HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM V-A
*
CTTY OF
IVlemorandum
* . . WASHINGTON
To: Planning Commission
From: Elizabeth Chamberlain, Planning Manager
Date: January 31, 2011
Re: Urban Core. Task Force
Backctround
In partnership with the Aubum Area Chamber of Commerce, the City established a task
#orce to work on visioning for the downtown and key connection areas for the next 50
years. The task force was charged with assisting the Aubum City Council in planning for
the 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 was set by the Task
Force members, the Mayor and City Councif requested that its efforts include the
creation of an updated vision for powntown Aubum and other parts of the City, as
appropriate. .
This vision could address a varieiy of issues, including but not limited to, 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 retenton and recruitment sfrategies and potential regulation
changes or ideas to support the specific needs and inferests of the Downtown and other
key parts of the City.
Current Status/Next Steqs
The Urban Core Task Force presented their recommendation to the City Council at the
November 29, 2010 Committee of the Whole meeting. Staff will be working with fhe
Planning and Community Development Committee reviewing the task force
recommendations and have tfie Committee provide feedback to staff on which
recommendations to proceed forward with; either through comprehensive plan
amendments or development regulations.
Af the Planning Commission's February 8, 2011 meeting staff will review the Urban Core
Task Force final recommendation and we would also like feedback from the Planning
Commission on the task force recommendations.
Page 1 of 1
t1UBURN * MORE THAN YOU 1MAGWED
S.
CITY OF AuBURl\
URBAN CORE'I'ASK FORCE
Final Draft Report
"Creating a vibrant, green, walkable urban core
with connections to multiple activities and destinations in Auburn"
November 29, 2010
1
r{
' ~ ~ •,r .
i ~
1
4 ~ L
' r-- -r
tY - "'.~1 `k ~-t~~ i , ~ .._!^~~.~~-~"*}ys ~~.h.!'S . ~"f ~i•, tl'~ ' l t- _
l
_.R
j
~i'j
C1 ~ ~,a c
`s^~.~.e{ ~j~?~r J ' •
Task Force Chair
Terry Davis
Task Force Co-Chair
Gail Spurrell
Task Force Facilitator
Kathryn Rogers Merlino
, Ciiy of Aubum Staff
Elizabeth Chamberlain
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010 ~ y
VRBA1\ VoRE lAa.111 1 0RCE 1-iLMBLRJ
The UCTF was comprised of many dedicated citizens of Auburn who are invested in the future of Auburn as a livable
community for generations to come.
City of Auburn Urban Task Force:
Walter Acuna, Plaza Bank
Pat Bailey, Aubum Regional Medical Center
Nancy Colson, Windermere Real Estate
Mike Clark, Citizen
Cam Cutler, Northwestem Financial Services
Terry Davis, Comcast (Chair)
Val Erickson, Citizen
Tom Fleck, Global Tech Plastics
Greg Fleser, SuperMall of the Great Northwest
Karen Graham, Multicare
Sarah Nansen, Keimig and Associates
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 Downtown Association
Way Scarff, Scarff Ford Aubucn
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 Rogers Merlino, Urban Core Task Force Facilitator
2
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
T6~~~~ ~F C~~TENA J
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
.......................................................................4
PART ONE: MISSION AND SCOPE .................................................................................................5
PART TWO: GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................8
Guiding Principle One:
Capitalize On Auburn's Uniqueness . . . . ..........................9
Guiding Principle Two:
Promote Mixed-Use - Mixed-lncome Residentia/ Deve/opmentAnd Urban Infill
In The Proposed Urban Core Boundary ..............................................................................18
Guiding Principle Three:
Provide For Economic Growth In The City Through A Diversity Of Means ...................................29
Guiding Principle Four:
Provide A 1/ariety Of Connecfivity Choices ...........................................................................30
Guiding Principle Five:
Expand, Protect And Enhance City Open Space . . . . . . . . ....33
Guiding Principle Six:
Encourage Deve/opmenta/ Practices That Lessen The /mpact On The Environment
and Encourage Economic Deve/opment . ...........................................................................:36
PART THREE: APPENDIX ..............._.........................._.._..............................._..................._.........27
Letter from Mayor Peter Lewis Appendix A
Meeting Agendas, Notes and Exercises ...................................................................Appendix B
Final Report from Mayor's Instifute on City Design, Aug/Sept 2009 ...............................Appendix C
Storefront Studio, University of Washington, Main Street Guidelines ..............................Appendix D
Selected Facilitator Presentations.......................................................................... Appendix E
Supplemental information from UW Green Futures Lab
Chicago Green Alleys
Port/and Green Streets
Schoo/yards
Boulevards and Parkways ...........................................................................Appendix F
3
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010 j v
EXECU'TIVE SUlVI1VIAItY
INTRODUCTION
The City of Auburn, Washington was incorporated in June of 1891, and since that time has continued to develop as
a unique city with assets like no other destination in the state. Strategically situated between Seattle and Tacoma,
Auburn sits in a scenic valley with dramatic views to Mt. Rainier, large green parks and two rivers as well as straddles
two nations and spreads across two counties. Currently, Auburn is a popular city in which to work, play, shop, rest,
learn, 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 living in the center urban area in the next four decades. The most recent 2009 citizen survey
reports nearly 2 in 3 respondents had visited Downtown Auburn 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 culfural venues,
planned growth must occur with excellent housing choices and amenities that would bring more people, more often
to downtown Auburn, 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 citizens 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 aVibrant, Green, Wa/kab/e Urban Core with Connections
' to Multip/e Activities anc! Destinations in Aubum.n The Task Force felt this characterization of a future Auburn should
focus on livability, density, accessibility and sustainability while always benefiting and developing economic support
and growth. In this context, the UGTF 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 well as connections
to nearby Auburn destinations. This new Urban Core Boundary encompasses both natural, man made and economic
boundaries and focuses its center around the current city 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 recommendations of the Urban Core Task Force, each with Sub Principles to
reinforce the ideas and suggest specific initiatives to reach the Guiding Principle goals. Outlined as recommencJations
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 Auburn already has, and moves positively toward a vibrant, denser
walkable and sustainable city. While some of these goals such as increased housing and services would need to
occur with economic and population growth, the UCTF felt many of these recommendations could be implemented at
little cost immediately.
The Task Force realizes that Auburn is uniquely situated in a location that could easily become a bedroom community
for Seattle oc Tacoma, a destination for more affordable business growth, and an easily connected city by rail or airport.
Building on these existing assets is a critical part of the recommendations as outlined in Guiding Principle One. In
order to sustain continued population growth, a planned, dense and walkable city utilizing current "smart growth" and
"transportation oriented design" as well as other urban planning policies occurring nation wide is an important part of
Auburn in 2050. Walkable, green, sustainable buildings and streets that build upon the historic character that makes
Auburn unique is an important goal outlined by suggested density profile maps with Guiding Principle Two, as well
as historic preservation and adaptive reuse recommendations in Guiding Principle One. Guiding Principle Three
focuses on the economic prosperity that must grow in orderfor Auburn to reach ifs full potentiaL Creating places for
businesses to move into Auburn at a large scale, supported by rail and the aicport, builds upon existing assets.
4
> >
Urban Task Force Finai Report 2010
i
Supporting a dense, walkable urban core allows for small business, services and restaurants to support a pedestrian
and accessible urban core. Guiding Principle Four builds upon the idea that Auburn has great connectivity, and
is well seated for a future system that is sustainable and multi-modal. Working with existing rail lines for more
commuter activity 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 with sustainable fechnology would
improve 6oth the economic base and the quality of life in the downtown core. Aubums extensive 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 streets, smaller neighborhood parks and pocket parks would allow more useable open space by
pedestrians and focus on the mission statement goals of livability'in the city of 2050. Guiding Principle Five illustrates
the variety of open space opportunities that both enhance and support existing parks in the city. Guiding Prineiple
Six focuses on renewable energy sources, sustainable infrastructure such as walkable, denser development, onsite
water treatment, recycling and conservation of natural resources as a way to a sustainable future. The Urban Gore
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 incorporafed
immediately without high cosf or investment. Growth, prosperity and livability must be focused on simultaneously
to get the character of the city the Task Force envisiones for the future of Auburn.
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 specific 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 Auburn by 2050. While
some of the Guiding Principles are unique, others overlap and sross 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
either previous sfudies that need revisiting orexamples 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 November 2010.
5
c ;
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
PART OI\1Eo SCOI'E AI\1D NIISSION
On January 12, 2010, Auburn Mayor Peter Lewis appointed a citizen based Auburn 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 fora projected growth of up to 50,000 more residents in the urban core by 2050 and
beyond. Once these ideas were developed, they would be presented to the Auburn City Council to eonsider 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 their assignment. The Urban Gore Task Force then formulated a concise
mission statemenf #hat would guide them through their months of planning a vision for a vibrant, livable and
successful Auburn overthe next few decades. The visionary plan was to make a beautiful, walkable center that
both residents and visitors would return to again and again.
THE 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 Auburns planning; such
as: Current and future urban core boundaries; connectivity between the major attractions of the city and the
downtown; planning for density; walkability and living in the historic core; marketing of Auburn as a unique
destination and building up unique amenities; understanding the exceptional character of Aubum and how to
preserve it; and how to makethe city a walkable, green, accessible downtown core while planning forfufure
population growth. Much of the first few meetings were discussing the growth boundary in the urban core to
promote smart, transportation/pedestrian oriented growth in the city, building on existing fabric and promoting the
best development locations. The UCTF began by reviewing an inventory of assets currentty available in the City
of Auburn and surrounding areas. The following is a summary of the discussion points that were brought up to
begin the conversation about a vision for Auburn.
CURRENT RESOURCES AND ASSETS IN AUBURN
Citywide:
Dedicated and invested mayor and staff
Unique sef of nearby destinations for all ages and interests
Extensive park sYstem, esPeciallY lar9er Parks
Abundance of natural resources
View corridors to Mt. Rainier and other views
Strong sense of civic events and cultural identity
Excellence in public art, pertorming arts and cultural resources
Downtown Core:
Great historic main streetthat should be preserved
Historic buildings, nice walking area
Proximity to transit (rail and bus) with great future linkage to new systems
Intact street grid / alleyways / good urban framework
Grocery stores + amenities
Medical services nearby
Walking distance to schools
6
~ S Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
Main Street:
Good sense of place:
Local and independent businesses
Pedestrian-friendly 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
Park System
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 Principles for the
City of Auburn. Each of these Principles are detailed with Sub-Principles, giving specific recommendations for
what the UCTF felt was a priority in the areas of growth and development to meet their mission for the fufure 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 by the Mayors Institute on City Design, that
was held in Auburn 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 relevant to the larger
discussion of growth and vision for the City of Auburn. These and other resources have been included in the
appendix of this report.
7
~ i
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
Px-IRT TW0: RECOIVIIVIENDATI0111S
SIX GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR THE CITY OF AUBURN
Resu/ting from the Urban Core Task Force, the following recommendations are summarized be/ow as Six Guialing
Princip/es, and outlined in more detail in the following section:
1 Guiding Principle One:
Capitalize On Auburn's Uniqueness
2 Guiding Principle Two:
Promote Mixed-Use - Mixed-Income Residential Development And Urban lnfill In The
Proposed Urban Core Boundary
3 Guiding Principle Three:
Provide For Economic Growth In The City Through a Diversity of Means
4 Guiding Principle Four:
Provide A l/ariety Of Connectivity Choices
5 Guiding Principle Five:
Expand, Protect And Enhance City Open Space
6 Guiding Princcple Six:
Encourage Developmenta/ Practices That Lessen The Impact On The EnvironmentAnd
Encourage Economic Development.
8
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
~ GLdIDING PitINCIPLE ONE.
CAPITALIZE ON AUBURN'S UNIQUENESS
Auburn is strategically situated between the two major ports of Seatt/e and Tacoma; presently served by
the 4"' busiest airport in the state and major rail lines, these existing assets must be harnessed to connect
both commuters and visitors to Auburn. While retaining its smaller town feel, by 2050 Aubum cou/d be
easily connected to out/ying areas by commuter rail or p/ane to makes Aubum a destination for livability and
accessibility. In addition, heritage tourism, shopping and wa/kability on one of the best-preserved main streets
in Washington State must be kept to retain fhe uniqueness that is Auburns downtown core.
Its beautiful setting, collection of historic buildings, dedication to public art and surrounded by unique
desitnations that include entertainlment venues, historic sites, parks and retail are all qualities that set Auburn
apart from other cities in the region.
Sub Principle 1.1
Connect the Urban Core with outlying destinations to support the character that is uniquely Auburn.
1. Harness the possibility of the airport as a major commuter and freight hub to support economic growth
for Aubum.
2. Connect the newly expanded downtown Urban Core with existing (and proposed) outlying Auburn
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 connectivity between all things Auburn.
4. Design and support transportation modes to Auburn neighborhoods that easily bring people downtown
from their homes easily 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 these
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 boundaries.
1. Create financial incentives to restore historic storefronts. Consider tax credit rebates, or similar
measures to incentivize owners to upgrade the downtown core for a more vibrant, save, walkable
downtown in preparation for a higher traffic flow, and repeat visits by residents of Auburn.
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
Auburn 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
s ,
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
Sub Principle 1.3
Capitalize on the downtown core's proposed growth area with an attractive, waikable, sustainable
downtown.
1. Develop design strategy for banners, planters, benches in strategic locations for main street that attract
more pedestrian traffic.
2. Develop lighting strategies forsafety at lower light levels.
3. Add street trees and decorative tree grates to identified `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 pedesfrians 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 City Hall plaza, and incorporates
places to play,sit, eat and gather.
Sub Pcinciple 1.4
Identify and protect historic buildings, districts and cultural places important to the character and
history of Auburn.
As the historic center of the City, the Urban Core has a unique array of historic buildings and neighborhoods
with distinct historic attributes thatcontribute to the character of the core. Unfortunate/y, a number of these
character-defining assets have been /ost to demolition over the years, many to pave way for deve/opment
which never occurred. Maintaining and preserving #hese assefs is critica/ to capitalizing on the uniqueness
and revitalization Aubum's Ur6an Core. This can be by designations such as the inter-loca/ agreement with
King County Landmarks, Nationa/ Register Historic P/aces designation and if needed, city Hisforic Districts.
Retaining, rehabilitating, and reusing these assets through historic preservation will he/p revifalize the Urban
Core and promote its strengths. Some buildings are listed on the Nationa/ Register of Historic P/aces, some on
- King County Landmarks buf there are many more which are not Regard/ess, the Nationa/ Register offers a
tax incentive on/y and does not offer protection from demolition. Local (King County or a new/y created Auburn
Historic Commission) historic designation is the most effective tool to preserve these assets.
1. Identify places that are culturally relevant for Auburn's future through a historic inVentory of all buildings
older than 40 years. (Or atime frame mutually agreed upon by preservationists and council. Forty
years is the King County Landmarks Commission age requirement for historic structures.)
2. Establish an Auburn Historic Landmarks Commission that provides stewardship and direction for
historic properties, as well as guidance and information on non-historic, exisfing assets.
3. Establish and promote the use of historic districts, landmarks, and landmark sites for the education,
pleasure and enjoyment by the city of Auburn and its visitors.
