r ~ ItY ~~1 ~
d n ~unn U'~'
~ ~'*~1r r" ~ Ili M'I '
" ~ ~ M Ifl • ~ ~ a
Anti. . :11' yy~
uu ! . ~ ',.~ii~ A~ ~ 1_ ~ • ( *~A, A` I 1,I;
~
~ tl
~ pi, ►
20-40 dwslNngs per acre, residendal only
`-;p'-y~ "W yyy (lownhomes.cluster and rowlrouses)
. ~ ~1- ~ ~ . ■Y ' ~ ~
■l,
-„~'~.-~.'~k.~►~, . = W°" °
_
~
- ~~„t 7~V -
Ut _
r ~ . a: ~ _ _ ~ Z.e - .r
- - - - ~
~ommerclal
3030 dwelling unita per acre ~ d~"` (m xed use p us [h e ne)
20
Residential only
at
• ~ Y _ ~ 1► 1"~ ,1
.
IF
~ • - . o~
, ~ ~ii~~~~ Il,
' , ~ ~ ~ ' ~ tri a w ~ A ' .7~• ~ .l~`,i~
~ ~
1.' ,
40-100 dwellfng unib per acro+ commerical
Mixed use +6
Single Family Districts
✓Provide more small lot, secondary unit, duplex, and clustered opportunities
~
Multifamily Districts
' ~Provide broad range of densiry opdons
v IncluAe some muttifamily area In all new larger subdivisions
P
:iit Z:- ~ 2- .'l
Neighbofiood Center and Commercial Areas
~ rmql ~ vAllow greater height and denslty close to snops, jobs, transportation
vProvide atlrective public realm and access by pedesMans and cyclists
~i imsm All Districts
~Include a certain numbe. of affordable urnts in all areas vEmphas2e good design antl Dre4iciable procass inUutlmg mmlmum dansdies.
40-100 units per acra mixed use
Types of Open Space
Planned and Diverse Types of ,,,,,,,P,„„ uban weten.ont
Open Space in Aubum could: Nai9^bomood Pa^ks. Commms stream comda wa^ks
Pockel Park River parks. Linear pqrks
Mulli-uee/Hybntl Urban parks
Childron's pley areas, Dlaygrountls Inkeetructure anA Inntltutlona
Provide opportunilies for oultloor recreatloo. playing, resting, eating and drinkfng; vi-, view comdors viewpoints Boten-i Gardens
Atlive Recreahon, Sports FIeICS Nalutal Drelnage
Provida COnifa6ts to lhE bUilt 0flvifOnment; Rapional parks entl urben habital Reservoirs
Environmental Leaming Perks School Grounds
G
Preserve atenie lkies of the til reenoel~s Cdlege Campus
4w Y: WIaine areserves Hospiai GmunCs
Retiremanl Homes
Prowde forums for public evenLS and galhenngs: FlowarinplEtliele Wesn Gare~ns
Community GardaN P-Paichas Semb an0 Tnlla
Protect sensNve or hagile environmental areas; Fnrmer s Mancet PeEestnnn ony sveais
Healing Gertlens TraRC-restncled Streeis (woonerl, hansil melis)
Preserva the rapacity and water qualiry of the stormweter drainage system; and PAiong SInD GaMena PedesinaNDicycle prionly streets
Botenical Gartlens Parkways arM 6oulevarOs
Mulli-modal cnmiAOr
Provide pedestrian and bicycle tronaportation connectlons. Structuras Bikeroedestrian Trnil
Rooflo0 gardens (and Eelconies) Wdenetl Sbewniks entl Cales
Pmvide commurnry connections and strengthen neighborhoods. Atri.ms, greenhwses. arudes Corridorn
Grxnn welle, green StruCUre CekDrated intemecliona
Cnmmunily galhenng xrM lexmmg
Inrl- rBLfP.abon - Couns.
(il:,yqrnu15
Measurements of how much varies: Walking distance is crucial:
Experts say 4 and 17 acres per 1000 residents.
(NYC has around 7 acres per 1000)
Auburn Urban Core Denver: 3-6 city blocks to a park
If 50,000 people live in the proposed core of 1,572 acres, Minneapolis: 6 bloCks
the the suggested amount is around 200-850 acres. Each Long BeaCh: 1/4 mile
sheet of green paper is 200 acres. Use up to three of Seattle: 1/4 -1l2 mile
them, give or take. Chicago: 1/10 mile to pocket
Denver: 10-15 minute waik
Envlronmental - Parking Lct Parks ~
Lsarning Psrks
~ ~ L •:p4 '
i i +
~ .
*.i-~~.~•. 5~i}`L~
' v
. ~
. .~_.v._. ry - ~
I
Portland, Orogon'USA ~ Pockot Parks ~
. . _ ~y .
v;
y _ r''~a •
v_ t
Boulder, Colorado Portland's Green Streets,
. ~ SW 12th Avanw
. . .
~ ~ ,...M,....,~..M.~.
F . F ~ :H~-' ~
L _ . ' ~
- ~ ~ . .r....~ . .v. ~-~~j~;~
_ - t ~i"f~
Cbimgo's Gmoa Alley Vrogram No!71,an~f.OFt I. .~~ii Sta~c~
. , . . ~
i~,~ ~ .
T...__wa~wanry.
wrks...... ~ s `
~ ~ .~ar~ T......._.., w~.-~~ .
'
wanaan._,. .
_ ~.~~~N 1)F
Supplemental information from UW Green Futures Lab
Chicago's Green Alley Program - ;~F'
The Green Alley Handbook - Chicago Illinois, USA
~
prepared by: Benjamin Engelhard, Seth Geiser, Will Payne
~ Above: Night image of a "Green
- . ' Alley" in Chicago using a"central
- ~ ~ -1 - ~ , alley filtration system."
Left: A before and after illustration
showing the use of pavers in place
of a standard non-pervious asphalt.
-The Green Alley Handbook
~~"~Y ~_k3. -i2~~~ _ .•t
~ ~
• , ~ ..f - +r ~f'
. .l ~ ~ ° . ; . . _ _ ,
♦
~ ; . ~ .
4
~ ~ _.'*~/ia r.v'~ •
# JV'
~ s~ t • r~ ~
~4"-_ "With approximately 1,900
~ s miles of public alleys, Chi-
~y~'
~ r,.,., • r t cago has one of the most
extensive and important
pieces of infrastructure of
any city in the world. That's
j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ approximately 3,500 acres
K ~ E • " I " ° ' ' of paved impermeable
surface that provides an op-
t portunity to better manage
our resources and improve
our environment."
-The Green Alley Handbook
>
L
~
. - . - .
. . -r
.~1 , .
7
} eu ~ :-a_ _ ~.-.3~.~.-_,- •
. ' =._~'d- _ ~_~._r=.•~_~ = Yri~.l.`.=T_ .
_~~..~-n'..~_...= . _ - - - - _ _ .r. • - - - -
CHICAGO'S GREEN ALLEYS ~ ARCH 503 / LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
"Stormwater runoff causes two key impacts: (1) excess water volume, or
qUal7tlty, and (z) degraded water quality. " Guide to Stormwater BMP's - City of Chicago
1. Stormwater Management
This is perhaps one of the most significant driving factors in what motivated
the city to give attention to their alley system. Involving the alley system
was a part of a vision that attempts to deal with water in the city in a more
"qr ~;,,d ho lis tic manner. A l leys represen t a pa rticu lar piece wi t hin C hicago's hy dro l-
twa~P o9Y, but the cities Green roof program also respresents a very important
^ piece as to how the city is dealing with stormwater. Specific problems
M•~=. associated with runoff include: increased flooding, combined sewer over-
„n~. .
flows and backflows into Lake Michigan. By adding green roofs in mostly
impervious spaces within the city, storm water that is directed into the sewer
system has been greatly reduced. Regarding the cities alley system, most
Image 1 egov.cityofchicago.org alleys had two major problems. First, they were paved in asphalt or con-
Pavers: Concrete, Stone and crete that didn't al►ow for stormwater to filter back into the earth. Second,
Brick--Open join#s allow water they typically did not provide points for water to drain into the sewer system
permeability so the city frequently saw flooding in alleys. The following looks at how the
. city has sought to solve the problem of flooding, and how that relates to
overflow problems associated with the sewer.
i. " i M ~ p - - ~ ' :
~ . . _ ~y_ ~ .T - C ~ llrnF
Impemealle Wrement Pem+eaDle pa+emertt
y,- _ _ ~ ~ ~ s; ~ .
~ 1 r°~tt
~
~ ~
o ,
_ t ~ ~ _
.l~N' e ~ ~N,.. -
Image 2 perviouspavement.org
i + w
Porous Concrete---A controlled
amount of water and cement
with little to no sand in mix cre-
ate voids around the a99re9ate
material.