4. Paint and/or identify historic names on landmark buildings.
5. Retain residential 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 culfural heritage tourism and education.
7. Promote and identify locations for diverse public art and integrate into new urban public spaces.
10
i ~
C 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.
' 4-1- i
~ kv~ , , ~ - • , ~ ~ 'a w
~ t~ . r : ~ ~
• ~ ~ . ~
tY . ► . . . , 1 .
74'`
f . , ~ . ~ ` ~ ^ f . ~
" r•~a~ ~ t~ '~r s . . ~ _"T Ah
r
M.~
, .
,_x -r-
- ~
. 2a~'.
j~ ~ ; f • . . • . r- ~ ~ -
y r
4;wl1 ~ y- ~ '~?[?~4«~ .-te ,
g ~..~v r .K >.rr
M
.
c
.
~ . -,-~J
C Auburn is situated strategically in between Seatt,e and l-acoma, with great connectiviiy througn 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-~D
logical variation of buildings in the urban landscape. Having a variety of buildings also promotes reuse, preserves cultural
memory and provides for a variety of economic choices for retail and business.
~
buiit form typological variation
ti..
h
~
~
city life
~
~
aciaptabRetise
O
. ~
Urban Task Force Final Re ort 2010
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
Preservafion 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 consiruction 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
CommunityDevelopment,the Auburn Downtown Association,the Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce
and the King County Office of Business Relations and Economic Development.
Prepared by: . .
StoreFront:Studio at U1N Department of Acchitecture
f "For fhe • Cty.of Aubu_rn .
^and.
King County Office: of Business Relations and Economic Development~ .
~ Historic':Preservation Program,
13
Urban Task Force Final Re ort 2010
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 S. Incorporate Architectural Features in Sidewalls Off Main Street -
9. Nlaterials 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. Rrovide 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
14
Urban Task Force Final Re ort 2010
_
The Main Street Setback -
6=,6 9 9 F7
A. Existing
- F ly yl~
B. Allowable
- ;
C. Proposed
The American small tawn charac[er of Main Street Aubum has been References:
retained through a century of development. This has resulted in the -Aubum Downtown Plan Design
preservation of the pedestrian oriemed historic streetscape. The massing Guidelines:5ectian BD 1.1
relationsfiip 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 grye# 11• Rehabilitating Historic
inueased densrty (B),setbacks should be used above three floors to Storefrorrts
~reserve the pedestrian scale, daylight access, and historic character (n that _The Secretary of the Interior's
are unique assetsto Dowrrtvwn Aubum. Standards for ftehabilitatian and
lllustrated Guidelines for Rebilitating
Historic Buildings
15
Urban Task Force Final Re ort 2010
Main Street Land Use ~\,~t,^
.
~
_ . ~
- ~
3.
2.
L_l._L_!_J
4. BE,
1.
1. Retaii or Service uses oriented to the public shauld occupy all References:
storefronts on the ground fiaor level of Main Street. -Aubum Oowntown Pian Design
2. Residential or Office uses are encouraged on upper ftoors along Main Guidelines 5ection SP 1.5
Street.
3.Vsibility and outdoor access incnease the connection betwe+en Main
Street and upper leve1 octupants, promoting the safety of °ey+es on the
~reet n fr ~
4. Residential entrances located on side street provide additional I'ifie to
street.
16
Urban Task Force Final Re ort 2010
V k. _
.
~
0
Main StreetTo Retain Continuous Street WaU
. ,
r
. . . . _
A
- lJ
B
u
R
N
3.
2. L L!
. f {
I
~
` 1. Buildingsshoutd be orientecf parailel to,lot.lines with prirnary-facades References:
and publicentrances located on=Main Street -Aubum Downtown P,lan Design
2:6uildings that.face<Main Street shoutd occupy the entire fconta.ge and 6uidelines:5ection SP1.1, SP7.2, BD17,
maintain approAmate alignment of horizontal arch'itectural features and BD1.J 1
visible elements of adjacent:buitdings, reinforcing continuity of the Main -National •Pack Service Presexvation
Street District. Briefs 17:Architectural Character
t. Corner buildings should have special architectural treatments induding -Seccetary of the.1nterioes Standards
- tucrets, bay w,indows,:accentuated cornices andfiistorically precedented for Rehaibilitation and fllustrated
entrances. Guidelines for Rebifitating Historic
Bui1dings
17 _
t ,
Urban Task Force Final Report 2010
GiJIDING PRINCIPLE TWO:
PROMOTE MIXED-USE - MIXED-INCOME RESBDEiVTIAL DEVELOPMEIVT AND URBAN
INFOLL IN THE NEW URBAYV CORE BOUNDARY
The next 40 years of deve%pment needs to focus on a livable, walkable downtown, with diverse options for
residentia/ deve/opment in the urban core boundary. Proximiry io basic needs such as services; grocery stores,
pharmacies, clothing, restaurants and entertainment must tre wa/kable and accessible by a% to % mile distance to
support the mission of the Task Force that supports a sustainab/e, wa/kab/e environment.
Sub Principle 2.1
Adopt the proposed new, larger Urban Core boundar that supports the urban core of the city, historic Main
Sfreet 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 forthe 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 fordevelopers 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. Creafe incentives for maintaining clean streets.
3. Identify pedestrian priority streets that are visually pleasing and pleasant experiences to occupy.
Sub Principle 2.6
Identify retail corridors andJor 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.
18
~ 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.
~ J T ~ I ~ I~.~, ~ I~
. _ ` ~ G.~a.E. r`-~: ° • . ~ ~ r'~""", T
r- = v _ ~
.
.
' ,c, . ~ , r ; _ -j~-`~ r ' _ -
,
i ' ~ ~~..~a _ ~ I,,~- ~-r- w~
. .
~ ~ -
~ ~ I" I ~ r V..~
~ . ~ i:~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ . _ _ ~--~r~ _ ~ L`-~~. .
~ x Y ~'j'`~ _
~
~ , ~ t . _ J L=~L J _l,~~ ~ ? _ ~ ~ ~ ~"a~,~
~
:
; ~ r , ~ ~~c; ~ , ~
_ ^ - _ _ ~ , ~ - ~
~
,
i~ _ _ Y ~.-~1 ~ - 1 " ~
~,G~~k~~ _ r ?~Y ~ ' - ~ ! fl` .~~I~~~~ ~ I~~
~ i~`~ ° ~ F . s ` ~ . - ~ ~ tl ~ ~*^-J i. t,__,~r!
. •
y::t R, _ b ~~1~1 ~i ~?Llnif ~J~
I' ~ , I._J ~ r ~ ~
C-,l ; M-~~- ~ ~ `:~,:l~. - ~I.}I "~",~,t1r
nc ~y= '1 p . .y, I
_ ~ ~ r ~ ~
+ ~ ' _ . _ ' , r+, ~ f ~f-~~ ..~''j~ ~,ir +
~ T ~ '-_~~J
- - ' I ~ f i i
~ 1 ~ -
. .
, F ' I. ~ ~ ~ ~
~ „ ~ ,
, . . ~ _ ~
. ; , ~ y ~ ~ : _ - j ~ ~~t - ~
, , - , ~ y1 ~f,' 1 _
. l = ~ _,r ` ' _
~ - ~'~,r ~ ~ , ; ~ "
~ f r., ~ ~~"I-
~~7~ ~ ~ ~I i - - ~ ~I . ' ~"~~~-~il~;.!. - - ~ f~~ ~ ~-i _
~f " - ' ~ _ - ~ _ ~ r' ° ~ ~ ' - re
~ r ~ I' - _ ~ ' ~ -t~t~' ~ I_.~"~ ~ t-
~
, , '"'1 ~ l
l ,
~ . 1 k, ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i • n , t7~i7 ~ -
! ~ .
~ _ ~ ~ ii x ~a_ ~
: y~
~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~
, ~ i,~~ ~ r ' ~ _
~ ' I ~ ~ ~ 4 ~xa.,. 'i ' ~J~~i]`Ff I~~ - ~ ~I il
~
~ ~ ' I ~ ,~I I'~ ~
~ -
-j~ ~ - ~ ~ ~
~ ~ s.;F~.:~~ ~,7 ~I ~~_i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ _ F-~~ ~-r~~ ~ _ ~ ' ~ ~ , ~ ~
r/ I Ifr~ - r~' , -~,..~`1j )ri-~~-.~`~-, ~ ~.4C ~r~~~~~~~~~~', J~
~ r' - s ~ I- ~ j~ ~ ~r~~~j .E-~ .I U hE3-Ai~~ -i G d.~ i I(~ ~ ~.-,f-~, ~i ~ . ' 'y
~ . ~ ~~"i~~ ( ~ `C~~`E~ J ~ ~i~ r+-d"'~ ,~i-~~J`~ N`l -
y t ~ r~ t . A ~ ~i ~--r~l~`-~ ~ i ` _ ' -'tl ~ ^'_F~ ~ ~
~ i' i'~ 7 ~ ~ ~ `S-.~''~ =,~i ~ ~ ~ d~ ~ ~ , -F11 i f t~ ` ,
t, ~ ~ ' I C ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ -
~ • < - I- , y -
I ; ~~:..y ~ ~i[r,
G ~ T"'.1'_ r , ~ _I rY~ ~ LI _ ~e r r -
~ ~ -1 _ ~..,~f'' rn`~1- _ _ ~
_ ~k-,~ ~ -
!~j _ ,r„~~ ` f , ~ ~ u ,ri` ~ ~ • ~
~ "s - ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~r ~~in 1~' ~r~cx~~, 'yr ~ _
. , ~ ~u.{ ~„cat~ ~ ~ ~ ,
_ ~[t- ~ ~ . " ~'i-~- ~ - . ,f~ ~
~ ~ ~ -r~`~ ~~~~i!~i~ •,,y ~ ~j;: j` f;
r ' . i-__ . . ~ ~ ~ x .
•ys,f y. ~ . ~ •y; ~f=~~ r ~~s.,
~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~~u'
_ Y ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ L7~i,~' r''~.~ ~i~ . _ `~C-7 ~ . 5~~ ~ I I s
_ . . . ' . ~ i - ~ `C i .~rr
~ 1
i ~ ~ I •
i~ ,
; F ~ "Ir-'~~- ~ I ~~'ti''~. ~k-~i~i ~ -l._ Y~
- - Q, ,
~.r'I~~'~~-~ ~,.r~' ''r ~ ~ - ; ~ . I ~ j I ~i fi.~i-t'YR+'( ~1-'-R ~ ~ ~ " r`~`.''
-~J_;1 d,~ ! 1.- ~I.-t-.l~.LJ l.1 i _ f _ J ~ - ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ^r~ ~ ~ _
_ 1 ~ ~ ` '~J.TC o
I ~
_ ~ c. . ~ , ~ • r ' _
f _
- , ~ ; _ . r ' h= ~;~-rr7,~ - '~r ~ ~ r i'E- I -
. . ~ ~ . " -
T - ( .
~ ~ - , , _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ _
. ,
~
. . w . ,
~
, ,
, ~ , I. nC y' ~ ~"-r'r ~C~~ ~
~_e ~S ~ ' , - ~ = . ~ ~k j ._i _
~ rr 4 r -
O
0
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.
Flaor Area Rativ (FAR)
1: katpc;
_ _ •NI
\ \
1 ~ , ~ stc~ i6s 4
_ . ~
_ _ _ ~
_ ~ _ ` ~ . •
Sir-igle Faciiily Homes Townhornes Apartments
i4-10 du'arl (20-40 duFac) f50-100 du'ac1
~
. ~
C Form and Density for the New Urban Core
4-10 Dwefling Units Per Acre
-hESe images ii'.us-rate e'Y3ne-y c= Icrw dFnsity
,t .t~..~. farms of residen:ial dFve.vpmen: f-am smgle fami:ty
10-s to aiplex praper.ies. ThesE irnages ~represent
approxirra'ey 4-1C dwelling un?s per acre, 3Rlj 3re
i
eepresentative for oensty, nat arah1edural s-yie.
~ -
- 1 ti-a` t• p J-. Y::
s y , ~ IriouL~..}►~ ~
~•i,'. _ -
- - t-
, . ~ ~ • ' '
a ;
r~ i I % . 9~ • T
~ ~
21-.3a DwelEing Units PerAcre. ~
a -
Th25E i'T139E5 I:IlCSt!'3iE a V'3G2:y of ined urrL densi;y
#_-rris of rc-s~dential a~ve-~opment from 3-4 story all ~ 57W1 res~der~tial davelaom=rt tc m::xec! use ~es~den~al. ~ ,
Sxee t s s hou ld be i den:i=e d fc- mixe d u:s~e a.ia~ major, ' ~1
wa'kable streets. These images r?Fresent a variely c`
aFpraxima*_eiy 2&-40 dwel in8 u-lis Far acre artd the
character of ?he strc-el tne LCTF felt was apFropriate. _ rThe imagFs are nep-esentatve fw densiiy, nQt archi;ec-
_ ( _ : - -
tiral stylc.
. ~
A
y Y _
0 10 DwelEing lJnits Per Acre
I~ _ )ese images ilius-xate a variery ai higher densi:y forms of
- { „ aomrrperacal and resid?ntial develapmertt in tne identified
densest areas in tt-,e urban core. Stree#s shou9d be identified
- =750 for mixed use alcnng major, walkabie str+eets. T"nESe images
represent a variety c3f approximaUe[y 47 + dwellmg units pe.,
acre and ttw character of rthe strEet the l}CTF felt was
appropriate_ TihE mnages are representaflve fbr aensity, not
~ z h~
- _ ~ archdec6Wral stybe.
G -
6 ~
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 locations within the core.The historic core and main street feel of the
downtown was of critical importance to the UCTF.
_j T. ~M ~
r'47-t~~ ~Y~ TT'
r~--
~,~~-s_;_ i H
},.~t
~i..~
I y~ t t. I~•V ti.. w}Z 2 f~{y}~y.~.... ~.,,."1'_
f
Id r s
• /k, _ i
' i
~ - j
_ t: _
~ .
. l'• " iA+
(I
t-jtr-
4-1 0 Dwelfing Units Per Acre r ~ Aubum Cityr Lir- ts
~ ~
0
~ 20 - 44) @wNling Units Per Acre Proposed Urban Core Boundary
O 40+ Dwelling Units PerAcre
~ 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 while incorporating
new residential fabric into the area. Keeping the Main Street character was of highest importance, and building 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.
7--
_ .I r
Y.
•jj . I
w }
. _i _J R_~rfw r ~ - u!~` 1 ' i , ,
p r"'. I ' . ..i , ~ . A+.->i1~~~ 1~w~ ~cJ~ 11
►=-ri,
~ , ~ - ti - ~ ~.,,r:_~-T...-y ~ . -
" . . 'c'~s: "•'~r~--~- - . . .