Porous Asphalt-Small ag- , r ~ ` _ •
gregate is removed from the ~ - ~ • ~ - _ ~ ,
standard mix and laid on a stone
sub-base of 18-36 inches deep. M1W 1
N ~
,
In e 6 r ~r . _,City Hall - Guide to Stormwater BMP's
Flooding
~ • ~
'
~ r This is perhaps one of the most significant driving factors in what motivated
, the city to give attention to their alley system. Because alleys in Chicago
y are typically not connected to the combined sewer system the main way
the city is seeking to deal with runoff that reaches the road bed is to provide I
various permeable paving solutions that allow water to drain without adding
more water to the combined sewer system.
Image 3
perviouspavement.org
11 CHICAGO'S GREEN ALLEYS ~ ARCH 503 I LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
Chicago's A -
Water collection & Infiltration
The cities Guide to Stormwater BMP's (best management practices) lays
out a hierarchy of dealing with water that is clearly associated with their
plan for the alley system. Green roofs. Downspouts, rain barrels and cis-
r► 1~ f~ :t fR A~
terns. Permeable paving. Natural landscaping which includes: filter strips,
bioinfiltration (rain gardens), drainage swales and naturalized detention - •
Image 4 Turf/Grass Pavers
^ paversearch.com
; .7. n t~ a ~e•r ' ~ Concrete or Recycled Plas-
~ tic honeycomb grid prevent
compaction and allow for
infiltration. Best for low traf-
~ fic applications.
- !r i
.t_~~=-- • ~ . , P1
r d ' -
~-.v..• ~ ~ ~ ~ °.~`y ~~r~ ' ~ Image 5 Rubber
, ; _ - - ➢ ~ ° www.cityofchicago.org
100% recycled tires formed
as pavers are currently be-
~ ing tested in experimental
sidewalk patches in Chica-
~
go. Ground rubber can also
Image 7 Cistems Image 8 Permeable Paving be added to porous asphalt
basins. The Green Alley Program most specifically utilizes the idea of using mix.
green roofs atop buildings that border an alley, the possibility of collecting
roof runoff in cisterns, and finally allowing water that does reach the alley
floor to infiltrate to the soil through the various permeable options already
listed. Also, Subsurface drain pipes can be used in areas where soil com-
paction and/or soil type restrict infiltration.
Materials
Permeable paving options are the primary solution the city is using for
dealing with runoff and flooding problems associated with alleys. In sum-
mary the materials typically used include: Permeable asphalt and concrete
(Image 1,2 & 8), Permeable pavers (Image 3), Turf/Grass pavers (Image 4),
and less common but possible is a recycled rubber material (Image 5).
2 1 CHICAGO'S GREEN ALLEYS I ARCH 503 / LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
Imagine if alI the alleys had a light, reflective surface (high albedo) that
reflected heat energy, staying cool on hot days and thereby reducing the
urban heat island effect" Green Alley handbook - City of Chicago
2. Heat Reduction
Heat Island Effect
Temperatures in cities tend to be hotter than then nearby rural areas due
to heat which is absorbed and radiated from solid surfaces. Tall buildings,
narrow streets and vehicle emissions also contribute to increased tempera-
tures in cities.
UI V
~
~ • ' . _
~ 1 - - - -
it.. . \ . - I
J~r`• I~f 32
44 s~ • t''
31
Image 9 Chicago Heat Wave
s: = -
~
~ i~::~;" Image 11 Heat Island Effect
Heat Related Deaths
• ~
Extreme heat during the summer months can be exacerbated by the heat
island effect, leading to increased risk of heat-related fatalities. During the
1995 Chicago heatwave, over 600 peopie died over a five-day span.
Heat Reduction with Green Roofs
In addition to water-quality benefits, the heat island effect can be dimin-
`.i~~_ , ished through the use of green roofs. Chicago City Hall's green roof has
been recorded to be about 25 degrees cooler during summer days than the
ad jacent buildin g which has a black-tar roof. Estimates show 10% ener g y
reduction for heating and cooling of the building.
Image 10 City Hall Green Roof &
green roof atop garage options
from The Green Alley Handbook
3 1 CHICAGO'S GREEN ALLEYS ~ ARCH 503 / LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
Chicago's -
Materials
There are two main ways that paving surfaces in alleys can help to reduce
the heat island effect: by using high albedo paving surfaces (surFaces that
wili reflect heat as opposed to absorbing it, see Image 12), and through
using porous paving which allows for more air circulation and consequently HiKha:OcdoD-mcnt ComcnGonalRaremertt
less absorption and re-radiation of heat. Image 12 High Albedo
Surfaces
"The Solar Reflectance Index (SRI)---Combines albedo and emittance (a "Refers to a material's
material's ability to release absorbed heat)." LEED standards require at ability to reflect the visible,
least a 29 SRI on 50% of the paved areas on a site. (LAM, Feb 2007) infrared, and ultraviolet
wavelengths of sunlight."
solar ' (Landscape Architecture
Mater-ial ~urface * I Emittance SRI* Ma azine, Feb. 2007
Reflectance ; 9 )
Usually light colors reflect
0 0; 0.9 o more light and are therefore
desireable.
,ew asphalt 0.05 0.9 0
Aged asphali 0.1 0.9 6
.Vhite" asphalt shingle 0.21 0.91 21
'4e. >
,ged concrete 0.2 to 0.3 0.9 19 to 32
Vew concrete (ordinary) 0.35 to 0.45 0.9 38 to 52
r
Nex white p_qCtldf3d cement Image 13 Gravel Surfaces
concrete 0.7 to 0.8 0.9 56 to lOC Urban Heat Island Initiative
Gravelpave2, a porous
lVhite acrv!'c paint ~ o.s o q loo gravel structure that con-
tains the gravel
Image 13 The Solar Reflectance Index - LAM even as it provides heavy
load bearing support, unlim-
Sources: ited traffic volume and
parking duration. The new
www.concretethinker.com system can handle up to a
3" rainfall per hour,
http://www.asla.org/lamag/Iam07/february/ecology.html allowing rainwater to soak
http://egov.cityofchicago.org into the ground and thereby
reduce polluted run-off and
flooding. The system is
suitable for traffic, including
residential traffc as well as
service vehicles. The new
alley has eliminated former-
ly chronic Flooding without
using the sewer system
and reduced the heat isfand
effect by eliminating dark,
heat absorbing surfaces.
41 CHICAGO'S GREEN ALLEYS I ARCH 503 / LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
"Recycled construction materiafs can be incorporated in a variety of
ways in green al/eys. Green Alley Handbook - City of Chicago
3. Material Recycling
Concrete---Oid concrete crushed and used as aggregate to strengthen new
pavement. Also used as a strong sub-surface base for all porous surfacing
materials.
- - .y' Y3:" ~ .
i
Asphalt---Probably the easiest and most energy/cost effective material to
recycle and reuse
Slag---Gravel and stones from ore refinement as aggregate and sub-sur-
t~ =V~"'~
face base.
Rubber---Old tires ground in asphalt mix or molded as pavers.
r--~ f Plastic---Reused in honeYcomb 9nd membrane from 9rass Pavers.
i
-
- Reevrled Cwtiqtrurt?on N-Zaterla-k
4~7
Parertent producec1 -
uslng slag~ ~ecyc Ied '
~ortc nete a nd/ Dr ground
tyl 4 rubbef - ~j•~
Image 14 Recycled Rubber
Pavers
• They do not crack or crumble
• Water permeable
• Reduce tripping hazards
• Tree roots can be remedied
~
without affecting the tree
• Easier on the feet
• Come in several colors or pat- ~TL~
tems ~"I •You can even relocate and „SLlbbase contalnini
reuse them
http://claddaghpaving.com/ f~C~~~'[~ Gt~~'JCf~t~'
about6. html `
Image 15 Recycled Construction Materials - Green Alley Handbook
51 CHICAGO'S GREEN ALLEYS I ARCH 5031 LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
"Energy efficient, dark sky compliant light fixtures are -
specially designed to direct light downward, focusing
light where it's needed. " Green Alley Handbook - City of Chicago
4. Light Pollution
Energy Waste
Nationwide, 22% of energy use is for lighting
Light which iiluminates the sky instead of surfaces is wasted energy
, Ak
Glare and Safety
By using metal halide lamps, glare is reduced and whiter light is provided - ~
.
which dramatically increases visibility
I,,/!
Image 17 Metal Halide
Lamp
Example of inetal halide
fixture that focuses light that
allows for a broad spectrum
at night.
~1 .
tl_ ~
.
lau:p li,7ht dov.ziwaa•d and Uuc,:-ztra v:here iT J.-; ezseful rath?r th:ar. Image 18 Downlighting
up:t,<ud :*,here .c wasces ?ner~-: and centr:bute_ to g1,3re and lie}:_
jJ011 ar:on.
Potential Eeriefits
' r1=dUCe L7~ ?IIc'Y?i CG•=r= .
' Redll~lc'_ L1C.^..T p0~U.:liiri tl'GSl : 1#C
Image 16 Dark Sky Compliant Light Fixtures - Green Alley handbook
6 1 CHICAGO'S GREEN ALLEYS ~ ARCH 503 / LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
what goes on here... hOW Sh0C1ICI /t OCCUI"?" Lourse Grassov - Gehl Architects
- . -5. Critiques and Conclusions
Stormwater Management
~
- Heavy vehicle traffic can damage some of these high cost paving options
, t.