. r'4 • "--11 f . ~ . ;~~i~ i ~ ~ . . , i , . "i'r
~ -,~r ~'f ~~~1 ~---~.`.'f •~~l . ~S/~. I~'
_ E• ~ ~ f~ _ - ~r~~t`~Ky ~ xj.--~•=
L*
'ti~~, ~
++I
. . Li
c: _ f
r.__.,r~
- ~ • _ -P,~ fr rr•-!~-.---~
i 77
. ` • . ~ ~ J~ ~ sf I
~7_
_ ' ` J ~ f ~,l~ ,?T~'' ~ ~ ~ 1•;
r
1 ~ 1 ` ~ - ~ _ r ~
r p _t"' u n 9,1
~
_T_
•w.a ,I i3 v y~_ 1~ I
L
:Z_-.14
0 20 -40 Dwelting Units PerAcre
C _ - - Aubum City Limifs
~
Rroposed Urban Crne Bourtdasy
`,.J
"West Viilage" 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.
~ , r#~ . i . ga_7 -r i ' " ' ~~I►~ i ~
?
.
Q~ . . ~~~~f ~
1:1F
' . ' ' ~ f ' ` - ~ , { - ~ , •i ~ u:
aIFIT1
. ~f a , ~ • : rY
_ r t. ~ ~ , ~ ~ . ' i • - l { j ti .~~r~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 1~ ~ . _l+aa~C~+ ~ 'J'
~ ~ ~ r• I~ ~ _rwD t
. c-,: • 4~,;~~ ~ ~ ' ~ .=..,A ~
~4'.
~ .~i q ~L' ~ n'T" ~ ~ ~ j ~
r
7+
j.~
i I(3:'~42
~V.
.c; - _ - ~C ~ v ~'G.~
` ~,.Y_, ~_.=i•
.
I ~ -T~=
7
..y
_ _ , I ;a ~"'f~ = ~ ~'~tc='► '--~.r.~,~? 2~'1_I
_ ! ~.1n i 1
Q
f
~
' , - r . ~ r ~ .f~l . ..p_ ".f'~- 5 r ..~C ~f!'
•r s ~ 1 Z~ 2,~ ~r r~`•Y+rt 4` . • .v h~ I i
y , 141L
: t' . ' . ' l!` . _ - I.- - _ +►a. ~:.1~_J'.° .~l i'_
~
~-.~r~ I c t'"`~°-_~t.•\
' ~ ~~i t~r e~`,~,_~I ' •a i ~ 1 ~ ~ - ~ • • ~.tii ~,~\•s. ,
~1[ '4,~%l~i,,jJlLA1L~~111 ` ~ ~IF ~~•~,II~ ~ I ~I ~.--L[~~- ~~~~~x' _
t e•~ ~
Cl UO Gwelling Units PerAcre O
AJb:JI"'1 GI"f LlTIiS
Propased 'J*bart CorQ BoLxndary
~ 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.
_ ~ 3 ~ • 14x•
_ C, Q... .
.4 ~.~t ~ ~ ~ tj ~ =i:!~~~ r~~-'
~ , - . - ry~ 4~
.J1 -1
,:,31 ! ~ i, s.~t. • 's ~ :'i+ - . ,F =,r/~~ ~
n ' '"'i ' '1 tF^J . ~ ~ r-.'a ~ 1Yy-:.~ ~-~-Z4.~i ~
. . { .~l•• _ ~ ~ . ~ a .~r i--rr'-+
!.,a. . J I: • . ~L . ~ } ~r ,!y['i :
1{ ^ ' f +(.`-7~~_t . - ~ _ _ c~ ---i! f~ ~ ~•k 1 " I ~L~ ` ; T
~ t
lF.~
- . . ~.i~
7i~
i-
~ i V--F
V
'IT
IL
oo;
L
_ i
`3zc L k
i" ~
~
.
• ~ : - ' .
- - ~ -
- - 7
~ i
• ~ , ~ , k :'"F Ir~j ~ _ ~ ;
:+~~r'` • I- ~ - - - . . ,___~r,'~+J: H'-~t*`T!e,'~
5~ , ' s jJI~I V~i ~ h~-„~''~ , I~=Ti -lr-~'.•F4
4P ~N
job-•
~'r i,• I J ~ j ~~ytt~f".,'~ _ r" ~
j f~'3.11.'~~. L`-
. ,
•-47~±~~~
%
}k++ . 1 - _ . ~ ~ _"v-W J ~"='--7~;-~~•; ~
,~as"`i'`~_, 40~ . , I ~ .~Y - ,•-_,~,J
0 10 Dwelling Units Per Acre
C _
Aubum City L•mits
Fropased Urban Cfl:e Boundary
• ~ ~
~I
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 should be developed within this area in unused areas or empty lots.
' ; J ' • ~ _ ,..~'...:77'*~
771
y=~` _
1'-~ 1 V~7~.~+~ I ~ -
- k
~
JF~.~~~
~'.~j ` .I:~h ~ -i..~.y-~ , .
opp! ' :1 ~
iL
L~ ~ ~ e ! - s--r•--~'r~ , -
"a-
~
fy`. _t,'r ; _ ! =
L
I
r 1
r+~~ r L I--i~~
..I
F
~ t
.~F~ ~ F•, _
. ~
1 '
- i}~L~ •~7
- _4.l.~~ _ ~'M 3,'~: ~
~.51
' ~ a • ~ ' I
~ , ~ .g. , t ~ i, ~ i
~ .l.~~• -~i,
b . 1L" _ b -J: a-.~'y. ~u.:~~ ._t''•.1fi-
' J ~.-_T"tr. . ~ I ~ J 4..~ ~
n ~ L .~r____^-, , F . ~ . ~ L ~ ~~f ~ _ ~ ~ ' ~ L~1 ~ i~~='j ~rs'yr. ~ ` { .~•„i `
.
, j ~ f:''~''~r,•', ~
Y•;~~.:...'..~~~ y y• 1Gr~ ~I~., `-;1 ~~r~.~_ ~~,~"'I'~*'_I~
y ~
0 1-10 Dwelling Units Per Acre
` - r.unu-n Ci*.y Limfts O
i Frcposed Urban Cr•F 3ourda-r
~ ~
. ~
~ 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
diversiry of populations and incomes could generate a strong business and service base in th downtown core.
~~1 ~ I 1~ ~ i ~ c. ' _ .
C'
M~
147
~i-- - ' IrT-
~Uolk
~ ~ _ ~ , ~f~!=
u~7~
, -i.._. ~ , I_ : ~ .1 ' i.,. _
i~ • I _ 't _ ~ i _ _
~ • - ' ~ - , ~ `l.
. ~111 r . Ir~l~' ±_[.^--rr _~~2`~ ' .r~ ~J:• ti_
~ ~r _ ~~r^ ~JiC~i~4~~..,,-~•` ~ } ~
~
. . • --o' ~ ~~-.-~.~$t y .
~~~~•~ll.l
.y •_'tr4' tt-.; A ~ ~ r-`t` T
~~Fi•~
T ~
--f-
1
~-r
~ ~y r r
d'-
~ _ rwt i`
_ ~Y331 ~i.'~4'}:. ,j_=y_d ~ ~L'~ i~ ....F.a~.. =7r~--lt~e5~ ~-t.~ ~ ,
~ i ~ "'Y`~~ r~~~. ~ °^.ar ~ 1 . . -..1~5' L~F _.~~r.~`3at~~U 1~ .
1 - ~ ri ~S«'`~ -+--~~r.r+
'T.,.+7_-'~
. ~ I'-~i' ~f•,~I-~~~ 1-~•~
~r's..r ' ~ ; ' ' . - f
. ~~4<T F~~ . - ~~f'~ti I ~
=r:,F
Z'
g
~I
>ri~~
aY
~~t
i 11;:.,•;:G. ~ _ ti~g ` i . i,;i ' I ~ ' - I 77 `1-:.il _
~ e ! . ~ r~ . . . S I 1 i j'---~ ~ rri-►~F"~i~ ti - r . ~ e ~ _ "
~ 20 - 40 Dwellirng Units P2r Acre
,4uburn Ci?y Lirnits
i~ i P*oposea U-ban Care Boundary
-J
South of Downtown 0
Map B. The area south of center near the industrial area was targeted for higher densities. 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 rail and major roadways such as Highways 18 and 164.
T J ' J' ~ ' I d• • ~ ~ ' ~ . ~ g . ~ , T
^ t~'T^~~Tl^
1•, F-Sr-r'+-'.T~r-=:,:
_ ~ ~ , ; -r• r~ ~Yt t
~ ; ; _ _ ' _ ~ - ~ • •a r
4
t r,
; r-""`, a-~~_
' 6 ~ ~ ~ . a.
"k -s--~ ~r. ~ _ . _ - . + ~ ~ . 1 ~ ..r'• -!_°_7.
J
. r~' ` _ . . ~~~~i.` _f'''~ L~
.s.~' -t k 7~.. _ 7 r I~b
• ' / 2 ~ J ~ r:+~} y, n/~' 1r
' -•..s.4y'T/~ `at,y ~ !1 ~ r~ ~r~ ' .1 ~ 5 _r~' , ~
--yr LIA tz ~ ~
. y~{I.~
~,17_~}~_ I=], ~ i T JIf~ 1 ~S
.~W~ JI~.~" L_l•~
:J'~Er~r,.~i
~ ~ ~ ~ '=5 ;,.-c~ L~'
c4~ -
. r 1
4~:~~~, ` ~ ~
•'~~r ~ ~ Y ,-~'-a
_
r
- _ ~ - . _ _ _ - • . . . _ :----,Yi.--_ . " _ ~ . 5;,~
~ ~ ' I/ j.-i *,~,tt~,~R.,1,~~u- ~`I'}I 'J'
'-a
4`'i ' ..`1.`~, ~ J Fr'~~• .~lti ]J~I P,
. L ~ t-_r r ~ .I t
• ~ M ; T
- j ~ ' ~ F :'°a~ , ,ti'' ~ •
~ ' - ~ ~ a ~ • f ,
I
L.~
~ r~~}~~ ! ~ ~~~Jpj 1'~ _ ~ '-~...~_~..+w
~.y.r A y/9--„~.nyi~.``a~.. l i~ lt~'a'r. 1 ~~•.i.~~ 4
~i'i
~ 1 i • ! ~r-=~ ~ r-,:; ~r-.,~ . , a , - . -
0 40+ Dwelfing Units PerAcre
:,ubum Gi:y Limits ~
Propcsea U-ban Core Bocncary
. ~
(-'GUIDING PRINCIPLE THREE:
PROVIDE FOR AND SUPPORT ECONOMIC GROWTH IN AUBURN
A strong economy and workforce in the city supports vibrant city life. By ensuring a diversity of economic strengths,
including bringing businesses in to create new jobs as well as supporting existing, local businesses in the city provide for
a sustainable cycle of economic prosperity in the city for the future.
Sub Principle 3.1
Preserve, Support, and Enhance existing economic 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 Puget Sound region.
Sub Principle 3.2
Explore new opportunities for economic development.
1. Identify the missing retail and service locations for future residential growth.
2. Encourage manufacturing opportunities throughout the urban core that are compatible with existing uses in
Auburn.
3. Promote mixed-use that benefits economic development in the new Urban Core through targeted shopping and
entertainment districts.
C
Sub Principle 3.3
Identify the areas of the Regional Hospital, Environmental Park and Airport for future growth possibilities.
1. 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. 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 commercial and mixed-use zone.
C
GUIDING FRTNCIPI.E FOUR: ~
PROVIDE A VARIETY OF CONNECTIVITY CHOICES
The city needs to develop permanent routes through the municipality that can adapt easily to new methods of
transportation that is energy efficient, easy to use, and adaptable for future methods that might not be developed or
affordable yet.
Sub Principle 4.3
Create walkable and connected neighborhoods to and from the Urban Core.
1. Widen 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 Auburn destinations that are easy to use through multi-modal methods
(pedestrian, bike, car, bus, streetcar).
1. Develop strategic plan for easy multi 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 incorporateO
public art and architecture into the cityscape.
Sub Principle 4.2
Connect city to larger regional destinations.
1. Create an easy connection to Seattle and Tacoma on rail
Sub Principle 4.4
Identify concentrated parking areas in the Urban Core.
1. Reduce on street parking 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 reducing vehicle miles travelled and
requires less parking. This graph shows Auburns typical commuting patterns,
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
' Drove a car alone: 13,800 (73°%)
Carpooled: 2,873 (15°ro) O
\ r.o
Bus or trolley bus: 931 (51.)
' Taxi: 7 (0%)
' Motorcycle: 6 (0%)
' Bicycle: 95 (1°;b)
- ` Walked: 566 (31%)
~ 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 Architects)
lViiAF 15 A GREAT SiREET FJR UEOESTEclANS?
•.:ini
i:• ~ -
. . ,_~r,n ~ ~ . , ~ . . ~ - . . ~ ,
..1 .~A . . . I
. a..~ . . ~ ~ r. . ~ . . ,
~ . ~iiA,
. . ~ , I
I
~..~1 ._ui.: . ~ . . . .
e, , . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . , . ~ ~ . . . . ~ I I
C
Planning for proximity creates a more vibrant core, especially when streets are marked as main thoroughfares, and way ~
finding is made easy for both visitors and residents alike (image courtesy of Gehl Architects)
~
.u ,
destinations
~
~ a
,
`unctions
Intuitive way-finding makes for better pedestrian use and bike/walkability, which in turn results
in more vibrant economic activity in the urban core (images courtesy of Gehl Architects)
r ~ .
_ - ~
r ~ 1
,
~
O
C'GUIDING PRINCIPLE FIVE:
EXPAND, PROTECT AND ENHANCE CITY OPEN SPACE
Auburn is home to excellent city parks such as Les Gove, Auburn Game Farm, Mary Olson Park, Environmental Park and
others. While maintaining these valuable resources, a focus on appropriating unused space for `pockeY' parks, tree-lined
boulevards and walkable streets in the Urban Core area can add more open, public space for new residents in the core. A
diversity of parks built for a diversity of ages and rnterests can add to the vision of Auburns future opens space.
Sub Principle 5.1
Provide the Urban Core with a centrally located urban civic park and smaller parks (play parks, dog parks, pocket
parks) within the newly identified boundaries.
Sub Principle 52
Provide additional parks/places, green corridors 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 districts for `learning' gardens, parks and green space of schools
to be used during off hours and provide space for urban living for children and adults
3. Partner with school districts on projects for creative uses such as arts schools, pea patches, accessible
and public uses. Such as play, learning, 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,
exercise and usable for all ages and accessible by all.
c
Sub Principle 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 from parks
2. Identify community garden locations and pea patches
3. Identify and use existing parking strips as green spaces for streets
4. Provide lighting that allows safe passage through parks at night
C
City Open Space O
Map 9. As the city grows in population, more diverse types of parks will be needed. Improved `green' streetways for walking, green
boulevards, urban parks, pocket parks and infill parks, bike paths and other types of open space are critical for the success of a livable
city. These maps represent UCTF exercises implementing the suggested amount of "green° or "open" space for 50,000 people in
the city. Environmental Park, while outside the new core, was highlighted as a major destination and opportunity for the city, as were
present and new school locations with learning, growing greenspace for all ages.