- Dirt, sand, salt, and dust can clog the voids in porous materials over time
- H i g h m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t s
- Doesn't go far enough to recommend plantings in alleys
~ '
~ - There are many "green" initiatives going on in Chicago and the programs
~ ! I r
are disconnected. It would be better to see the programs integrated - at
~,-p least visually - in order to illustrate a more holistic understanding about how
water enters, is used, and eventually leaves the city - This would allow us to
see how green alleys work with green roofs, heat Island reduction, etc.. .
Heat Reduction
- Weathering can change the SRI value of materials
Glare is worse on high albedo surFaces
- Limited design options with light colored surfaces
- Green roofs increase maintenance costs, require quality installation and
can't be retrofitted to older buildings with low structural support
Material Recycling
i
- - - Not enough emphasis on locality of materials
Nothing is stated about what to do with material removed from alleys be-
• ing refinished
Light Pollution
Image 19 Post Alley_Seattle
voodooangel - flickr - Metal halide lights aren't as efficient or white as LED lights
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ - There is not any discussion dealing with lighting for safety and other social
voodooangelmg/2808671491/ concerns
This image illustrates the possi-
bilities for various social oppor- Conclusion
tunities that need to be explored
for the Green Alley Handbook to Alongside these critiques it is also important to note that there is not any
embrace a more holistic view of discussion involving the use of the alleys - specifically thinking about their
sustainability.
role socially in the city. The "green" environmental portion is covered quite
well overall, but the program thus far has failed to address how alleys in
various urban conditions should be treated and used by people. It seems
to assume that all alleys should/do function in the same way. This is no lon-
ger true in a contemporary city and the Green Alley handbook would benefit
greatly by taking social and use factors into account. Other recommenda-
tions include: Open surface for urban tough plants to grow (raised beds?)
Hardy vines to grow on light posts and other vertical structures, Vertical
gardens.
Portland's Green Streets, ,
SW 12th Avenue Kevin Perry, Bureau of Environmental Services
Portland, Oregon, USA
Prepared by Ro Hohlfeld and Selina Hunstiger
- : - ti" ' ~ 1" : j_ ' : 12th Avenue Green Street featuring
~ Y' ' ~ ~ I bioswales near the Portland State
~►+~.•I<~A~.~[ i`~~ + ' _ _ ~ ~ f' ~ University campus
~ i
(http://flickr.com/photos/sitepho-
,`~'fl ~;y ~ cus/2629874914/)
%6o~.~~~~
P~
. r s . . . ~ . . ~ "Q~
IZE.'~~. ~.r
~ ~ i . ~ t~ _
r.
Y D _ {
Portland is well known in urban design and planning communities for its in- ~ - _
novative Green Streets. According to Portland's Metro government these Green
Streets have the followin9 qualities:
~
1) Integrate a system of stormwater management within the public right of way. - ~ <<
2) Reduce the amount of water that is piped directly to streams and rivers.
3) Are a visible component of a system of "green infrastructure" that is incorpo- j
rated into the aesthetics of the community.
4) Make the best use of the street tree canopy for stormwater interception as
_ T
well as temperature mitigation and air quality improvement. = .
5) Ensure the street has the least impact on its surroundings, particularly at
locations where it crosses a stream or other sensitive area. (Portland Metro)
Many of the Green Street projects involve building curb extensions to transform 71
a streeYs parking strip into a planted stormwater management area. NE Siski-
you Street, completed in 2003 was Portland's first Green Street project to use
landscaped stormwater curb extensions to manage street runoff. (nttp:/Iflickr.com/
photosl26074955@
The SW 12th Ave Green Street was the frst project to transform an existing N02/2447323637/)
landscape into street stormwater planters that manage street runoff and safely
maintain on-street parking. It demonstrates how new and existing streets in • -
highly urbanized areas can be designed to provide direct environmental ben-
efits and be aesthetically integrated with the urban streetscape. _
PAGE 11 SW 12TH AVENUE GREEN STREETS I ARCH 503 / LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
It is this integration of the landscaped stormwater planters within the urban
environment that has gained great public interest. The SW 12th Avenue Green
Street project provides a strong precedent for future projects in other highly
. L-~ urban areas.
(Portland Bureau of Environmental Services)
_ -
Project Description
~
~ Design Features:
1~`
The SW 12th Avenue Green Street disconnects street runoff from a storm
sewer that drains directly into the Willamette River. The project converted a
previously underused landscape area between the sidewalk and street curb
Before installation into a series of 4 landscaped planters which redirect stormwater to capture,
(Photo by Kevin Perry, Bureau slow, cleanse, and infiltrate street runoff.
of Environmental Services, City
of Portland) The planters are designed to capture and infiltrate approximately 7,500 square
feet of runoff from the street, driveways and sidewalk while maintaining a strong
pedestrian circulation and on-street parking. The planters improve the existing
' - - urban streetscape by adding attractive greenspace and are designed to safely
accommodate pedestrians, on-street parking, and vehicle access. Each facility
can pond about 7 inches of stormwater runoff and retain it for onsite infiltration.
The planters can treat and infiltrate most of the runoff they receive, providing
volume and flow control and water quality benefits.
(Portland Bureau of Environmental Services)
¢ • • ' Function:
6 ' ~~w.r~►wlC';~1.2 L~il
After installation Stormwater runoff from the street flows downhill along the existing curb until it
(Photo by Kevin Perry, Bureau reaches the first of four consecutive stormwater planters. A 12-inch-wide trench
of Environmental Senrices, City drain channels the street runoff into the first stormwater planter. The trench
of Portland) drain moves the water under the vehicle step-out area and into the facility. The
runoff is directed over a concrete pad, where sediment and debris are depos-
ited for easy removal. Stormwater is allowed to pond to a depth of 7 inches
before infiltrating through the soil at a rate of approximately 4 inches per hour.
t. During large storm events, water may enter the planter at a rate faster than the
soil can infiltrate, resulting in a ponding depth greater than 7 inches. In that
case, the runoff exits a second curb cut, flows back into the street, and enters
the second (downhill) planter. This process continues for the third and fourth
planters. If the
fourth planter ponds to capacity, it overflows to the existing stormwater system.
~ - - The adjacent sidewalk slopes toward the planters, and sidewalk runoff enters
the planters
~through curb cuts. (Portland Bureau of Environmental Services)
Street runoff enters planter
(Photo by Kevin Perry, Bureau
of Environmental Services, City
of Portland)
PAGE 21 SW 12TH AVENUE GREEN STREETS I ARCH 503 I LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
r - -
• •
Planter Detail:
Each of the 4 planters measures 18 by 4 feet, excluding the 6 inch curb running
the perimeter of each planter, creating a total landscaped area of 72 square • - , ~ feet. The planter depth averages 13 inches (raised 4 inches above the side- [mmigR`oi I`~a
walk), safely accommodating a pooling depth of 7 inches. A 12 inch curb cut
at the uphill and downhill end of each planter, covered by an attractive grate,
allows stormwater to penetrate the facility. A design modification placed as-
phalt berms (1 inch high) on the downhill side of each curb cut to help runoff
make the 90-degree turn into the planter. An 18-inch-wide concrete pad at each
planter's uphill curb cut dissipates flow and collects sediment and debris. A 3
foot wide parking egress zone made of sand-set concrete pavers provides for (image courtesy of Sustain-
vehicle access and a 2 foot wide landsca e buffer at each end of the lanters abie Stormwater Manage-
p P ment Program.)
directs people safely around the facilities. (Portland Bureau of Environmental
Services)
Soil and Plantings:
In an urban landscape soil conditions are important to consider with stormwater
projects that are designed to infiltrate water. The Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Service soil survey for Multnomah County classifles the soils on the project ,
area as 51 C-Urban Land and well-drained Multnomah soils. The surface hori-
su +
zon typically is dark brown loam about 16 inches thick. Soil below this depth is
gravelly sand to a depth of approximately 60 inches or more. No rock sub-base
was used underneath the planters. The facilities were excavated throughout to 24 inches below grade and backfilled in 6- to 9-inch
lifts with a three-way mix of sand, topsoil, and compost. The mix was tilled into
the native soil and spread to create a flat cross section.
Each planter was densely planted with Juncus patens and a Nyssa sylvatica tree, both sPecies tolerant of wet and drY soil conditions. The stiff structure of ~
J. patens helps slow the passage of water, and the root structure helps infiltrate water into and through the soil, while the evergreen characteristic helps mini-
mize weed growth. A row of J. patens was planted next to the concrete pad ,
in each facility to hold back sediment and debris and keep it from entering the
facility. The plants were installed at a density greater than required by the City's
Stormwater Management Manual. This was done to reduce maintenance re- (nttp:l/flickr.comlpnotos/aita-
quirements and to create an aesthetically appealing landscape quickly. (Port- pianning/2765097753/)
land Bureau of Environmental Services)
PAGE 3 1 SW 12TH AVENUE GREEN STREETSI ARCH 503 / LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
_ , ~ . ..~1 r' .