_
r~ 7-~`
.17
11 , A r„ - . j' i - i, ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ri~ C*--a-.- • ~ . , i
~ ~ - ~ ~~~~~~~,~~i,-~!
t
ti'. i ~
L~'.'..
fi
4
, yS _ ~ - ; - , ~ ~ _ j y ~ ~•~--~7---1"~' ~ _ I ~ -t ~
H"' ' _ + t'• I
r4 • '~i~ . ~
7~-
~
~ _ ' .y..~..:
. I r 'T Z7-
~ - ' t - ~ ;~1~ NJ~'~
at p,~^_=
t=J ~ H ~ r ~ ~ ~ r
I
I ¢ y ~ .
7~_
, y~y I__ ~ j~_ ~~V-~~J~'l.~~l.~~' f•~.~: ~~M~-'Yy~i.'~~i ..-I
~ - - -
1:._r., yr~~ r-~
1 ..~z, .7yf+
~ . . - -h ~ • , ~ / r ~ i
/
~ ~.~j
'R ~^tt" ~4(
~ 5+ C7~i: `'i
~ d •Y~ r • , ' I ~ f-n ' ` ~1 C-~I+_' ' ~ . . :i
w
~ tiy~ 1
~r`l~ ~
-
`
~a i ~a-`-~,-.. J- ~ _ ( _ • ' , ~
~i,-!~, • ~ _
At-~
7
! ' I i• j ~ ' _ _ ~ . ;S ~ ~ ,'~k~~ir-.. _ . - ~ p,.'ff 1
C-~ ~ r1 ~ I ~ ~ ~ F~.~ F-~`{~ ~ ? .
~'i.-. ~l L.1~~ , =.~F~, _ • ~~~.~i..~{~+~'~~'t~ i`
1
_ ' )
; ,.w-
,~1_::
~
,7
Small Urban Pocket Parks
C A pocket park is a small outdoor space, usually no more than 1/4 of an acre, most often located in an urban area
that is surrounded by commercial buildings or houses on small lots, with no places for people to gather, relax, or to
enjoy the outdoors. There is no set design for a pocket 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 core. See Index for more information. :wl~V ~.I'~=e,• .'S _,-+~c.` ~ ~ ~
r ,,r ~Ilili~i I
/
1 ti
f
- y' - '
~
~ I a
x-
.
Appropriating leftover
space and filling with
small places to sit,
C • - . . ~
-1~
. ~ ' ~
stand, talk, play, eat or
,
gather could connect _
s• ~
walking routes and a. - ~ ~ ' ~
provide nearby outdoor _ _ - .
public space. ~
h.~
Waterplay at parks and
a variety of seating
arrangements provides
for people of all ages.
. ~ ' ' .
~ ~ ~ •
w ~ ~ •'ti;
. • ~~~~t~. ~~f1lf - _ - r~_ a*~ 1~
! Tt
Vv,'
41
A AFOJ W
. O
GUIDING PRINCIPLE SIX.
ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENTAL PRACTICES THAT LESSEN THE IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT AND ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
Sustainable development is the future, and one that has a critical impact on our natural resources such as rivers and
watersheds, air quality, food production and waste treatment. By investing in infrastructure and services now, we can see
both economic and environmental benefits in the city. Regulations that create "green" standards through building codes,
recycling and waste reduction, on site storm water retention and other sustainable initratives create cycles of renewal that
are both environmentally and economically beneficral.
Sub Principle 6.1
Encourage development 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 containers.
3. Provide Education program through schools to promote "green" education
Sub Principle 6.2
Provide multiple opportunities for fuel-efficient cars; ease of transportation connections such as pedestrian-bus- ~
train; and easy, safe and enjoyable bike
and walking paths to lessen the need for automobile transportation between shorter distances.
1. More bike routes and racks through city
Sub Principle 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 containers for collecting storm water for
recycling a percentage of water, watering landscape and/or provide onsite water retention.
~
s
PAR"T `I'HREE: Al'1'EI\1DIX
a i
AI'1'ENDIX A
Letter from Mayor Peter Lewis
` CIT-i OF
Peter B. Lewis, (1Acryor
WAS H I N GTON 25~est Mafn Street * Aubum WA 98001-4998 ~ www.aubumwo.eov * 253-931-3000
January 12, 2010
Re: Auburn Downtown/City Vision Task Force
Dear.
You have been nominated by the Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce and the Auburn
Downtown Association to be a member of the Auburn 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 Auburn Arterial
Streets Task Force, will bring together a broad based set of interests, experiences and
knowledge. The Task Force will develop ideas and recommendations for downtown
Auburn and potentially other key areas of the City for the Auburn City Council to
consider and potentially take action on at a future date.
The Auburn Downtown/City Vision Task Force will assist the Auburn City Council in
planning for the 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 Auburn City Council request that its efforts
include the creation of an updated vision for powntown Auburn 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 ofland uses, business retention and recruitment strategies and potential
regulation changes.
I anticipate that the Downtown/City Vision Task Force's work 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 20th meeting. At this
same meeting, the members will be asked to give input 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 Auburn Downtown/City Vision Task Force is Wednesday,
January 20, 2010 from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The meeting will be field in the City
Council Chambers on the 1't floor of Auburn City Flall, 25 West Main Street,
Auburn, WA 98001.
AU$tMN*MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
. ,
. Al'PE1vI)IX 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.
Auburn City Hall
1 St Floor - City Council Chamber
25 West Main Street
Aubum, WA 98001
1. Welcome and Introductions (10 minutes)
II. Selection of Chairperson & Vice-Chairperson (5 minutes)
III. Discussion of Future Meeting Dates and Times (10 minutes)
IV. Presentation by City of Auburn Staff on Past & Present Planning Efforts for
Downtown & City (20 minutes)'`
V. Discussion of Task Force Mission (40 minutes)*
VI. Input & Direction on Professional Facilitafor (30 minutes)'`
VIL Meeting Wrap-Up (5 minutes)
VIII. Adjourn
Agenda items that are starred have written information items associated with them that will be
distributed prior to or at the meeting
. ,
Final Urban Core Tasic Force Membership
March 2010
Name anizafion EmaiUPhone
1 Windermere Real ncolsonCcD-windermere.com
Nanc Colson Estate Realtor 253-670-1191
2 Northwestem nfscorpCcD-aol.com
Cam Cutler Financial Services 253-931-8008
3 Director of
Franchising & terrv davisCcD-cable.comcast.net.
Terry Davis Comcast Governmental Affairs 253-288-7496
4 SuperMall of the Qfleser(a)ctlimcher.com
Gre Fleser Great Northwest General Mana er 253-833-1790
5 NW Corporate Real President & nwcreiCa~nventure.com
Steve Harris Estate, Inc. Desi nated Broker 253-852-5800
6 Aubum Downtown kathleen(c)dtaubum.ora.
Kathleen Keator Association Executive Director 253-939-3982
7 Senior Employment
Trillium Employment Consultant/Program janice .trillium.orQ
Janice Nelson Services S ecialist 253-735-'1553
8 nelsonsiewlervandQifts(&-hotmail.com
Ken Nelson Nelson's Jewel Owner 253-833-3580
9 Vice-
President/Auburn moosterink(&-columbiabank.com
Michele Oosterink Columbia Bank Branch Mana er 253-288-1751
10 ron .QOSankochocolate:com
Ronnie Roberts Gosanko Chocolate Owner 253-333-7567
11 wav(cD-scarff-ford.com
Wa Scarff Scarff Ford President 253-833-1500
12 cfiranke1230-Qmail.com
Gail S urrell Citizen Citizen 253-833-0700
13 Auburn Area Chamber PresidentlChief nancvCci)auburnareawa.org
Nanc W att ofi Commerce O eratin Officer 253-833-0700
14 Auburn Downtown jsaelidCa~comcast:net
Jack Saelid Association Vice-President 253-931-8120
15 wjavthorp(aD-comcast.net
Ja Tho e One Main Buildin Property Mana er 253-350-9273
16 vukshich(cD-earthlink.com
Branka Vukshich Citizen Citizen
17 mlcinc06CaD-comcast.net
Mike Clark Citizen Citizen
18 tomCaD-alobaltechnlastics.com
Tom Fleck Global Tech Plastics
19 dawnheilbrun(a),eomcast.net
Dawn Heilbrun
20 karen.graham(cD-multicare.org
Karen Graham Multicare
21 Pat Bailey Aubum Regional Assistant pat.bailevCaD-uhsinc:com
interim Medical Center Administrator
22 Sarah Hansen Keimi and sarahlhansen mail.com
k •
Associates
23 Assistant Vice wacunaCcD-plazabankwa:com
Walter Acuna Plaza Bank President
24 valhollvCcD-hotmail.com
Val Erikson Observer Citizen 253-939-8043
25 krmCcD-u.wasliiogton.edu
Kath n Merlino Task Force Facilitator 206-355-1261
Ci Staff Su ort to Task Force
.._Name . . _ : , : . ;Or anization : Trtle.: :EmaiUPhone_._
26 Kevin Snyder City of Aubum, Interim Director ksndver(aD-auburnwa.ctov
Planning & 253-876-1982
Development
De artment
27 Elizabeth City of Aubum, Principal Planner echamberlainCa)aubumwa.qov
Chamberlain Planning & 253-931-3092
Development
De artment
28 Dennis Selle City of Aubum, Public City Engineer dselleCaDaubumwa.aov
Works De artment 253-804-5077
Version 6.
March 3, 2010
Page 2
. ,
C[TY OF_
URBAN CORE TASK FORCE
)WASHINGTON JAIVUARY 20, 2010
MEETING SUMIVIARY
1. CALL TO ORDER - 3:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting began at 3:00p.m. in the Couneil Chambers located on the first floor ofiAuburn
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 Principal 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 the Vice-Chair.
C. Discussion of Future Meeting 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 past and present planning efforts
for powntown and the City. Reviewed were the finro 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 Auburn 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 Park, 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 Meetina Summarv Januacv 20, 2010
E. Discussion of Task Force Mission
The task force began their discussion of a mission statement and started asking
themselves several questions:
e What are the boundaries of Downtown?
• Is the current airport location at 15th Street NE the right location?
• Should there be retail on South 277th Street?
o How do we get connectivity between different districts of the City?
o What is the vision of the urban center?
The discussion continued along the following themes:
• Downtown Aubum "blends" throughout the City
• Look at attributes/amenities of different areas of the City
• Distinct districts make-up Aubum, market those districts
0 Specific marketing - guides/website
• Beneficial to have medical/hospital in the community
a Urban Core task force - look at elements in urban area and how it connects
with the rest of the City
m Look at the current retail/residential mixes
a Look at the "character" and what want to present to community
During this discussion, the task force decided to rename themselves from Downtown/Gity
Visions Task Force to the Urban Core Task Force.
III. ADJOUl2NMENT
There being no further business the Urban Core Task Force meeting ended at 5:00 pm,
Submitted By: Elizabeth Chamberlain
Page 2 of 2
a Urban Core Task Force
n
e
February 16, 2010
2:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
One Main Building
2"d Floor - Annex Room 211
One East Main Street
Aubum, WA 98001
Agenda Topics:
2:00-2:10 Introductions of Task Force Members
2:10-2:40 Facilitator Discussion
■ Establish how Facilitator and Task
Force Work Together
■ Definition of Consensus
■ Establish ground rules
2:40-3:00 Review January 20, 2010 Meefing Summary
3:00-3:20 Formulate a Mission Statement
3:20,3:45 Identify Barriers within Downtown and Beyond
3:45-4:00 Meeting Wrap-up
4:00 Adjoum
. •
ACITY Fft,64 URB~►N CORE TASK FORCE
WASHINGTON FEBRUARY 16, 2010
IVIEETING SUMMARY
1. CALL TO ORDER - 2:00 PM, ANNEX ROOM 211
Meeting began at 2:00p.m. in the Annex Room 211 located on the second floor of One
Main Building, 1 East Main Streef, Aubum, WA. Task Force Members present were:
Chair Terry Davis, Vice Chair Gail Spurell, Greg Fleser, Kathleen Keator, Janice Nelson,
Ronnie Roberts, Way Scarff, Nancy Colson, Steve Harris, Cam Cutler, Michele
Oosterink, Branka Vukshich, Dawn Heibrun, Jay Thorpe, Tom F/eck, Nancy Wyatt, Jack
I Saelid, Va/ Erikson, Ken Nelson, and Kathryn Merlino.
Staff present included: lnterim Director Kevin Snyder and Principal P/anner Elizabeth
Chamberlain
II. MEETING
Mission Statement Draft 2.18.2010
Creating a pedestrian friendly, green, vibrant urban core with proximity to multiple
activities and destinations. This destination downtown core should be easily accessible
by a clear network of vehicle 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 destinations: Gear system to link: which are most important?
Emerald Downs
Supermall
Mary Olson Farm
Parks
PerfoRning Arts/ High School
River Parks
Connect with bike paths
3. Consider what we can taekle 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 aser friendly.
5. Way finding system clear
Page 1 of 2
. .
Urban Core Task Force ANeetina Summarv Februarv 16, 2010
6. Need a civic center to bring people downtown. Urban Park.
7. Quick Wins:
Bus stops
ReGaim Space (skate park, etc)
Transform space for temporary uses (kids activities, etc.)
Activate Facades
Paint textures/sidewalks
Page 2 of 2
r • ~ ~y
N/%r-A,.~ ~ R t%-J CT, -T- (C:~D t*--j
URBAIV CORE TASK FORCE
"Creating a vibrant, green, walkable urban core with connections to multiple activities and
destinations in Auburn."
March 16, 2009 2:00-4:00 PM
Ucban 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
Facilitatoc: Kathryn R. Merlino
City of Auburn 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 Connection Exercise'
3:00 Groups break off for B&C Exercise
3c30 Groups present results
3:50 Wrap up and conclusion
[City of Auburn Urban Core Task Force 20101
~ • '
CITY OF * *
URBAIV CORE TASaC FORCE
WASHINGTON MARCH 16, 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, Ronnie
Roberts, Nancy Colson, Steve Harris, Michele Oosterink, Branka Vukshich, Dawn
Heibrun, Jay Thorpe, Nancy Wyatt, Ken Nelson, Sarah Hansen, Mike Clark, Walter
Acuna, Pat Bailey, and Kathryn Merlino.
Staff present included: Interim Direcfor Kevin Snyder and Principat Planner Elizabeth
Chamberlain
Absent Excused: Way Scarff, Tom Fleck
Absent Unexcused: Cam Cutler, Jack Saelid
11. AGENDA
Introductions of Task Force Members and Facilitator, Kathryn Merlino, 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.
Pcesentation bv Kathrvn Merlino
Kathryn presented a PowerPoint presentation to get the group thinking about different
concepts. Kathryn posed questions to the group; whaf are the boundaries? What are
the connections? 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 will
come.
One of the goals today is how to make the city legible; intuitive way-finding; public
space, etc. Another point to think about is Density vs. Proximity/Intensification and
understanding the difference. Density is having a lot of people in one spot and proximiiy
to the uses (easy to find food, shopping, activities).
Page 1 of 3
• •
Urban Core Task Force Meetin9 Summarv March 16. 2010
Boundary 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 also to take on a role of another person (e.g. a single 30 year old
female) and how that person would use the destinations identified.