Planning Approach and Implementation
According to Metro, "The design and construction of green streets is one com-
ponent of a larger watershed approach to improving the region's water quality,
y, : and requires a more broad-based alliance for its planning, funding, mainte-
nance and monitoring."
(rortland Metro)
T c Z4 •~~,bl, ~ ~y'r i ''"'f
Site Selection Criteria:
1) Traffic Impacts: The project was not expected to have any traffic impacts.
2) Stormwater Catchment Area: The size of the catchment area, approximately
7,500 square feet, was considered fairly representative of conditions in the sur-
;\l~\~\; ~ rounding area.
3) Utility Conflicts: An existing gas service line to the adjacent building was the
only subsurface utility that intersected any of the stormwater planters The exist-
a: ing shut-off
valve was located and preserved with a plastic standpipe for easy access. The
existing street lighting remained in place.
4) Loss of Parking Spaces: The project did not affect existing on-street parking.
5) Street Slope: The moderate street slope (2 percent) was suitable for the
(http://flickr.com/ project.
photos/26074955@ 6) Suitability for Monitoring: The configuration of the local combined sewer al-
N02l2447324685/) lowed for
placement of a flow monitor. There is also a rain gage near the project to mea-
sure rainfall events.
7) Soil Infiltration Rates: Specialized infiltration tests were not required at the
site.
8) Available Space: The existing underused landscape area was 8 feet wide
from face of curb to sidewalk edge. This allowed for 3 feet of flat area for park-
ing egress and 5 feet for the stormwater planter, including 6-inch-wide perim-
eter curbing around the planters.
(Portland Bureau of Environmental Services)
PAGE 4 1 SW 12TH AVENUE GREEN STREETS I ARCH 503 / LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
A e
• ortland • egm
7eJ
~ir .0.J~i~
1f~F~9 ~4.Y5~
'e`
"This is very rel-
't
evant and will be
influential in the
~ ~ , , r profession. The
~
best executed
;example of this
~
tYPe of work
~ we've ever seen. "
s ~ (ASLA)
..I • ' _
~ ~ ~ _~'-1 ' '
;1~~' '•~",`w ~ ,
: _0_51~
-t_ t E~ • ,
~ .
Evaluation
Professional Critique:
The SW 12th Avenue Green Street received an ASLA Professional Award in 2006. The
ASLA jury commented, "This is very relevant and will be influential in the profession.
The best executed example of this type of work we've ever seen." (ASLA) Overall this
has been a very successful and well-received project, by both the public and profes-
sional design community.
The planters have managed the stormwater effectively. When the facility was tested
twice in 2006 by simulating a storm of almost 9,500 gallons of runoff (equivalent to
about 2 inches of rain), it retained between 50 and 72 percent of the flow. While the
facility may saturate for short periods of time during large rain events, the facility
infiltrates well (testing indicates least 2 inches per hour even when wet). Based on a
performance evaluation, the four planters have the capacity to manage a Water Qual-
ity Design Storm (0.83 inches of rain in 24 hours), meaning there is no overflow to the
storm sewer for such an event.
Bypassing, or water continuing down the curb and not flowing into the planters has
been a small issue. Making runoff take the 90 degree turn from the gutter into the plant-
ers is challenging. Gutter depressions, beveled edges, and gutter dams (used at SW
12th) are some potential solutions. The dams work very well for the vast majority of
storm events, though some bypassing still occurs during intense rainfall.
PAGE 5 1 SW 12TH AVENUE GREEN STREETS I ARCH 503 I LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
Maintenance has been raised as issue as well. The facility has had to mange a
larger drainage area (increased volume of runoff and sediment) than planned
due to blocked inlets upstream. The large sweet gums on the street contribute
debris as well. The most upstream planter acts as the sediment trap and must
be cleaned out regularly. Sediment needed to be removed 7 times per year
compared to a planned frequency of 4 times per year. This is slightly more time
consuming than vacuuming out a sediment manhole, but the cost (both capital
and environmental) of installing more concrete infrastructure that needs to be
Debris buiid up in swaie. maintained with heavy equipment is reduced. The rushes have done so well
(http:/lwww.portlandonline. that th2y're growing 1 ft or more higher than anticipated and as a result flop
com~lshared/cfm/image. over into the sidewalk, requiring trimming at least once a year. (Tim Kurtz, Sus-
cfm . id=167503 )
tainable Stormwater Management Program)
I Personal Critique:
How can this project be replicated at a site with soil infiltration contaminate is-
sues?
Can concrete be minimized to allow for infiltration beyond the ground plane?
Overtime does soil and organic matter need to be added or is too much pro-
duced?
Does soil wash out into the street in large storm events?
Is there a road edge or sloping that encourages the water to flow into these
planters?
Can plant species diversity be improved to promote wildlife habitat?
Would this system work on roads with greater slopes (10%)?
Resources:
Portland Bureau of Environmental Services
http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=444638
Metro
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=235
American Society of Landscape Architects
http:/lasla.org/awardsl2006/06winners/341.html
Green Streets Notebook
http:/lwww.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=153974
http://pruned.blogspot.com/2008/02/hyperlocalizing-hydrology-in-post.
html
photos credits: Kevin Perry, Bureau of Environmental Services, City of
Portland
diagram credits: Sustainable Stormwater Management Program
PAGE 6 ~ SW 12TH AVENUE GREEN STREETS I ARCH 503 / LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
School Yards UrbanParks
(ariai black, 24pt, justify left top) School
Dylan Yamashita
(arial, 12pt, justify right)
Today, schoolyards are
a -,y:'- ,r_- inadequate spaces that barely
, function as places for children to
# ` ~ relax and get exercise. But there
is now a movement to turn these
t~~,-=q~ '`,~;r ~ asphalt wastelands into sites of
~ ~
,4 not only recreation, but places
for education and engagement
where children can experience
Yrk nature and everything associated
with it.
1~,~~~y 4k, Io'-.~~~ ^ I 4 9~~~ •
*
-r
. `f L *
~ eo~
School yards have gone through many changes over the years. From large open
lawns for children to roam, to concrete deserts with little or no vegetation; school yards
have been recognized solely as a place of recreation for children. Recently, there have
been movements to modify these one dimensional spaces into much more then simply ~a place for children to mill about during their recess. School yards are no longer just for
play, they are becoming multifunctional in their use; by creating habitat for local wildlife, "
,
providing produce through carefully managed gardens, and establishing educational
opportunities in the form of outdoor classrooms, as well as many other possibilities that N/hitechurch, United Kingdom
connect the schools ecologically and socially to the rest of the community.
There are a number of reasons why school yards have had to adapt and accommo- -
date more responsibilities as open spaces. The current state of shrinking amounts and s~-~.,~
sizes of open spaces in cities and urban areas has forced the reassessment of how -
school yards are designed, maintained, and what functions they provide. These play rr
areas are now being asked to contribute to habitat space because there is a lack of -
open space in the most populated regions. But at the same time it creates an opportu-
nity for children to understand and interact with ecosystems that they would otherwise Salem, Massachusettes
never see. The epidemic of obesity and overall unhealthiness that is overwhelming our
country has also forced playgrounds to do more then simply offer a place for children to
run around, they must now also grow the nutritious foods necessary for children to eat 1 9 1 1 a
healthY. School Yards are also bein9 asked to suPPIY communal sPace for nei9hbor- - • ~'y~~
"f1'
hoods without access to major public parks. Sometimes it is in the form of a conscious if---
decision to meet, for example at a neighborhood potluck or perhaps a park cleanup
effort; other times it is an informal relaxed assembly of people who come to use the - ' -
park for different reasons, someone walking the dog, a father and son playing catch, or
maybe even people just looking for a quiet place to rest. -
San Gabriel, Ecuador
PAGE 1 ISCHOOL YARDS
Imagine a classroom with sky for a ceiling and earth for a floor. A room with out
walls or desks...where teachers think "outside the box" as they turn schoolyards into
laboratories for experimental learning".
Context
One Hundred Years from now
One Hundred Years from now Schoolyards have long been unmaintained and seen as spaces that perform
It will not matter only a single function, giving children a place to release energy. These spaces have
what kind of car l drove, been paved over to make them more convenient, but by doing so they have been made
What kind of house I lived in, less effective in terms of serving the children. Recently, schools in association with par-
how much money was in my ents, students, teachers, and community members have been coming up with alterna-
bank account tive solutions and giving these spaces new identities.
nor what my clothes looked like.
But the world may be a better These schoolyards are great opportunities to create links with larger, possibly
place because regional parks; and in the event that there are no regional parks, they might be able to
I was important in the life of a act as regional parks providing open space and activities for the entire community.
child.