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
• Connections: C Street (Booth Bridge), Interurban Trail
• Improvements: Healthy restaurants, cooking lessons, live music, haunted
house
2. Les Gove (walking, biking, bus, ear, parents)
• Uses: senior/youth, libra_ry, museum, church, camp, waterpark, City
functions, special events, senior center, bocce ball, new community center,
festivals
• Connections: Auburn Way South (car/bus), F Street to Main Street
3. Muckleshoot Casino (car, bus)
• Uses: gambling
• Connections: Aubum Way South
4. Golf Course and Mary Olson Farm (walking, car, bus, golf, dining)
0 Uses: Tourism, education, golf, walking from Isaac Evans Park, trail that
circles park, dining
• Connections: A Street, M Street, Main
0 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 River Community College
• Uses: classes, theatre/events, speakers, lectures, library, evening workforce
and youth classes
• Connections: Aubum Way to e Street, bus, car, biking for the strong
. • Improvements: career path information, 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
Page 2 of 3
. ,
Urban Core Task Force Meetina Summarv March 16. 2010
8. Lakeland Hills (car, commuter bus)
• Heaith services, maybe more, park, shopping, eating
• Improvements: taxi service as future possiblity
Next Meetina
Mapping exercise of the downtown core and destinations within the urban core and what
are the natural boundaries.
III. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the Urban Core Task Force rneeting ended at 4:00 pm.
Submitted By: Elizabeth Chamberlain
Page 3 of 3
. • ~
_
~ _'~r C)> 1F
NA/A, s 1__ff. -Il_ T._J C73 __T' CD) I*ft-i
CITY VISiON TASK FORCE
"Creating a Vibrant, green, walkab/e urban core with connections to mu/tiple activities and
destinafions 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.
I. BOUNDARIES AND DESTINATIONS (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 city you can envision with priority connectionsto the downtown core. On your post it note, write
down the name of the destination and the activities that occur 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 yourmaps in yellow.
II. 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 are some examples of characters (do not choose yourself!): Middle aged car sales rep, High .
Sehool male basketball player, 32 year old female Aubum City Employee, Downtown 55 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 theircharacter
assumptions.
2. Select:a post-it note colorfor your group/characters.
a.lNrite 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 activity will
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 ¢haracter 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 fo make one base mao, 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 foreach
character. (10) minutes.
Groups then will present some of their results 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 VisionTask Force 2010]
C:D F
,
. _ .
. .
.
. . ~
. _ . . y
~
~ NAV-.A-~ 1P%*J C7u -1[7 CD) t--,l
CITY VISION TASi( FORCE
"Creoting a vibrant, green, walkable urbon core with connections to mu/tip/e activities and
destinations in Aubucn."
[City of Auburn City Vision Task Force 2010]
. ~
C~) IF
~
J,~..
~ 1--11 T%4 4C--; -r ~
URBAN CORE TASK FORCE
"Creating a vibrant, green, walkable urban core with connections to multiple octivities and
destinations in Auburn."
April 20, 2010
2:00-4:00 PM
Urban Core Task Force Meeting
Chair: Terry Davis
Co Chair: Gail Spurrell
Facilitator: Kathryn R. Merlino
City of Auburn Staff: Elizabeth Chamberlain, Kevin Snyder
Meeting Agenda:
2:00 Review of Boundary/Connection results.
2:15
Discussion of urban core boundaries: '
• What physical boundaries naturally define the urban core?
• What culrura/ boundaries divide the urban core?
• Where should 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 results
[City of Auburn Urban Core Task Force 2010]
•
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, Auburn, WA. Task Force Members present were: Chair Terry
Davis, Vice Chair Gail Spurell, Greg Fleser, Kathleen Keator, Janice Nelson, Ken
Nelson, 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 Chamberlain
Absent Excused: Way Scarff, Tom Fleck, Pat Bailey
Absent Unexcused: Walter Acuna
11. AGENDA
• Connections to Golf Course with pedestrian bridges across river, better access
for vehicles
• Better connection between the golf course and Mary Olson Farm.
• Driving ran~qe at golf course
• Extend 22" Ave NE across the river
• Connection to Robertson Property Group/Valley 6
• Emerald Downs/Airport Region - how expand uses at airport; move entrance
right off of 15th Street 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/reereational area, bettec trail connection (White River Trail)
• Lakeland Hills - link the ICON/Segale property with Lakeland as future
development area once prope►ty is reclaimed; health services, bus routes,
expand retail at Lakeland Town Center, improve Easf Valley Highway.
Urban Core Boundaries
Where physical boundaries naturally define urban oore? 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 coRect.
North -15t' Street NW
South -12" Street SE
East - M Street SE
West - Union Pacific RR
What cultural boundaries that divide urban core?
• Indusfrial uses within boundary identified above that would have to transifion to
new locations (Terry)
• 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 wrindow shop
Page 1 of 2
M •
Urban Core Task Force Meetina Summarv Aoril 20. 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
.
~
_
. , .
,
, , ,
. , r._ . .
-
~
s a--a ff. ~ ~ ~ <C:)) r*---j
UR6AN CORE TASK FORCE
"Creoting o vibrant, green, walkable urban core with connections to multiple activities and
descinations in Auburn."
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 final report.
b. Discussion of developing principle sub-committees.
c. Print and presentation format
3. Urban Core boundary discussion and decision.
4. Other issues presented.
ff'itv nf Auhum Urhan C'nrP Tack Fnrca 7(11(11
. •
DRi4FT
URBAN CORE TASK FORCE
~•<;~.f '•,;:ft;, ~ r.-.,:
May 18, 2010
MEETING SUMMARY
1. CALL TO ORDER - 2:00 PM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting began afi 2:00p.m. in the Council Chambers located on the first floor of City Hall,
25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA. Task Force Members present were: ChairTerry
Davis, Vice Chair Gail Spurell, Greg Fleser, Kathleen Keator, Janice Nelson, Ronnie
Roberts, Nancy Colson, Michele Oosterink, Dawn Heibrun, Lymaris Herrera, Sarah
Hansen, Mike Clark, Way Scarff, and Kathryn Merlino.
Staff present included: Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain
Absent: Nancy Wyatt, Steve Harris, Cam Culter, Ken Nelson, Branka Vukshich, Pat
Bailey, and Walter Acuna
II. AGENDA
Mavor Lewis
The Mayor attended the task force to discuss with the group that their work is visionary
and the input is looking ouf 30-40 years out when Puget Sound has 1.6 million people
and Auburn has 100,000 people and this population focused downtown; how as
community will we handle that?
Also discussed were the existing 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 Sehedule
o Move July 20th meeting to July 13t'; same time 2-4 pm but likely in the One Main
Building
• Reviewed the draft guiding principles; made modffications based on discussions.
The revised document will be provided to the task force at the June meeting.
Urban Core Boundaries - discussion and decision
• Discuss at next meeting.
Next Meetinq
• Mapping exercise of density (FAR) and open spaces.
111. 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
i~.. ay3.:A. ~-..c....,. ~`i..:JJ'"~"r~~►
'K...~~ ~ "
~ ~ 4 , .
~Kr~.~~'='"' _ ' . yt .
~'~~.~'~a► I--3_ ~ ~t...,:~-~T' ~`J
URBAN CORE TASK FORCE
"Crearing a vibrani, green, walkoble urban core with mnnections 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
Facilitatorc Kathryn R. Merlino
City of Auburn Staff: Elizabeth Chamberlain, Kevin Snyder
Meeting Agenda
Action Items:
1. Review and Approve Guiding Principles, 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: Defiinitions and results (20 minutes)
2. Density profile exercise (40 minutes)
Reminder that the NEXT meeting is schedule at 2pm on Ju/y 13, 2010
[City of Auburn Urban Core Task Force 2010]
. •
~ -
-~r.~--
URBAIV CORE TASK FORCE
°Creqting a vibrant, green, wa/kable urban core with connections to multip/e activities and
destinations in Auburn. "
July 13, 2010
1:30-3:30 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 out for final approval.
Meeting Items:
1. Density definition review 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]
,
-
_
-.,y``-'-`'~"
URBAIV CORE TASK FORCE
"Credting a vibrant, green, wa/kable urban core with connections to multiple activities and
destinaiions in Auburn. "
August 17, 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
Review Items:
1. Review compiled 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. Environmental Park: Opportunities and Vision (20 minutes)
C. les Gove Park: Distinct characteristics and vision (15 minutes)
D. Open Space charrette: Streets, small and pocket parks (20 minutes)
3. Assignment: Guiding Principles Four-Six for next week.
[City of Auburn Urban Core Task Force 2010]
. •
(C-- .T.-IF"Ir C>Y
_
~ -
~ ,
~ - _
N^*/AS H I N G T G.LeT
URBAN CORE TASK FORCE
"Creating a vibrant, green, walkable urban core with connections to multiple activities and
destinations in Auburn."
August 17, 2010
Open Space Vision Exercise
Provide opportunities for outdoor recreation: playing, resting, eating and drinking;
Provide contrasts fo the buiit environmenf;
Preserve scenic qualities of the city;
Provide forums for public events and gatherings;
Protect sensitive or fragile environmental areas;
Preserve the capacity and water quality of the stocmwaterdrainage system; and
Provide pedestrian and bicycle transportation connections.
Provide community connections and strengthen neighbofioods.
Open Space / Park Types
Urban Parks
Neighborhood Parks, Commons
Pocket Park
Multi-use/Hybrid Urban parks
Children's play areas, playgcounds
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
Resenroirs
School Grounds
College Campus
Hospital Grounds
Retirement Homes
[City of Auburn Urban Core Task Force 2010]
-4c. '
C.II-E7 -%r C3> F -0-
. - -
_
-
.
: -
~ ro f _
.
.
, . .
- - - - ~
NA7A s 17~1 1 N C7,r
~ URBAN CORE TASK FORCE
"Creating a vibrant, green, wolkoble urban core with connections ro multiple activiries and
destinotions in Auburn."
Streets and Trails
Pedestrian only streets
Traffic-restricted Streets (woonerf, transit malls)
Pedestrian/bicycle priority streets
Parkways and Boulevards
Multi-modal corridor
Bike/Pedestrian, Trail
Widened Sidewalks and Cafes
Comdors
Celebrated intersections
Structures
Rooftop gardens (and balconies)
Atriums, greenhouses, arcades
Green walis, green sfructure
Community gathering and learning
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 ptoposed 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 20101
~
, •
-
_ _ - ~ - - -
~
_"%~_A, S 1=11 N C3 "IF <:3 t--.J
URBAIV CORE TASK FORCE
"Creating a vibrant, green, walkable urbnn core with connections to multiple activities ond
destinations in Auburn."
• 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
• Connections: Auburn 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
arcles park, dining
• Connections: 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), 15th Street P&R
(bus)
• Improvements: horse riding lessons, children, wifi, live music, restaurants,
lengthen runway
6. Green River Community College
• Uses: classes, theatre%vents, speakers, lectures, library, evening
workforce and youth Gasses
• Connections: Aubum Way to 8th Street, bus, car, biking for the strong
• Improvements: career path information, 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)
• Health services, maybe more, park, shopping, eating
• Improvements: faxi service as future possiblify
[City of Auburn Urban Core Task Force 2010]
- _ - _ _ ~ _ _
,
URBAIV CORE TASK FORCE
' °Creating o vibrant, green, walkable urban core with connections to muliiple activities and
destinarions in Auburn."
August 17. 2010
Urban Core Task Force Upcoming Schedule
Tasks in preparation for September 21 meeting:
Merlino:
1. Compile draft report ofUrban Core Vision in graphic and written form and distribute by
September 1.
2. Write expanded drqft Guiding Principles narrative as submitted by Task Force members
and distribute for discussion one week prior to September meeting.
Task Force:
1. Email Guiding Principle addendums 3-6 by September 5, review revised list prior to
meeting for vote.
2: Review draft report of Urban Core Vision as sent by Merlino for September 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 (pdf)
Meeting notes (any meeting, pdf/word)
March presentation on Livable Cities (pdf)
April handout on proximity/connections (pdfl
July presentation on Density (pdf)
Open space and park handouts (pdfl
Guiding Principles Draft (word)
Urban Core Task Force Boundary guidelines (pdf)
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 Principlesdraft.
[City of Auburn Urban Core Task Force 2010]
.
_
- -
~ - _ ; : -
~ ~ ` NNr1 ~ s 1-11 t.-i C_ IF
~URBAN CORE TASK FORCE
"Creating a vibrant, green, walkable urban core with connections to multiple activiries and
destinations in Auburn."
Discussion topics for further rneetings:
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. Auburn Identity: Is current slogan working with our vision? Auburn 2050 was discussed
earlier; a different context, for our Urban Core Task Force? Thoughts on visionary name that
capturesour ideas?
4. Review notes from February 16 from task members. Have we addressed all eoncerns,
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 Auburn Urban Core Task Force 20101
.
CITY OF
URBAN CORE TASK FORCE
)WASHINGTON October 19, 2010
MEETING 3UIIAMARY
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:
Staff present included: Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain
II. AGENDA
Presentation on the Aubum Airport 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
3'd busiest airport now 4"' by only 8,000 take offs/landings.
Reliever airport to Sea-Tac and Boeing Field; Payne field is 3`d and Auburn 4"'.
Currently has 277 based aircraft. Self supporting enterprise fund, no general fund
monies used. No longer classified as B-1 small but now a 13=1. Currently 3500 feet and
could use another 1,000 feet of runway to accommodafe 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 haye 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 invesfi 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 nanway
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
traditional mixed use of residential and retail/office.
Sub Principle 3.3
Identify the areas: Regional Hospital, Environmental Park, Transportation, and
Educational Communiiy
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 opportunifies 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 meeting is November 16th.
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
• .
*
CITY OF_ * *
URBAN CORE TASK FORCE
)WASHINGTON October 19, 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:
Staff present included: Planning Manager Elizabeth Chamberlain
II. AGENDA
Presentation on the Aubum Airuort and Future Plans
Jamelle Garcia attended the meeting to present to the Urban Core Task Force abouf the
Aubum Airport and future plans. A fact sheet was provided to the group. Used to be the
3'dbusiest airport now 4t' by only 8,000 take offs/landings.
Reliever airport to Sea-Tac and Boeing Field; Payne feld is 3'dand Aubum 4tn
CuRently has 277 based aircraft. Self supporting enterprise fand, no general fund
monies used. No longer classifled as B-1 small but now a B-1. Currently 3500 feet and
could use another 1,000 feet of runway to accommodate more planes.
How to address han9ers? Some han9ers 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 Auburn 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 nofification 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. Communicafe 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 exisfing 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
Educational 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. 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 meeting is November 16th.
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
.
i
APPENDIX C
Final Report from Mayor's Institute on City Design, Aug/Sept 2009
. .
Mayors' Institute on City Design [Alumni Technical Assistance Program]
Auburn, Washington 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
special funding provided by:
The Edward W. Rose III Family Fund of the Dallas Foundation
i
. i
..r~•~.r-+-,"' ' .ir .'{r,~ _ tf" •,a:-;'~
f
" ~ . . - • . . . r _ , "
Main Street, Auburn, Washington 2925
MICD Alumni Technical Assistance Program
Auburn, Washington
August 31-September z, Zoog
~
• .