Poem by Forest Witcraft
~
j Case: Martin Luther King Middleschool, Berkley CA
Preparation began in 1994; the middle school tore up an acre of parking lot
to create space for this concept developed by a chef, Alice Waters and a former prin-
cipal, Neil Smith. Garden classes teach ecology, the origins of food, and respect for
all living systems. Students work together to shape and plant beds, amend soil, turn
'.'I compost, and harvest flowers, fruits, and vegetables. They have created a program
aspect of the
called Seed to Table where children and teachers are involved in every
J- food cycle, from planting and harvest, to food preparation, consumption and waste
- disposal, where they return the scraps back to the garden. This is meant to expose
the children to ecology, food production and nutrition.
One concept that has helped make this process successful is that it has been
incorporated into the curriculum as a part of the regular classroom education, and is
Y~ not a separate activity that only a few children are a part of. Teachers use the garden
and kitchen activities as common reference points to activate prior knowledge, inte-
r grating it into the overall education experience.
.
,
~ -
I¢,4
-
PAGE 2 1 SCHOOL YARDS
. .
Schoolyard Models
Edible Schoolyards- Using food systems as a unifying concept, students
learn how to grow, harvest, and prepare nutritious produce. SCHOOI YQRD
HABffAT MMU7
School Gardens- integrated into the educational curriculum to teach children
about plants, nature, as well as other subjects like science.
Peaceful Playgrounds- creating an environment where children are less '
prone to violence and more likely to be active. ~
Outdoor Edcuation- appeals to the use of the senses - audio, visual, taste,
touch, and smell - for observation and perception.
Schoolyard Habitat- teachers and students create wildlife habitat on school ` ~ F»
grounds, in an effort to battle one of the main threats facing wildlife.
Case: Outdoor Education Program, San Deigo CA The Outdoor Education Pro-
gram has touched over 82,000
Elementary school students attend a residential school program that includes lives during 2004-05 and has
hands on learning opportunities which meet and incorporate the state guided frame- been in existence for over 59
work for science. They teach students biology, botany, geology, meteorology, as- years.
tronomy, recreation activities and crafts. Their overall goal is to provide students with
experiences that will help enhance awareness and scientific understanding of the Funding: $216,223 from Envi-
natural world. ronmental Service Dept.
$31,000 from the community
They have been able to incorporate other state entities such as the San campership council
Diego county water authority, city of San Diego environmental service dept, and the ~r •~''r-`~> ~ :
community campership council. Through these partnerships, they have been able to
expand out to more detailed outreach programs. These include a mobile science lab dealing with water issues like the water cycle and water quality. A"green machine" - ID~
A ' _
program which deals with the "seed to table" concept where children are involved -
hands on in the entire food production process from planting to cooking. They also
provide a"Salk institute mobile science lab" which focuses on genetics and DNA edu-
cation. They also have a marine science floating lab which creates an environment
for students to learn about marine biology and oceanography through actual observa-
tion and activities happening in San Diego bay.
n•
L ~
. I
Other examples: Boston Schoolyard Initiative, Chicago Campus Park Initiative, San it
Francisco Green School Alliance
~ .
F ~ f
PAGE 31 SCHOOL YARDS
Imagine a classroom with sky for a ceiling and earth for a floor. A room with out
walls or desks...where teachers think "outside the box" as they turn schoolyards into
laboratories for experimental learning".
11 Aquisition / Implementation Mechanisms
For something like this to happen, there needs to be a source of inspiration,
someone willing to take charge and be a leader. Whether it is at a regional or local
t~., ~ . .
s - level, strong guidance is required for things to change.
Having the backing of government and community organizations are also help-
s z.. ful. They can provide support, funding, equipment, and man power when a project gets
~ undenway. They are also important because these projects usually have some sort of
before effect on these agencies or groups, therefore there is a level of commitment needed on
their part.
I V~...,~...-. . . _~~y
# s
, f.lcx`.
after
San Francisco Green School
Alliance
Case: Lower Southampton Schoolyard, Feasterville, PA
This site has been primarily created as a bird sanctuary, where children are
able to watch and record the actions of wildlife that occur at this school site. It is inte-
' grated into the learning system as a science class where children learn to observe and
document their findings, which is in turn used by scientist who study bird populations
and develop bird conservation programs. It gives children a chance to gain knowledge
and learn to appreciate nature in the form of an educational experience. It also creates
an opportunity to build school and neighborhood relationships through hands on site
construction, mentoring and other outreach programs.
Magical Birds
- . Magical birds
Flying in the sky
Making discoveries as they fly by
Singing a peaceful song
As they drift
upon the air
_ Perching on a branch
►ro
Making no sound
Resting peacefully as it sits on the branch
4 ~t~~~ • ' soaring in the sky
Flying with the wind.
'r Poem by: Alix
~ http:/Iwww.lowersouthes.org/hbwildlife.htm
• . •
PAGE 41 SCHOOL YARDS
I
School .
-,r`~ '„T ~
Creating Habitat
, k t ~ ,e _ • ~or
ITj~S.-p ' ~ i i>~ ~
~+~~6.,..; ;1~, '+~a-~ ~r . . ?'y .si' '~~r~ '
lw+`~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~,6^ }f~ 4J.w~ ~f`~•. ~a
_ , t• F. _ 1
.
r
. ~ , ~ ~ ~ . •t~t ; ~ ~
{ ~I ~ ~
, , .~m ' . I II 1`~ j~ 4~ ~ ►
..L.• ,y~ 1► .P
L~
,y
Resources
http://www.ecoschools.com/SFGSA/2004 SFGSAconf Photos/SFGSA 2004 Sloat-
Workshop_photos.html http://www.dltk-kids.com/school/poems_for teachers.htm
http://www.lowersouthes.org/habitathme.htm
http://www.sdcoe.k12.ca.us/outdoored/ar-2004.pdf
http://www.sdcoe.neUoutdooredJoutdoor.asp , -
http://www.whitchurchandllandaff.co.uk/School%20Yard%20Glanynant.jpg
http://irene.wrhine.com/images/school-yard.jpg
http://www.sssq.org/picture5.jpg
http://www.edibleschoolyard.org/homepage.html
.
~*To
I~ ^uff , ,~t ~ •i~',~
PAGE 51SCHOOL YARDS
Boulevards and Parkways - 2100
. .
Diego Velasco
Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn in 1890 - Jacobs, Macdonald, Rofe, The Boulevard Book, 2002
~~C~:+y11C, . 21
~
~ ,~"r~~. ~q~ ~y ~.~^~at~=;`~` F~ zY i'Ir
S~A~a'~~ ~ ~ ~ , , ~ r -
"~~b~~ ~r ~rt , 1` ~.1:.~" Zx,~ i'
~Y<~~~~~y
r'~ %y ~l a'N4~ -~'~?~V~~M J ~,.~~.'fi~.~~i~ G?'J~~f,/,`•„? r ~s ~ ~ ,~t ~7 f' ,f'^ r'!^'r'a.
"X),~i`~'~~r~,~
RA/
-T~'
~.nu, s ~ ~ i 1 ~ v~ _
:a'+~F~` _ 4, n , _
Jacobs, Macdonald, Rofe,
The Bou(evard Book, 2002
,(;.qw--_~~ - - - ~ _
A multiway boulevard is a" mixed-use public way that is by its very nature complex" Alan Jacobs, 2002
'
A boulevard or parkway is a wide urban street with tree-lined sidewalks and often
multiple lanes of both fast and slow moving traffic. Boulevards are usually pleasant
and grand promenades, flanked by rich, monumental architecture and supporting a " r
variety of street uses. They are often "monumental links between important destina-
tions."' More importantly, boulevards can be open space systems that serve multiple ` E
functions at once: movement of traffic, provision of green space in the city, relief of
congestion in overcrowded areas, accommodation of pedestrians and bicycles, and ~
the nurturing of vital street life and activity in the city.
Boulevards date back to the 16th century, when medieval towns abandoned their 4
fortified walls and converted them to tree-lined walkways for public recreation. Cities
like Amsterdam and Strasbourg were among the first to develop obsolete ramparts
into pleasure promenades. In 1670, Louis XIV abandoned the walls of Paris and
replaced these with promenades that served as the parade grounds of aristocrats
and the well-to-do. These were also known as cours or allees, such as the Cour de •
la Reine, which extended alongside the palatial gardens of the Tuileries.' .
1+ • ~ a
In the mid-19th to early-20th century, boulevards came to be associated with large-
scale planning efforts, such as those of Napoleon ill and Baron Haussmann in Paris
or City Beautiful movements in the United States. At this time, the multiway bou- ~
levard became a distinct boulevard type and was widely used and praised for its
capacity to hold multiple transit modes and speeds. In the early 1900's, Olmsted and
Vaux proposed a system of boulevards for Brooklyn, which they called parkways.
Parkways were more suburban and "park-like" in character than traditional boule- ~ .
vards, but maintain many of the same characteristics of boulevards.
1 ~ BOULEVARDS AND PARKWAYS
6 contexts for boulevards
in the U.S.
; .
-
~
:
~ _
. . ..r. ,
1. Major and existing inner Contexts
city streets.