Mayors' Instiwte on City Design [Alumni Technical Assistance Program]
Au6urn, Washington August 31 - September 2, 2009
Recommendations and Fnal Report
City of Aubum: Assets
The Resource team began their presentation to the City Council, Mayor and Stake Holder Group on
Wednesday morning. The team began by highlighting 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 mayor and staff
• Extensive park system
• Abundance of natural resources:
• river system, proximity of Mt. Rainier, scenic view corridors
• Sense of civic and cultural identity:
• 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-friendly scale
• abundant street plantings
• distinetive sidewalks
• variety of buildings and textures promote visual interest
Observations - Opportunities
Overall City Design and Planning
The desi9n team then listed a series of oPPortunities that shoutd be drawn from in the re9ional area
specifically to support the downtown catalyst areas. Many of these opportunities already are harnessed,
but the team felt that they should be improved and pulled from in a more distinct way. In addition,
cercain conneetions could be made between these areas to connect the greater assets together to
connect them to the downtown core of Auburn.
~ Hamess energyfrom satellite destinations: Supermall, Emerald Downs, Mary Olsen Farm,
Muckleshoot Casino, Crystal Mountain, White River Amphitheatre, Park System, Interurban
Bike System, White RiverTrail, and other park systems
2
Mayors' Institute on Ciry 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 team fett 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 andteam 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 ofa'destination' place or'destination
downtown'that had multiple amenities and pulled from the many assets surrounding the city.
Recommendations were to:
i. Hire urban design consultant to articulate urban design vision
2. 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 accessdowntown
to and from residerrtial areas and workplace
4. Design focused parking areas for easy access by visitors who visit satellite destinations around
Auburn yet retain street charader
5. Engage stakeholders for urban design vision
Urban Design Recommendations
i. Build upon existing and historic strengths: main street, historic street grid
2. Design with downtown main street pedestrian scale in mind; height, massing, scale and texture
to blend old Auburn with new Aubum through scale, massing, texture and appropriate
pedestrian uses.
3. Re-enforce the street grid, alley system, continuous street wall
4. Revisit ZooS storefront studio design guidelines to revitalize existing buildings and promote
cohesive planning
5. Celebrate your strengths downtown that exist already; historic storefronts, stores, buildings.
6. Create a central park that supports current 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
9. Make destination downtown a secondary stop on way to mall, race 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 trein, etc.
Create a pedestrian downtown destination with a variety of uses
Create a Vision for a larger "Destination Dowrrtown"
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 the historic aspect could bring cultural value, 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, focusing on:
3
r .
Mayors' lnstitute on City Design [Alumni Technical Assistance Program]
Auburn, Washington 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 life you want for downtown?
• What current strengths can you build upon?
Currently, the downtown core was very vehicle oriented with difficult way finding, abundarrt
parking, and little pedestrian incentive. To build on the uniquely scaled main street feel, the design
team suggested identifying and designing pedestrian zones for the downtown area, including:
i. Create places for invitation to walk, stay and play
z. Design crossings designed for people
3. Lights designed for maximum pedestrian ease day and night
4. Make it easy for people to move between destinations
5. Paved roadsslow vehiculartraffic heavy intersections such asAuburn Way
6. Consider creative public art to contribute to way-finding and marking systems
7. Mark Main Street as special by adding brick or textured 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. Concentrate 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 fordowntown (z hour) to keep
customer base actively turning over throughout day (and discourage employee parking)
4. Add plantings to paricing (ots and streets to add to buffer to pedestrians
Pedestrian space / consider eidsting alleys as pedestrian space
Other suggestions followed up on suggested ideas of playing with the history of the site on the river and
incorporating more play and park places into the site.
i. Build upon history of river + water
z. Places to sit and rest
3. Create visual interest and views
4. Places for play
A schematic design was presented that focused on all these suggestions, which highfighted a scaled
down version of the 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 off traffic from
transportation, the weekly market and the retail and arts area to the east (see presentation, enclosed).
4
. ~
APPENDIX D
Storefront Studio, University of Washington, Main Street Guidelines
~I l
L 4 ~ (
y
i ~
~ •~'1 ~ A'~ ~ l.e~+~ - " ~ ~
.Y ~ .
! - ~ ` •
- ~ ; ~ ' .ry ° ` o •
_ ~r ' ~I i a• j,l _ *y 'e ~
. '-t~ - . ~i. .~tr _ i~ .
~ . . ~1 . '.f . ~ ~ '^~'r~~• ~
~ ~ 1~<< , ~w t u
. .
.
~
t' '
lp
~
~e
J r
` . ~ ( C • - ~ . ' e
~ di r .~~1 . ~ i ' f
i ~ ~ ~ 1~ ' • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~
~ Yf~•~ ~fC" '~i - - ' e
~~✓i , F L J .
. ~
! 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
Aubum Downtown Association,the Auburn Area Chamber of Commerce and the King County Historic
Presenration 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 developrnenL They are proposed as a tool for the community to use to guide
historic building renovation, new cvnstruction 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 Aubum Department of Planning and
Community Development,the Auburn Downtown Association,the Aubum Area Chamber of Commerte
and the King County Office of Business Relations and Economic Development.
Pa by.
Pre red
~Storefront.Studio at.UW Departmentof Acctiitecture
iFor-the City of Aubum ~.m .1-:-
and
-ing County Office of Business Relations and;Economic Development:
~ , Histocic Pcesecvation 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 Architettural 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
71. 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
. .
.
The Main Street Setback
~ •r~x .
A. Existing
~ B. Allowable
. - -
C. Proposed
TIie.American.small town character of Nlain Street Auliurn has been Refecences:
' retained through a century of development This:has tesulted ih.the -Aubum Downtown Plan Design
;presenration ofthe pedestrian oriented:hittonc.streetscape. The rnassing ; Guidelines:5ection BD 1.1'
; relationship between-buildin.gs,the. street, and pedesicians plays a pivotaf -Nationai Park Service. Pceservation
role, in maintaining this srriall-town feel (A). To meet the demand far grief 11: Rehabilitating. Historic -linueased density(6), setbacks:should be;used above three floors ta ' Storefronts
►reserve the;pedestrian scale, dayligtit:aecess,:and, fiistocic character (Q that: -The Secretary of the' InfeTior's:
--:are unique assets to Downtown Aubucn. 5tandards for Rehabilitation and
Illustrated Guidelines forRebilitatin.g ;
. ; Historic Buildings
.
r
Main Street Land Use
~ .
-
3.
2.
iff
~
4.
1. OflE
1. Retail or Service uses oriented to the public shoutd occupy ail References:
storefronts an the ground floor levet of Main Street. -Aubum Downtown Plan Design
2. Residential or Office uses are encouraged on upper floors along Main Guidelines: Section SP 1.5
Street.
3.vsibility and outdoor access increase the connection between Main
Street and upper level occupants, promoting the safety of °eyes on the
~l~}reet.A
4. Residential entrances located on side street provide additional I'ife to
street.
. .
~ ~q• . .
3 - '
I _
~
Main StreetTo Retain Continuous StreetWall
.
. .
. A
u
s
u
. R ,
N
_ - ~
3.
i
,
1.Buildings,should be: oriented parallel to'lot lines with primary facades Referencesr
and pubiic entrances I'ocated on Main Street. -Aubu~n DowntownPlan.Design
.
2Buildingsthat:faceMainStreetshouldoceupythe- entire;firontageand `Guidelines:5ectionSP1.1,5P13,B_D7.7
maintain approxiinate alignment of horizontal arctiitectural features and BD1;.11
visible elements of adjacent'6uildings;,reinforcing continuity of'the Main -National Park 5ervice Preservation
Street'District. Briefs 17:Architectural Cfiaracter
I.Corner buildings should have specia) architectural,treatinents including -Seccetary of the-lnterior's Stand'ards
tucrets,.bay windowsaccentuated comices and historically precedented for Rehabilitation and`Illustrated
entrances. Guidelines for Retiilitating Mistoric.
. ,Buildings
_ o
- `r
Main StreetTo Retain One andTwo Story
~
Parapet Height
+,E +
i
'y.
4.
3.
2. '
1.
TM
Roof forms similar to those used hrstoncally should marntain the scate Referenoes:
and character ofthe historic Main Street (1), Flat roofs and parapets -Aubum Downtown Plan Design
screening a slightly sloped roof are appropriate (2). Comice and parapet Guidelines Section BD 1.10
wall treatments shoutd be incorporated into the facade design (3) with =National Park Service Preservation
rooftop utilities shielded from views from the street(4). Briefs 4: Roofing far Histaric Buildings
-Secreiary af tfie Irrterior's Standards°
for Reha'biGtation and Illustrated
Guidelines for Rebilitating Historit
Buildings
• ~
~
i
S• V
~
Retain Retail FrontageThat
Maintains Historic Parcel Width
F _
7t'N
eeeeeeeeee ee
❑ EID ❑ EIF
25'
Typical
Historic
Proposed Elevation through Rehabilitation
I~~Rn1~1AN1 ~
~-r---Z ! 1■I!..'~~~~~ _ ~
New structures and proposed renovations to buildings should reflect the References:
historic platting pattern that is approximately 25 feet wide. This resufts -Auburn Downtown Plan Design
in a diversity of storefronts and a shopping street rhythm oriented to the Guidelines:5ection 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 Illusirated
to the historic platting and commercial pattern. Guidelines for Rebilitating Historic
C Buildings
~
Retain Retail Entrance Rhythm On Main Street
.
" a.
-
~
H 0 H H 0
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 )
7.
/ .
Retain Historic Window Divisions
and Transparent Ground Floor on Main Street
_ 7
Y ~
Re-open Plate Glass Display
and Transom Windows:
5. ~
- - j
3. L--. _ . ■ ~ , 44
~
2 txisting - Ciosed
~
00 000 ~
- _
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: Section 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
'.Vertical alignment of upper story windows reflects historic orientation -Secretary of the Interior's Standards
,-i. 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
Buildings
8.
,
Incorporate Architectural Features
In Sidewalis Off Main Street
~
Sidewalls off Main Street should be considered as elevations. Where References:
additional doors and windows are not appropriate, materials, signage and -Auburn Downtown Plan Design
murals shauld be used to provide architectural features. Guidelines: Section BD1.2, BD1.5
9.
\ 1
:000
Materials and Color
To Highlight Historic Character ~ ~ i
and Architectural Features
_ ~ T ~►~'r'
Mt L Tn-
~
3.
F2.
1.
4. ~LJ
~_T[TIFTTI~~
I/\ 5.
~
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 Downtown Plan Design
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 -National 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
.jch 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 cornice 4.Operable transom windows 5. Plate glass display windows Buildings
6.Infill panels 7.Expressed solid infill panel in frame
~ e
10.
~
Highlight Architectural Detail
and Pedestrian Amenities With Lighting
t
`y 0 0 17 0 ~ v '7
I
i .
c :E
~
71. I
.S
:
3. °
4. 2.
~
Lighting should be used to create a safe, pedestrian friendly atmoshere, References:
reinforcing the intimate scale of the streetscape. Exterior fixtures -Auburn Downtown Plan Design
and lighting should reflect the historic character, highlight architectural Guidelines: Section 551.8, SS1.9
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). Lighiing should be
incorporated into the design to highlight the historic rhythm of entrances
while increasing the visibility of recesses (4).
• •
1 A
11 - r~ a. °
• " 4~~°7 ~x~~y'~
Provide Pedestrian Weather Protection
~ . • '
With Historic Canopies and Awnings
_
atore nome
D
6-1
Relative pedestrian
clearance
Awnings and canopies enfiance the pedestrian environment and References:
stimalate commercial activity. The design and attachment of overhangs -Aubum Downtown Plan Design
should reflect historic forms (flat ar slaped, not barrel),and materials Guidetines:5ection BD1.14
(detachable fab(c and frame or more permanent steel and glass), and not
obscure e)cisting architectural features. 5ignage should be Iocated only
on the vertiwl edge or sign band of the awning. 'fhe height of overhang
Aements should be tonsistent with those of adjacent buildings ro provide
a continuous streetsca pe.
• .
-~=4-= - 6;_.
o` -
12.
Provide Pedestrian Scale Historic Signage
,
-
~ ~
Creative sign
p` shapes that
reflect the
nature ofthe
business are
encouraged
r-
900dS - S@IYiOES - (NdItCIS - n81TI8 Of btlSUt
GOODS smvICES 2.
4 ~
Smaller scale signage, oriented towards pedestrians shouid be incorporated References:
into the overall design of the building and not contribute to visual clutter. -Aubum Downtown Plan Design
Professional materials should be used in a manner that reflects the character Guidelines: Mainstreet Area
of the streetswpe and building. Streetscape Features
1. Flat panel signs, hand-painted lettering directly applied to windows,and -National Park Service Preservation
blade signs, either aione or incorporated with awnings, are well-suited to grief 25• Preservation of Historic Sig
pedestrians, reflect historic application,and are encouraged Secretary of the Interior's Standar I
2. Sign bands on canopies or awnings can be used an vertical portion of for Rehabilitation and tltustrated
awning only. Guidetines for Rebilitating H'staric
Buildings
.
d~ 13.
r~....~..
i~-
; ~ -
Encourage Historic Painted Murals
and Building Scale Signage
t_
5
~
t Foons_
. .
o ~
r
-
Uj 19 . Return to vemacular painted murals
~
~
Local use of neon ~
a ao
ED
Remove temporary vinyl signs
Signs should be an irrtegral part of historic Main 5treet design. They References:
should employ architectural materials and contribute to the interest and -Aubum Oowntown Plan Design
cfiaracter of the downtown pedestrian streetscape. Impermanent vinyl Guidelines: Mainstreet Area
signs, intemally lit awning and box signs, monument, and pole mounted Streetscape Features
signs are not allowed in the Main Street Area. -National Park Service Preservation
• Srief 25:Preservation of Historic Signs
-Secretary of the Interior`s Standards
for Rehabilitation and Illustrated
Guide[ines for Reb7itating Histofic
Buildings
> .
~ - ,
14.
Provide Screened Parking Lots,Vehicle Access,
~
and Utility Areas Located Off Main Street
_ R
P,
:I i4 G
i;
~
a0
W
W
cc
H
t/'1
Z
Q
~
To promote a vibrant downtown of pesiestrian activity and historic character, References:
paridng sfiall be confined to the street in front af the building or in lots I-Aubum Downtown Plan Design
located behind the building. Parking with frontage or access on Main Guidelines: SP13, SP1.4, BD1.13
Street is not allowed. For new and existing lots located near Main Street, a
combination of mawnry wall,fencing, and tandscaping should be added to
enhance the street definition and screen the parking area.
r •
. , , . .
~ -
:
~ - .
, - !
l'- - - ~
Contacts
StoreFront Studio -
University of Washington
College of Architecture and Urban Planning
Department of Architecture
208 Gould Hall Box 355720 !
Seattle, WA 98195-5720 ~
Jim Nicholls, Director
jnicholl@u.washington.edu
Suni Hatcher, Project Lead
sunihatcher@yahoo.com
City of Auburn
Planning and Community Development
25 West Main Street
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Mitzi McMahan, Senior Planner
mmcmahan@ci.auburn.wa.us
King County Office of Business Relations
and Economic Development
Historic Preservation Program
.