2. Existing strip develop- Boulevards are a versatile street form, making them appropriate in many contexts.
ment streets or suburban They can be major city streets, new streets in new towns or developments, existing
commercial arterials boulevards that have been renovated or rehabilitated after a period of decline or ne-
3. Existing expressways and glect, or simply existing wide streets in the inner city. Boulevards also work at a range
freeways, especially those of scales, from large arterial streets to small commercial strips, or as residential and
that cut thru the city suburban arterials. In general, they work well when they are 125 to 300 feet wide.
4. Existing suburban goulevards are balanced, multi-purpose streets. They have a social component as
residential arterials that are well as a transit function, affording a diversity of activity. They are a central spine of
already wide and planted the larger street network, and therefore should be located in areas that enhance the
with medians. existing street system and give it clariry and coherence. In designing boulevards, care
5. Major traffic streets in must be taken to ensure that all components of the boulevard are working together in
new urban or suburban a coherent whole.
developments.
6. Existing Boulevards of Boulevards are especially appropriate where there is a need to carry both slow, local
the late 19th and early 20th traffic and fast, through-moving traffic. They are a good alternative for areas that have
century that have fallen into the potential to become significant and great spaces in the city. Additionally, boule-
disrepair vards are well-suited for areas with high pedestrian and public transit uses, and where
many buildings face the street and have direct access from the street.
Case: Avenue Kleber, Paris
~ ;Ys
' Avenue Kleber is a busy little boulevard.
There are four lanes of north-south traffic
~
with two lanes designated for buses and
taxies (one of which is separated by a
';~`~;;Y,- ~x•'~ ~ rolled curb). Avenue Kebler is an example
of how to make a small street do a lot: two
busltaxi lanes, two through, bi-directional
lanes, two service lanes, a planting strip
7%~-•~' with bus stops and benches, comfortably
wide sidewalks, evenly-spaced trees,
• a~: m- . j~ parallel parking in the service lanes, and
a metro stop off the service lane. There
~ r~~~ ` ~ are a bit of scattered commercial uses
F,with moderate activity. Overall, Avenue
Kebler is a pleasant, small-scale refuge
from the busy Avenue de la Grand Armee
nearby.
1 ~ K M~ ~ t d.
r y „
Avenue Kleber
~ : ~ 1~ • source: www.parisliving.com
.5,~. . 21 BOULEVARDS AND PARKWAYS
Elements - . . .
General Dimensions:
-100 ft minimum, 4 lanes at 10.5 feet wide, access ways at 16ft (one passing
one parking lane) 2 medians 5ft, sidewalks 8ft. absolute minimum -
-125ft to 140 ft more workable - overall 230 ft max. - gets to be difficult to
pedestrian crossing, access roads never wider than 25ft - erode the slowness
Trees:
- Tree-planted median necessary
- At least one continuous row at each median along pedestrian realm
- Closely spaced, uninterrupted, reach to intersections
- Provide further definition to different realms - visual dividers
- Spacing to allow continuous canopy - max 35 feet apart
- Alternating pattern of 2-3 species okay
- Deciduous trees preferred
- Dense foliage below eye level discouraged - inhibits sight
- Tree placement depends on median width - 5ft wide
center, 20 ft or wider can have two rows, or alternating
Medians:
- Medians should not be too wide, breaks down perception of street as whole
and becomes two streets or three parallel - Las Ramblas
- Very flexible, design depends on context and needs - some areas can be
wider to allow for transit stops or benches
- Primary function to protect pedestrians from fast-moving traffic and break
down crossing widths - safe haven for pedestrians
- 5-50 feet range
- Amenities and attractions to pedestrians - regular-spaced benches
- Stops for transit
- Paved or varying materials
Lane Design and Configurations:
- Very wide center lanes break up the street into two separate realms - ,
y~. A i I iJ~
street activity is bifurcated
- No less than two lanes but no more than 6 lanes 2 lanes o kay for one-way tra ff ic
- Three lanes in each direction allow for public transit lanes
- Overall width of central lane - depends on availability of right-of-way ,
~r
dedications, traffic capacity desired, need for safe crossing 4~
- 50 feet - two lanes each way w/ altemating left turn lane (tightly) ,t,~,
- 70 feet - three lanes and left turn ~
- Public transit best in center roadways, not access lanes
Parking:
`~t
- parking in central lane should be discouraged - undermines fast traffic of
central lane and slow traffic purpose of access lanes, can overwhelm the .,~medians with too many cars ~ ' . • '~>u-~.
- parking in access lanes helps to slow down traffic there and give access to ~
shops
- do not provide too much traffic - intent is to have it for shop customers only,
and too much parking, when unoccupied, can leave vast open lanes that can
be taken by fast moving traffic Jacobs, Macdonald, Rofe,
- okay to have angled parking into median, as long not in way of pedestrians The Boulevard Book, 2002
- bulb at intersections to ensure pedestrian safety
31 BOULEVARDS AND PARKWAYS
~
, 4 ."1 77-
Overall l Pedestrian Realm:
pedestrian realm in 'good' blvd is never less than 50% of total street width
(included in pedestrian realm is access local traffic lanes)
- Best to provide refuge in center of blvd - bollard or island at intersections,
makes crossing easier in wider boulevards
• - - psychological, noise, pollution, mobility buffer
- need for well-defined boundaries and edges, and controlled speeds
~ - only one travel lane max - two lanes can encourage fast-moving cars to
i bypass traffic on central lanes
• - breaks in pedestrian realm should occur only at major street intersections to
I ~ A avoid conflict, confusion and make it safer for pedestrians
- amenities - transit stops, subway entrances, kiosks, benches, fountains,
flower stands - encourage crossings between median and sidewalk - pedes
trians take over entire realm
- lighting - closely spaced and low, warm colors
- narrow sidewalks okay because entire realm can be taken by pedestrians
I i - can use access lanes too
~ - slight changes in paving or elevation help differentiate realms
' - transit exits should be on pedestnan ream to encourage use
(subway exits onto medians)
; ~~~?p t_1r~ ~
ya~,
L
I
• ~.r {u4 qAR 1 ! I k1 ~~~~+a' ~~I P..nN•nn4C..t..nx 1•r N,J1 i.... ( N ~ ,~'1 ~ = ~
1- i ~ rr r~~ti~~'6 r
~
N
• . Y N O l,i ~ `'r,"~{'~'.a~ y 4~~ Ax~ '.V-'+~,~'!~
.r • ~ N w ~ ~'3~,~'~. ~q<ay! ~~4 .~.~,i,,u~f,'r~~~q~"k~~j~ ~m
.4~ 1. -Fa
0
cc 0~'
LW ~
m
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /A' ~•y~ ~SF Ar.4,
~ ' x^` vr~." ~ ~ ~~~w' ~ -
n ~7 y
~
' ~ 4 Case: Passeig de Gracia, Barcelona
n
Passeig de Gracia is an important boulevard in Barcelona. It connects two major
parts of the city, the Placa de Catalunya with the historic Gothic Quarter. It is also
one of the city's most elegant shopping streets, with multiple stores, restaurants,
offices, hotels, theaters and residential buildings.l It is over 200 feet wide, with a 60
foot center roadway for fast traffic, sidewalks that are wide enough to hold restau-
rant seating and public events (like book fairs or farmer's markets), and medians
Median along Passeig de Gracia that do many things at once. Several amenities are provided on the medians. In
addition to stylishly designed benches, kiosks and street lamps, the medians also
.lacobs, Macdonald, Rofe, provide entrances to underground parking structures, subway stations and regional
The eoulevard Book, 2002 train stations. Careful attention is given to all details of the space, with benches and
planters designed by the world-renown Antonio Gaudi.
41 BOULEVARDS AND PARKWAYS
. - .
Case: Octavia Blvd, San Francisco
In the mid-1970's, San Francisco's voters instituted a policy to tear
down the Embarcadero Freeway and replace it with a boulevard. Simi-
larly, the Central Freeway project over Octavia Street was stopped.
This 'freeway revolt' was the first such resistance to freeway construc- - - ~
tion in the country.z It was not until 1989, with the Loma Prieta earth-
quake, that the project to build the embarcadero boulevard began.