701 Fifth Avenue Ste.2000
Seattle, WA 98104 Julie Koler, Historic Preservation Officer
julie.koler@metrokc.gov
Historic images provided by
Puget Sound Regional Archives
Pritchard-Fleming Building
3000 Landerholm Grcle SE MS-N100
Bellevue,WA98007-b484 " -
archives@bccctcedu
• •
Al'1'ENDIX E
Selected Facilitator Presentations
~
~
A~~ jB ~ The Livable Cit , is.
~
City Vision Task Force \/VAS H I N GTO N a CitY for People
~
Mrssion Statemen.*
"Creating a vibrant, green, walkable urban
core with connections to multiple activities
and destinations in Auburn"
~b y ~
~g sa g
KaN7. R. Merlirw
3.1fi.2010
The Livable City is a Sustainable City Livability = Life first!
1 , r
The mission statement ~ ~ ~ yyp,q i
refleds a city of Auburn
~ that is lively, healthy,
sustainable, attractive and
safe - thereby improving
people's quality of life.
w~
~ •~yy4,~~tp~~'~ann~.
s~ . !a' ~ ' ~I ~vJ~~ !
•'-r I ~ i r
~ r
LivabilitY starts with
understanding people's
behavior and needs
~~i
Vr,~
w > ~r ~~,ir f~': r i ' r,~,• .
.
~,~t~. ~.v!-. ✓ ~~~•3~.c'~=_ a~ ' _
.1r-.: ` r', Cultures ard cities are are all unique and
- Diversity, - . : Human ~
,
,
~
I~`
. ~ ~ + ~ g~ A r` • i
~
Jaywalking . . . . . . ~ WALKI
T
~
,%i~sUiw; ~
• undvrP s . • -
10 1 PdFtitn& ns ~'i~
~_5.; ,t I~I . - ,~-r . - "5 pe`""na"' ;7'u°; _ Working with existing connections strengthen community
• `ii
city full of moving objerrs_ .or
;
~
` I~Y . _
- ~ r
A city full of faces Legibility
.
• ~1',b~~~~
,
~I. / ; ~.1_ ~•M
C • A.
~ # ~
,
;
Intuitive Way-Finding Public Space
h , , ~ ,,~~~5 :y,~~ p_ .
~ .r : t I Y 6~,',
L
l N4
~ti'~3~d`~~A ~
1~ .~~..'fj
~ ~ N; ~S" S ~ r
A~
.~r y ' tF+' ` S ,~'•fy`
, ~y1p+'„~ ~t~ 44F.7°~' ~i4~1
~ . ~ ,r : ) ~ "J' ~ 1~~` ~ ~~~.I
~ n'~~ i 1 ~ N:
~ L. e~ . ,
~"~'r~~ ; ` ~ ~j ~ ~ .~t,'~
~ ~ ; ~ . `4 r' ! , • ~ : A► ~
! : ' r,~ y' ' i ' .f►-• ?t~
,
. ; f ~~f T ~ ~ _ t.. ~i y ♦
1 f
I
~
~ f, ~ 1 '~o:~
~ connections ~ des[inations
`
~
City lHe
! ~ . e•~rtl~~
funttions
~ ~ • % ~ . - .
Boundaries and Connections Exercise
Pedestrian space / consider existing alleys as pedestrian space
•Des oi t-n. ncaur , t;~m hike c- i , bus ;o tra t. wa.klnc, driving, etc.
f~n~ry Gisen I~ arm . H s~onc S~les Y I ~
,..~~.ri.. EnlensrvaParkSYnl~m
.
1 ~
,.,•..c«~,~«~,w~i,s,r,a,i
~ . r, ~ _
R- Pan5Y+1«m BCFORC nFTCR
_
CHICAGO'SGR[ChALLCYPROGRAM
.~..~.:.F ~-.tt
\1~~~',t c.i:t.ni ~.;i,j ! I I~LSII.i„N'' ,
~
wn-tions de.stina~ions
♦
$ tlry Ilfe
A
~ lunci~ons ~
ccnnr:t.l .m t:t~e
LlsessM1oOP,ng, focd. m s. hanqing out. atar[isiriy, n'iellwalk. Unwi ~owii r
onnxclinns. C slr%1~&+olh bndge. InlSrtirb. n. youlh qame
Uus.? 181. area. ballroom aanr.ing. pYnmesYCS, em~loymeril core, sr~w.iwns i,~~n .s
C Impro m Wnn 5. heallhy rexl3uranl~, [ookinq leswns, livq mue~[. M1dunletl M1WSe ' re~
xll u ai+k9nr1.
Les Gove (waikinP. U~Ning. bus ~r, (wrenls) 11117.111
Is"r
Uses. s wryouN. library, n enurcfi. camp. waturpaA.
ly Sp
lunclionv. ec~al evenixuse' anlxr,bor.ce
, Nuw cainmunily cenler, leshvals o. g ih u+rca~.nn
[;onenios-.AUUUrnW;~ysouthlc,~/1WS)FSlreetbnuin •e~~w„iv~e~..~w.~M,..ii~ y e~~•~~r~~rm.p.xwiw.
3. Mucklaa,ool (r.ar. t us-)
Gambliiw. e1c. '
Aubur waysoulh
Golf Counel Mary Oloon ~waikmg. car, Ous. gnlfing. tlining)
l~unsm. ntluealion, goll, walkirip Irom lesae Evens vaA, vrail Ihal eaelas park. tlininG (wie) +nofrnuuT~.~~ luo iwi ~nmr vow.eii~.1 muek.sn:.•r u~n.~. H~kr.
(:annucLOns. A s~real. M Slrxel. M- ae pu~.r i
mprov menl,a lishinn. atfuUUOnaI P MOF, golf cou dancss. lessons. Unwng rdnge ~ , ominwe~~au
5. Emeraltl Dawn ~ Alrport raBion (car, Uus, bikx 3n0 walk)
EmGloyrnent.mnaY~ys.9arriblin9.re9
ia~ wwn.nn.W nw«eni.rn,,,xa~~nubirHl~nwnin~ne~rc~~nac~e~
Cli/Pet tdr . w:1lFlbikp. inlxNrWn. bun.1511i fi1Mfii PM R.
ImMOV enis. hotsebaek levsons. eniltlren. wifi. liva n~usie. ~ u,~al~n,raeion.
I_ov znt restaura
. nl. iurigVien runway? W^" ~^t
fi.GreannRrverCommunllyCOllepe
'.las s. InealerievenLa. speakqre, leclures. library, phmebma /work/orce)youlh dasaes
nubu n Way lo BN slrnet, lius &nd car, piking fw Ne sVOng
I~np-xmanls .rnqr hatM1 inlp. tour.s.Ni3tlnq. cpxnng desfi9P. mor9 nfiahlY ghoPS. opAn gyrti. M1ealth tzir ~~~i~•~
Game Ferm Park (car, blking)
~ F ~ 1«~~.~ Cembimv~~urno. ~ar~ nmatuwenuxnan.rra n
y. ro wn~ w~ yu ~ re uur~
Wil,Yer n^s ti.irk. unly r rciprnr,l,I,I+ltl- .aIM rlivr cnlf bbq. fmmily
B.LkalatlHll ' I . '+~^nwn~v ~en•~~.~a~,.a~eau.a.~~~mna..nonneoa«.oa.o,.~~nu~mwneeeaeoP.a~
' ~n• ~+n~w~rom,rax~n~yw.W~~y,m~x~~,usnavNnN a~esLb ~u,aaCrzuplo~ea~~
livi ....e.i..i
~
lw
~
f_ _ •~r i-_
q~3r ' -
•_~~fi~~~"`~r .k~' _ `F _ ~
►
r w ~~~y►r/r~
4 . l ~ ~ ~ ' : ~
Group One Group Two
~ 4. ' _
r -
IF . \'f f •
~ - 1 = ~ _ - ~ ~ ~ ` ~ _
Group Three
Group Four
i
' ~ ~ i _ . - ~ • ' ~
i
URBAN CORE TASK fORCE - ~
~_c,
ting o vibront, qreen, wnikable Urbon Core with ronnections to multiple acrivifies ond II
r
dcsnnonam irAU-1n
I
q unwwcerrr~
_
Urban Center 2010
vroen ~c%u , . rorcu
_~1 ~f
~
.'.~a JL-._x'`S'"~, ~ fw•~
~,IT.y• ~ k-'.~I~~ ~ ~ . .
Urban Core Boundaries O
2050 Density and Use: Defnitions for Exercise
at-
r
. T.
I'M- ~ •:4
~ P
~~li
~
Greater Housing Choice - Polls show many households
seek more compact homes in neighborhoods close to
Density is a much used term. At its jobs, shopping, schools, and local parks.
simplest,density is a number of units in a
Greater Community Stabfliry - When more people work
91VQf1 2f@8. and live in the same lown civic organizations are stronger
and residents can participate better.
I n other words, Density is a number of Sound Sxial and Economic Benefits - Residents of
units--people, dwellings, trees, square compad communities spend less on cars and have more
feet of building--in a given land area. ""'e a"d res°u"es r°`'a"„''es a"d `°"'^'u"'t'es
0
We must consider the way [we] humans
C operate,
navigate,
But many aspects of useand
- understand the environment.
people's behavior are
universal.... ~
.
I
7/r
:0 . .
• ' ' '
r = s: ~
- t
1 7 ~~~.f~_•_~ ~ 1
, F
TRW e7~,i►
• Ground •o
I tF
75 of human
4~•~..~ r sensory experiences
comes from the sight
I~ i, •
, i . .
72 - -
_ - -.f--r~~ -11 Cars o 61 miles/hr
i
II I Y -
. .
~
, e
• 'A3L
• ;
tr
. . - '~}I{Ifll~ -
d- gn a city full o .b - building
Ak MM
Ic
4r.
~
I. i e ~ . y.~ . y . F:' ~ i e '.'s ~ a • i. - C:,
y.
~
:F
~ r.
-
7•_
_ ~ ►
~ iversity of Housing Types
fficient Land Patterns
Intensity of building development is measured with several eighborhood Compatibility
physical indicators related to how much built area there is on ervices and Programs
the site.
nfrastructure Improvements
fMost measure building bulk and are qwte crude. More ransit and Walking Choices
important issues of
design quality are much more difficult to quantify ) es in My Backyard
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
11 Ratio . :ir< -
~ AIIIIII,
\
~
s ~~~w! a
Smgle-Family homes, (4-10du/ac)
Townhomes, Clusler Homes. Row Houses (2040 dulac)
Floor Area Ratio = these are all the same Slack plans. Walkup, couAyard, mid-rise, hlgh-rise aparlmenis and condos (40-100 du/ac)
Ploor Area Ralion (FAR) Buill Iloor arca on all floors Hlqh-nse apattmenls and condos (100-300 dulaq
u~~v~Aed by Ihe parcel nrea This caiculniion Is oflen based
on ar.tual usuaole Iloor erea iaUiei rian iooIn•1nI a-o ~nai
.n~.',ud3 Ha'I Ih'.r.kitt•.S!,
~ L
4•10
Dwelling units per acre
( r i
if' 'mi uu ~
III
yp" 79
N&NI
Z~~
20-40 dweltlngs per acre, residential only
r` (townhomes,cluster and rowhouses)
~ r~ ~ ~ ~n~ . ~
~ - _ _
' ~ ~ • t~ f~~ I~~ ~~.r
_
20-40 dwellingnunits per acre 20-40 dwelling units per acre with commercial
lmixed use pius three)
Residetial only
i40~
\C n
4.: y~~ ~i~~f r!
:'4, 'J
40-100 dwelling Units per acre• mmmencal
Mixed use ~ti
Single Family Districts
\
~ ,IIIS
~ Provide more small lot, ser.ondary unit, duplex, and clustered opportunities
\
ti
Muitifamily Districts
4WZ -/Provide broad range of densiry options
,p 717 '7 ~ 1 Include some multifamily area in all new larger subdivisions
?
Neighborhood Center and Commerciai Areas
' ~ - ; w►- Fi
♦ T ~ vAllow greater helght and density close to shops, jobs, transportation
provide attrective public realm and access by pedestrians and cyclists
~ _
. ~ All Districts
_Aa ~ I A p ,~4
f' I~ Inclutle a certain number of affordable units in all areas
rs di _ ' L O
- v Emphasize gootl destgn and predictable process inrluding minimum tlensities
40-100 units peracre mixed use
. •
Types of Open Space
^ Planned and Diverse Types of UrhanParks Uroan wate,,,ont
Open Space in Aubum could: NeghbarhoonPak, C01-10111 s«eamcorridor oarks
l l Pockel Park Rlver parks Linear parks
v Multi-uselHyDritl Urban parks
Chlldren's play areas. playgrounds Irrfrastructure and Inatitutlons
Provide opportunihes for outtloor recreation. piaying, resting, eating and drinking; Views, view cortidors viewpoinis eotanicai Garaens
Active Recrealion, Sporls Fields Nalural Dreinage
Provide Gofltlast5 to the built environment; Regional parks and urban habilat Reservoirs
Ernlronmenlal Leaming Parks School Grounds
Greanbells College Campus
Preserve seenie qualities of the city: widiife Preserves Hospnai Grounds
Retirement Homes
Provlde forums for pUbliC eVentS antl gathering5; FloweringlEdible Urban Gardens
Communiry Garden/ P-PZlcnes Streets and Trails
PfoteCt sensitive ot ffagile envlronmental areas', Farmer's Market Pedeslrian only streels
Healing Gerdens Traffiorestricted Streels (woonerf, lransil malis)
Preserve the capaGty and water qUality of Ihe StortnWater drainage system; and Parkiny SVip GaMans PedestriaNbicycle prioriry slreels
Bolanical Gardens Parkways and Boulevards
Multi-modal corridor
Provide pedestnan and bicycle transportation connections. Structuras Bike/Pedeslrian Trail
Rooflop gardens (and balconles) Widened Sitlewalks and Cates
Provide community connections and strengthen neighborhoods, ntnums, 9reenhouses, arwdes Corriaors
Green walls, green shuclure Celebrated interseclions
Communlly galhering and learning
Indncr !evre.Ainn - i:ouriti.
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: 114 -112 mile
them, give or take. Chicago: 1/10 mile to pocket
Denver: 10-15 minute walk
EnWronmental Parklnp Lot Parks
Learning Parks
~ ~ . ~ - ,___~..._.V. ~
' e
~~"N
E _
_._...~.w ~ ~ 1.~1~
u -
0 0 0
;i~d{,~, ~r~~j~~~t ` _ , ~ i ~~alt
S i
6~
s°
IL { ~(t • EF~,~ '
~ , ` ~I~ • ~ ` °k~, '
'
-7, I-V ~
; ~ j , . ~ ~
~ `
. i~ ~ [ t~+~~~~E'.f V _ ._._~a'~l
'••y . . .
. - ' . - ~ . . 'AL.
Suplplemental information from UW Green Futures Lab
•
~
. ,
Chicago's Green Alley Program 4
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
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
~ ° -
~ . .