Plans for a similar boulevard on Octavia Street were also proposed, I-
but the project was only recently completed in September of 2005. Oc-
tavia Boulevard was designed to carry large amounts of traffic through j ~j4, :~E; ,
the Hayes Valley neighborhood, while also catering to local needs with w I•A,~±t,;;,.,
_ ~ . • ~~~~I~,G.
slow-movin9 access lanes. The ri9ht-of-waY width is 133 feet, with . ,~.,r• + ~
finrelve-foot sidewalks lined with evenly-spaced trees and adjacent to ~,~r~,
.
eighteen-foot access lanes on each side. Parallel parking is provided ' ~
r + rf' ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~
;'A l
in the access lanes, and a nine-foot wide median is fully landscaped .r ~~~~r,,~; , ~
and has trees every twenty feet. New lighting, benches and flowering •r r.~ t`Ir~~~~
~~s . . ~ ..~t
planters are also provided. The central lanes allow for two lanes of L
traffic in each direction, and are separated by a central median. The
new boulevard terminates at a memorial park and playground that t
i s u s e d b y #h e r e si d e n t s i n t h e ar e a. Ov er all, O ctavia Boulevard is a
much-needed improvement in the Hayes Valley neighborhood, and a Octavia Boulevard, San Francisco
better alternative to the divisive and single-purpose freeway proposed
before 3 http://www.sfcityscape.com/projects/
octavia.html
1
, ' ~p C t~ ~ 1 ~ - ~ mi-~s•~-.} ~ `C~'.. ` i
:5 .I+. ~ J ~f : . a[. - ,6 i ~ ...r~j~'~~ , ~-1.~'~"~.._ } ~ • 11 ; ~I !I
~,~i ,.-i~-- Y.,'"' ~'~j. • --4 ~ I :m 'eo
c.m 2z.0r zzo- a.o- Ie.o- 1z.v
11
F' .I, • w.a r.r,o b... a.wd TM,y a~.d T*.* ww R...~q ~.n
a3.r
~ •
, 1
~`••~I~a'• . .ti • . ` ~,f~' .
'r ~ . i~ ~ _ y
:.~4,. , f . a ~ • ' ' ra'Yi •rW
` ~ ~ ~ ~ i' ~ ~ ~ ` • r • •y 1 _ ~ ~ r s 4 +,7~•J1 ~r ~ !
i , "~M k . ' { 'T'T""~~i ti `'~tl{I~Ri4~'~'"T',Il~' ~ a. ~ ~ r ' .~~1
~ '~,~~`Q~,+ yf,~~,~~ : : ,1 ~ ~ /~`";~+F°~`~~ ,.l' • ~M,' , .
V'+~~r`baW Gz~'r .~1,T~~.4.~_~ f,+. t 1i~~~~.~rL~,OCfa" ~~,~„~TJ~ r~. _'p.Y #~i ~r ~ ~`t~
r. ~.:4 .~i 'r, t''~ i,l~ ri ~y, ~ pp~• - Fl.
: A1r '6 A ~Y ♦ ~ 3r ~T . FE''
.~F: R. f
I .O., r:r r .=i4 ~~.~,.,1 ~t t • t f i~ j -t i1M
. ' . _ ; K~ -^,~'~S ~ ~ •f_~I r ~~E"d:'d' ~i'1 i~ ~~f 1 y~ M~•rL~!~R"-•~
Y•~ .1 f* y~ ~ y .:~i.r ~y~~' '~~,R,:~9~.T f ~.,Y i _.1 ~ _ _Xr-r_,
, ~ • .
- - _ ~y „f - !i~ ` ~w .~~+r' ~ JI~ ~L_ AX
"„~1i ►.z { - .:y ~ . ~ c...': r r I ~ ~ - r~{
. • _ . } .'.a.i 1 ' ~ _ r..n-~•-',~~'r "~'•'~'~~~''e ~ .
4 . ~ : _ ~ ~ . _ ~
s.•. ,
. ~,1 " _ J
' ' _ ' • Y ~ dlr. ~aie•~ , .
~ .Allljkc.
51 BOULEVARDS AND PARKWAYS
, Implementation
- citizen groups now less likely to allow future freeway construction through their neighborhoods because aware of
negative environmental and social effects. Must capitalize on the power of neighborhood and community groups
- must advocate for multi-use systems, streets and expressways as serving more than traffic needs, but also social
and community needs
- must demonstrate that boulevards are not unsafe or less effective than expressways, arterials or alternative street
types - can point to studies done and to examples of boulevards that work -"seeing is believing" '
- preference toward existing wide streets to avoid land acquisition difficulties - costly and politically unfeasible
- consideration should be given to types of land uses surrounding the bivd. - incentives to encourage more socially
active uses and pedestrian/ transit activity
- neighborhood matching funds, tree planting funds could be employed - same process to get roundabouts (traffic
circles) could be used by neighborhoods to turn sections of street into bivd
- Portland's Cheap and Skinny Streefs program; Creating Livable Streets-- example
- Making Choices- street design guidelines in Ontario
- green streets designation
- right-of-way manual
References
_ I 'Jacobs, MacDonald and Rofe, The Bou/evard Book.- History, Evo/ution,
Design ofMultiwayBou/evards. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT
Press, 2002.
Jacobs, MacDonald a n d Rofe, Bou/evards.- A StudyofSafety, Behavior
and Usefu/ness. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development,
Universiry of California, 1994.
Kostof, Spiro, The CityShaped. Boston: Little Brown, 1991.
~ d ,,~~6~~'~~' , .
~a 2"Octavia Boulevard: The last freeway north of Market and the last rem-
-~-F.' nant of the Freeway Revolt will be replaced by a landscaped boulevard."
~ San Francisco Cityscape, <http://www.sfcityscape.com/projects/octavia.
~Me
html> accessed 29 January 2006.
` y 3City of San Francisco webpage: <http://www.sfgov.org> accessed 29
January 2006
City of Seattle Right-of-Way Manual
• -;r ' ` i 'a
•tF,
_ = ~ ~
~ g
L
Jacobs, Macdonald, Rofe,
The Boulevard Book, 2002
61 BOULEVARDS AND PARKWAYS
Acquistion Mechanisms:
i-•~_-...~. ,~r~.;;`" , ~
Conservation Easements
Kari Stiles
r ~ ; f
, S~'~~-• J ~7 ~
Cascaae LancJ Conservancy
http:Nwww.cascadeland.org/
C'a~adc Lam! Cunsci~ancy `mall-Sc•ale
C'unscrvation Eascmcnts: Land Trusts:
•F , „ ~ ^ The Land Trust
~ - _ r• www.lta.org/conserve/options.htm
Baker Woods Urban Preserve: : `=7
1.5 acres of forestcd habitat
Chickadcc Hill: 1?5 acres in Issaquah The Nature Conservancy
http://nature.org/aboutus/
Lake WA Blvd Urban Preserve: .33 acres howweworklconservationmethods/
Maple Creek Urban Preserve:
15 Eascments on over 4 acres The Pacific Forest Trust
Christianscn Ctcck: Vashon Island - - _ t`' ~ - http://www.pacificforest.org/
maintained as wooded area to protect one of
the island's highest quality watersheds "Trust for Public Land
Medina llrban Prescrve: 3 easements on 8 acres ~ ~j► - http://www.tpl.org/
ufadjoining lakcfront propcrtics
' Local Players:
Mcrcer Island Urban Preserve: - Cascade Land Conservancy
4.21 acres of forested habitat http://www.cascadeland.org/
s:
Park Hill Issayuah: 13.6 acres af forested habitat
Richmond Beach: 5-acre wooded parcel next to
public park
Home~.ti~~ters Project - Thomton
Sammamish Plateau: 21.6 acres of forested habitat http:i/www.homewatersproject.orgi
PurchaselDonation of Development Rights Through Conservation Easements Resources:
The Conservation Easement
A conservation easement is a legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust Stewardship Guide: Designing,
or government agency that permanently limits uses of the land in order to protect Monitoring and Enforcing
its conservation values, either natural or man-made. It usually limits commercial or Easements (Brenda Lind)
residential development in order to protect native habitat, agricultural landscapes
and activity, open space or historic resources. The land is frequently donated by the Protecting the Land: Conservation
landowner but can also be sold to a Land Trust or government agency. The land owner Easements Past, Present, and
maintains all rights assoicated with the parcel of land aside from those stipulated in the Future (Edited by Ju~ie Ann
Gustanski and Roderick H. Squires,
agreement. (2000). Island Press )
Restrictions: Protecting Surface Water Quality
The owner gives up some development and land use rights. with Conservation Easements
Future owners are also bound to the terms of the easement. (Brenda Lind, Yolanka Wulff. J.D.
It is the responsibility of the land trust or government agency to make sure the (2004)
easemenYs terms are followed.
The Conservation Easement
Belleflts: Handbook (Elizabeth Byers and
Flexibile Use: Every conservation easement has different terms that relate Karin Marchetti Ponte)
specifically to each unique piece of property. Easements might range from protecting Ohio State Universiry Fact Sheet
and preserving critical native habitat to preserving farmland and active farming. ohioline.osu.edu/cd-facU1261.html
Flexible Scope: Public access is not required.
The entire property does not have to be included. The easement can address
portions of the property.
Economic: If the land is donated, easements often qualify as tax-deductible charitable
donations. By reducing the land's development potential, easements often reduce
property taxes and estate taxes.
1 1 DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 8 CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
Transfer
eve opment
-•1-> >IV~ :Y, _ +,u~ ~ L '
t~nrrc :~kr_ h~tnrtr..~ r•,. ~
_ Rights -
Noelle Higgins Examples: National
~e
TDR Programs
What areTDR's?
New York, NY became the first com-
"Transfer of development rights (TDR) is a market based technique that encour- munity in the United States to adopt
rDR provisions wnen ic aPproved ics
ages the voluntary transfer of growth from places where a communiry would like to Landmarks Preservation Law in 1968.
see less development (called sending areas) to places where a community would According to John Bredin, writing in the
like to see more development (called receiving areas). The sending areas can be November 1998 issue of the PAS Memo,
environmentall -sensitive ro erties, o en s ace, a ricultural land, wildlife habitat, the City adopted a new TDR program in
Y P P P P 9 1998 designed to prevent the demolition
historic landmarks or any other places that are important to a community. The re- or cor,version or iive-performar,ce meaters
ceiving areas should be places that the general public has agreed are appropriate in the Broadway theater district.
for extra development because they are close to jobs, shopping, schools, tfBflSpOf- Montgomery County, MD has
tation and other urban services." (Source:Pruetz, AICP, 1999). the most successful TDR program in
the country. County had permanently
preserved over 38,000 acres of farmland
using TDRs.
`.N '.'1 I•, . +11~~ J.
New Jersey Pinelands, NJ, adopted
in 1980, is the most ambilious TDR pro-
~ ~ z.- gram in the country, encompassing one
niillion acres of land and allowing trans-
fers between 60 different municipalities.
farmiands environmentally sensitive sites c,~l;ural site•:=, The total area preserved through sever-
ance increased to 15,768 acres as of the
Definitions end of 1997.
source: (Source. Bredin,2000) Development Rights -
~Land ownership is commonly described as consisting of a bundle of different rights. a
Usually when someone purchases a parcel they purchase the entire bundle of rights
that might be associated with the land. Owning a development right means that you
own the right to build a structure on the parcel. Development rights may be voluntarily
separated and sold off from the land.
Sending Sites
Parcels that have productive agricultural or forestry values, provide critical wildlife
habitat or provide other public benefits such as open space, regional trail connectors ,
or urban separators. Preservation of these types of areas has been identified as a
goal of King County. By selling the development rights, landowners may voluntarily ~
achieve an economic return on their property while maintaining it in farming, forestry,
habitat or parks and open space in perpetuity.
Receiving Site - SendinQ SA.'e
Development rights that are "senY" off of a Owning a development right means that
you own the right to build a structure on the receiving parcel. Development rights ~
may be voluntarily separated and sold off from the land (sending site) and placed on
a receiving site. A receiving site is a parcel of land located where the existing ser-
vices and infrastructure can accommodate additional growth. Landowners may place p,,„yop,,u„i Rijhts
development rights onto a receiving site either by transferring them from a qualifying parcel they own, by purchasing the development rights from a qualified sending site Reteiving SitE 5
-
landowner, or purchasing them from the King County TDR Bank. With transferred
development rights a landowner may develop the receiving site at a higher density
than is othervvise allowed by the base zoning.
Sourcc : http://dnr.mctrokc.gov/wlr/tdr/dcfinitions.htm
1 ITDR
Locai Precedents gASIC ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL TDR PROGRAMS
Seattle (ans/zooa) city cour,cii A clear and valid public purpose for applying a TDR program, such
approved the saie of TDR'S at $1.6
million for low-income housing and to as oPen sPace Preservation, a9ricultural or forest preservation, or the
pay off $147,630 worth of exisitng debt protection of historic landmarks.
for Benaroya Hall. In exchange The
Washington Mutal Bank and the Seattle
Art Museum are aliowed increased Clear designation of the sending areas and the receiving areas, pref-
density in the new office tower and an
expansion tothe SeattleArt Museum erably on the zoning map.
at 2nd and Union. Washington Mutual
Towerwill achieve 420,000 square feet Consistency between the location of sending and receiving areas
of additional density.
;~i,«:SeaMe.govwebsne hftp:,/www.seaWe, the policies of the local comprehensive plan, including the future
yovlnewsldetail.asp71D=4264&Dept=28 land-use plan map.
King COUnty-The County currently
uses hvo drfferent transfer of residential Recording of the development rights as a conservation easement,
density credit ordinances to encourage
pnvate property owners to preserve Which will inform future owners of the restrictions and make them
open space, wildlife habitat, woodlands, enforceable by civil action.
shoreline acCess, community separa-
tors, trails, historic fandmarks, agricul-
tural land and Park Sites. Uniform standards for what constitutes a development right, prefer-
ably based on quantifiable measures like density, area, floor-area-ra-
Seattle, has Redmond a - TDR priocaced ~ogustram in oucside which ot the tio, and hei9ht, should be used to determine what develoPment right
sending areas are lands zoned Agricul- IS b@Iflg tf8flSf@t"fEd.
ture or Urban Recreation or lands clas-
sified as critical wildlife habitat. When a Sufficient pre-planning in the receiving area, including provisions for
sending site is not classified as critical adequate public facilities.
habitat, the transferable development
is simply the amount of development Source:QREDIN
allowed by the site's zoning once wet- SOURCES
lands and other unbuild able areas have
been excluded from the calculation.
Source:Pruetz Rick Pruetz, AICP, 1999, APA National Planning Conference,
Chief Assistant Communiry Development Director/City Planner
City of Burbank, Califomia
http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings99/PRUETZ/PRUETZ.HTM
Tools for quality growth_Transfer Developemnet rights
hftp://outreach.ecology.uga.edu/tools/tdr.html
Cases, Statutes, Examples, and a Model
John B. Bredin, Esq.
Session: April 18, 2000, 2:30-3:45 p.m.
http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings00/BREDIN/bredin.htm, John B. Bredin, Esq. 2000, APA Na-
tional Planning Conference, Transfer of Development Rights:
King County:Website, Definitions -Transfer of Developemnt Rights
http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/tdr/definitions.htm
Seattle.gov website, City of Seattle News Advisory, 4119/2004
CITY GAINS HOUSING, DEBT FUNDING THROUGH SALE OF TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS, http:!/www.seattle.gov/news/detail.asp?ID=4264&Dept=28 ~
http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/education/etowah/documents/pdf/tdr. pdf
Seattle, Office of Housing, Transferable Development Rights (TDR)
8 Bonus Programs, Seattle.gov, website, http:!/www.seattle.gov/housing/2001rTDR-BonusPrograms-
2001.htm
I
2 ITDR
Fee Waivers - -
Melissa Martin
.
Fee waiving is a form of economic incentive that is used to promote sustainable
development and open space implementation. Government agencies from the local
to federal scale have implemented programs in which fees, or sometimes taxes, are
reduced or cancelled if particular sustainable practices are used. For example, the state p,~T G-ROWTH
of Illinois offers a property tax exemption for commercial, residential, and industrial
development that uses solar, geothermal, or wind energy. A federal program allows a
tax reduction of up to 10% for similar energy efficient decisions (City of Chicago 2004).
Similarly, some municipalities offer exemption from a"rain tax" (taxes collected for
impervious surface cover on a property that generates runoff and contributes to the
local storm sewer) for commercial buildings that have a green roof (Scholz-Barth 2001).
One particular use of this strategy is in the acquisition or preservation of open
space. A small-scale example is a program implemented by the Illinois Department of "A legacy for tomorrow...a tax
Agriculture, Office of Soil and Water Conservation. This program provides a property break today"
tax reduction of up to five-sixth of the land value for the development of vegetated (Ecological Gifts Program)
filter strips, which can aid in reducing soil erosion, improve water quality, and provide
significant wildlife habitat. Thus, when considered cumulatively, these strips constitute a ~ ~::a ,,:-,;~.~r•
form of open space preservation.
The Smart Growth Matrix Incentives program in Austin, Texas, is a larger-
scale example of how fee waivers can be used to plan for open space. In this program.
development projects are measured against city goals for sustainable growth, such as
location within a Desired Development Zone and pedestrian-friendly urban design. If -a
given project signifcantly advances the city's goals, development or water/wastewater ~ `7
capital recovery fees may be waived (City of Austin 2005). This incentive encourages
denser development that is limited to designated growth areas, thereby preserving Photo O Parks Canada
open space in other areas of the city.
A provision in the income tax act of Canada promoting donation of ecologically
sensitive land provides a final example of fee waiver incentives. The Ecalogical Gifts
Program was formed in February 1995. Through this program, donors can contribute
ecologically sensitive lands, easements, covenants, or servitudes to any level of
government or to an approved environmentai charity. In exchange, donors gain a
tax credit for the fair market value of their gift that can be applied against net annuai
income (Canadian Ecological Gifts Program 2005).
Resources
The Canadian Ecological Gifts Program. 2005. www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/ecogifts.
City ofAustin. 2005. Smart Growth Incentives webpage. www.ci.austin.tx.us/smart-
growth/incentives.htm.
City of Chicago. April 2004. "Financiai tncentives for Building Green." www.cityofchi-
cago.org/EnvironmenUGreenTech/pdflFinanciallncentivesforGB.pdf.
Scholz-Barth, Katrin. 2001. "Green Roofs: Stormwater Management From the Top
Down." Environmental Design and Construction. BNA media.
,
PAGE 1 ~ FEE WAIVERS