V ,r~-• x-- _ : w
-nI - J~" • ,~`r_' _ _ • O
~
• ~ - ' ~
.
-kh ~
p~ - _ ~r ~ - "With approximately 1,900
~47,.~'-_ miles of public alleys, Chi-
_ cago has one of the most
extensive and important
pieces of infrastructure of
o l' ~ :'~:j 5~ I~• `-'r" any city in the world. ThaYs
approximately 3,500 acres
M ~ + ~ ' ~ ~ - - - of paved impermeable
- - ,---x_ surface that Provi
des an o
I . P-
~ portunity to better manage
.
~
.
,
~ -
our resources and im rove
P
~ our environment."
-The Green AlleY Handbook
- - ~ _
r
-
x _ ~ x;`-`'` ~
_ . _ - - / - ° . - t~.~ ~i = _ ~'''.-s"•. . ~
. - - , _ -
_ _ r ~ ' . _ _ _~t _ ~ . i _ y
CHICAGO'S GREEN ALLEYS ~ ARCH 503 ! LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
. .
"Stormwater runoff causes two key impacts: (1) excess water volume, or
quar►tity, 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
holistic manner. Alleys represent a particular piece within Chicago's hydrol-
ogy, but the cities Green roof program also respresents a very important
piece as to how the city is dealing with stormwater. Specific problems
associated with runoff include: increased floodin9, combined sewer over-
,o~ -
- • . „ 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 allow for stormwater to filter back into the earth. Second,
Brick---Open joints 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
;w Pav( 1nwr:T city has sought to solve the problem of flooding, and how that relates to
- overflow problems associated with the sewer.
.a . _
9k%
71
'iarr~s~~r
' - _ Y r ~ ~ftltlflr[ea
Imperoncablepaverment Portneableperemerc
IIk1Nall a1
Image 2 perviouspavement.org A;
Porous Concrete---A controlled
amount of water and cement
with little to no sand in mix cre-
ate voids around the aggregate
material.
PorousAsphalt---Small ag-
gregate is removed from the
standard mix and laid on a stone ~ ~ _ ; ` • ~ _ -
sub-base of 18-36 inches deep. . '
~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~r~ Y ` • . " . ! ~
GuiJ~ [o Stormwater BMP's
~ _ .
Flooding
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
- 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
J
various permeable paving solutions that allow water to drain without adding
~ - , more water to the combined sewer system.
Image 3
perviouspavement.org
1 1 CHICAGO'S GREEN ALLEYS ~ ARCH 503 I LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
Chicago's A -
J
Water collection & Infiltration r'" R. ~
~%!'t~ ~ =-aF'~2~,-~►~%a' t~
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-
terns. Permeable paving. Natural landscaping which includes: filter strips.
bioinfiltration (rain gardens), drainage swales and naturalized detention - • ~ Image 4 Turf/Grass Pavers
~ f ~ paversearch.com
~ Concrete or Recycled Plas-
Ra:n ~ jier ~
~ tic honeycomb grid prevent
compaction and allow for
infiltration. Best for low traf-
W. fic applications.
, n
~
' n t~ .
C ' - , _ _•i'. y -
# "T
~
~ ~ yLr *
_ 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 Pen7ieable 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 all the alleys had a light, reflective surface (high albedo) that
reflected heat energy, staying cool on hot days and thereby reducing the
C 1"urban heat island effect" Green AIley 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.
~ `F 'C
92 -
' y _ . 33
- ~
` 32
31
Image 9 Chicago Heat Wave 30
S °
f'
r y
C = 7 Image 11 Heat Island Effect
.r.. y ~
• ' 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 people died over a five-day span.
`Heat Reduction with Green Roofs
In addition to water-quality benefits, the heat island effect can be dimin-
ished through the use of green roofs. Chicago City Hall's green roof has
been recorded to be about 25 degrees cooler during summer day~s than the
adjacent building which has a black-tar roof. Estimates show 10 /o energy
reduction for heating and cooling of the building.
Image 10 City Hall Green Roof &
green roof atop garage options
from The Green Alley Handbook
C
3 1 CHICAGO'S GREEN ALLEYS I ARCH 503 / LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
. ,
Chicago's Alleys
~
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 -
will reflect heat as opposed to absorbing it, see Image 12), and through =L~y
using porous paving which allows for more air circulation and consequently Mip dbedopavement Convennonal ,mawM
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
Material surface * Emittance SRI* Ma azine, Feb. 2007
, Reflectance 9 )
_ Usually light colors reflect
Black acrylic paint 0.05 0.9 D more light and are therefore
desireable.
New asphalt 0.05 0.9 0
Aged asphalt 0.1 0.9 6
~
"White" asphalt shingle 0.21 0.91 21
Aged concrete 0.2 to 0.3 0.9 19 to 32
~
New concrete (ordinary) 0.35 to 0.45 0.9 38 to 52
New white portland cement Image 13 Gravel Surfaces
concrete 0.7 to 0.8 0.9 86 to 100 Urban Heat Island Initiative
Gravelpave2, a porous
White acrylic paint 0.8 0.9 100 gfavel struCtufe 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
http://www.asla.org/lamag/Iam07/february/ecology.html 3" rainfall per hour,
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 traffic as well as
service vehicles. The new
alley has eliminated former-
ly chronic flooding without
using the sewer system ~
and reduced the heat island
effect by eliminating dark,
heat absorbing surfaces.
4 1 CHICAGO'S GREEN ALLEYS I ARCH 503 / LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
. "Recycled construction materials can be incorporated in a variety of
ways in green alleys. Green Alley Handbook - City of Chicago
~
3. Material Recycling
`
Concrete---Old concrete crushed and used as aggregate to strengthen new
pavement. Also used as a strong sub-surface base for all porous surfacing
materials.
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-
face base.
• _ Rubber---Old tires ground in asphalt mix or molded as pavers.
- -
_ Plastic---Reused in honeycomb grid membrane from grass pavers.
, l - .i. . - . .
~~cyc1ed Const ruct.ion Materia 1s
~ .
. . :
Pavernent produced
using slag, recycled
corcrete and/or gmund -
t.~~e ni!!er ~•6 Image 14 Recycled Rubber
Pavers
• They do not crack or crumble
• Water permeable
• Reduce tripping hazards
• Tree roots can be remedied ~ r-=
awithout affecting the tree
• Easier on the feet
• Come in several colors or pat-
tems
• You can even relocate and Sutbisse contmlnlnj
reuse them
http://claddaghpaving.com/ ~ncra,%
about6.html
Image 15 Recycled Construction Materials - Green Alley Handbook
c
51 CHICAGO'S GREEN ALLEYS ~ ARCH 503 / LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
"Energy efficient, dark sky compliant light fixtures are Chicago's '`e
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 illuminates the sky instead of surfaces is wasted energy
~
Glare and Safety
By using metal halide lamps, glare is reduced and whiter light is provided
which dramatically increases visibility
i ~
EL1^1:z1:.E 3 -..2-'•,t:.'1=:EL[ _ ...f_: =1':~? ~
Image 17 Metal Halide
Lamp
_ Example of inetal halide
fixture that focuses light that
allows for a broad spectrum
at night. ~
~
~ wzr,
-Encrg,ti- etricienv'c-LaaL :..k~ 11-ght Lxturc.= axc aesiggnen to dirc-ct ~..-~.n_p li4ht da-wnward and ouEaard where it is use#al rather thImage 18 Downlighting
-_zpward whEre it wasses energ;- and contrabutes to glare and li_ c:-
-_.~llutivm.
F' -Itemtial $emEfits
Auces ener~,- c+~~cs
~
Image 16 Dark Sky Compliant Light Fixtures - Green Alley handbook
6 1 CHICAGO'S GREEN ALLEYS I ARCH 503 I LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
what goes on here... I70W SI70ClICI lt OCCLII~?" Louise Grassov - Gehl Architects
~
5. Critiques and Conclusions
e t-. ~ - -r
Stormwater Management
~ • '
- Heavy vehicle traffic can damage some of these high cost paving options
- Dirt, sand, salt, and dust can clog the voids in porous materials over time
M' , - High maintenance costs
- Doesn't go far enough to recommend plantings in alleys
s, • m I
- There are many "green" initiatives going on in Chicago and the programs
are disconnected. It would be better to see the programs integrated - at
~7 V ~ 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
_ - -
-z-`~~ 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
12th Avenue Green Street featuring
~r ~ •w f ~ ' . bioswales near the Portland State
{ r ~ ~~s ~tY University campus
&4 fi.F_'f ° - . ~y`- • t, ; (http://flickr.com/photos/sitepho-
, ~ :
~ _ cus/2629874914/)
~
E~..F.~.-•'~
i~~!
' > ~ ..1a~ , ~ ~
- - - ,~+~►~c,~~-'-~'~ ` ~ ~
a
~
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 following 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-
rated into the aesthetics of the community. ~ •
4) Make the best use of the street tree canopy for stormwater interception as
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
r •
; .
a street's 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. (http:l/flickr.com/
photos/26074955@
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 5031 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
urban areas.
f~ (Portland Bureau of Environmental Services)
- -
Project Description
Design Features:
~ -.'?rz '
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 SIOW, 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:
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 Services, 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.
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
isw 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 2 1 SW 12TH AVENUE GREEN STREETS I ARCH 503 I LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
A - -
I. d, O -g• ~
Planter Detail:
Each of the 4 planters measures 18 by 4 feet, excluding the 6 inch curb running sw1211 n% ci,uc c«Yn s«Let
the perimeter of each planter, creating a total landscaped area of 72 square 7., - feet. The planter depth averages 13 inches (raised 4 inches above the side- r~ r~n lemmi immh
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-
able Stormwater Manage-
vehicle access and a 2 foot wide landscape buffer at each end of the planters 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 classifies the soils on the project
area as 51 C-Urban Land and well-drained Multnomah soils. The surface hori-
zon typically is dark brown loam about 16 inches thick. Soil below this depth is : 7K
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.
~ t~~-.~
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 I"~~~
water into and through the soil, while the evergreen characteristic helps mini-
„f,
mize weed growth. A row of J. patens was planted next to the concrete pad ,:~r=
in each facility to hold back sediment and debris and keep it from entering the ; h?.~,,<ay, ~
facility. The plants were installed at a density greater than required by the City's ~ 31,%;"~
; . - ~
Stormwater Management Manual. This was done to reduce maintenance re- (http:/lflickr.comrphotosialta-
quirements and to create an aesthetically appealing landscape quickly. (Port- pianni ng/2765097753!)
land Bureau of Environmental Services)
~
PAGE 3 1 SW 12TH AVENUE GREEN STREETSI ARCH 503 1 LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
v •
,~rr, 4 • ~y: F K1N~ S`~' ~ 5, t4 ` 1-'. ;,c~ -p a ` , L ~ L ~y,, ~ 4
Planning Approach and Implementation
4 '
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,
and requires a more broad-based alliance for its planning, funding, mainte-
nance and monitoring."
(Portland Metro)
~WK Site Selection Criteria:
k 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-
-
,
rounding area.
\ll~~~~ , 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-
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
proj
(http://flickr.com/ ect.
'
photos/26074955@ 6) lowed Suitability for Monitoring: The configuration of the local combined sewer al-
N02/2447324685/) 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
e _ _
Po • O - • • 1
J
-I ~ ~ ,~rY~i~, ~',A{ ~f ~ •'~'fa(. . "
_
~ ; , ' • i- 9 r This is very rel
~
evant and will be
influential in the
,
' ~ ` ~ ~ ~ F k profession. The
Y.
best executed
example of this
-
tYPe of work
---~,.l-~--~.---~" F we've ever seen. "
~ (ASLA)
_ - • ~ ~;r-~._ -
} ov,~ ? r
. I ~ • . ' ~ j i
' - . ~'.f►
Evaluation
Professional Critique:
The SW 12th Avenue Green Street received an ASLA Professional Award in 2006. The
ASLAjury 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 / 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
K. ,
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 swale. maintained with heavy equipment is reduced. The rushes have done so well
(http://www.portlandonline. that they're growing 1 ft or more higher than anticipated and as a result flop
com/shared/cfm/image. Over Into the Sldewelk, re uirin trimmin at least once a ear. Tim Kurtz, Sus-
cfm?id=167503) Q g g y ~
tainable Stormwater Management Program)
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?
C 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=44463&
Metro
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=235
American Society of Landscape Architects
http://asla.org/awards/2006/06winners/341.html
Green Streets Notebook
http://www.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
C diagram credits: Sustainable Stormwater Management Program
PAGE 6 ~ SW 12TH AVENUE GREEN STREETS I ARCH 503 / LARC 504 AUTUMN 2008
.
School Yards Parks
i
(arial black, 24pt, justify left top) School
Dylan Yamashita
(arial, 12pt, justify right)
Today, schoolyards are
~ , a= -A ~ inadequate spaces that barely
function as places for children to
relax and get exercise. But there
k`• ~ Y ~ I 'is now a movement to tum these
asphalt wastelands into sites of
4; ' . r , _ t ; . not only recreation, but places
for education and engagement
where children can experience
~
w a~ .
i(s : r nature and everything associated
with it.
F
.f--
ti
_
~ y
~ 4.
O
~-T
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 Whitechurch, 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 .,z
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
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 31 1 a
healthy. School yards are also being asked to supply communal space for neighbor- ~t lq~
hoods without access to major public parks. Sometimes it is in the form of a conscious
decision to meet, for exam ple at a nei ghborhood potluck or perha ps a park cleanu p
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
I
. •
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
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
compost, and harvest flowers, fruits, and vegetables. They have created a program
called Seed to Table where children and teachers are involved in every aspect of the
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
y,e '0- 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
r not a separate activity that only a few children are a part of. Teachers use the garden
~a--
and kitchen activities as common reference points to activate prior knowledge, inte-
r. r grating it into the overall education experience.
. ~ r
- - ~
I A,
PAGE 2 1SCHOOL YARDS
.
School .
~
Schoolyard Models
.
Edible Schoolyards- Using food systems as a unifying concept, students
learn how to grow, harvest, and prepare nutritious produce. Ol YARD
HABfTAi PROJECT
i~ -
School Gardens- integrated into the educational curriculum to teach children
about plants, nature, as well as other subjects like science.
r
Peaceful Playgrounds- creating an environment where children are less
prone to violence and more likely to be active.
)R
Outdoor Edcuation- appeals to the use of the senses - audio, visual, taste - VW---
touch, and smell - for observation and perception.
Schoolyard Habitat- teachers and students create wildlife habitat on schooo
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 y' 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" „4 ,~.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 ; 44 "
.t
for students to learn about marine biology and oceanography through actual observa-
tion and activities happening in San Diego bay. ~
Other examples: Boston Schoolyard Initiative, Chicago Campus Park Initiative, San - Francisco Green School Alliance • ~ ~ ` r -t-;-'
- ~ 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".
~..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
level, strong guidance is required for things to change.
• Having the backing of govemment and community organizations are also help-
µ\'~I ful. They can provide support, funding, equipment, and man power when a project gets
underway. 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.
r- • ~
R
~•Me`;~'. -S~~ ~ , ".S
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
-Sable 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 leam to observe and
_ ~ document their findings, which is in turn used by scientist who study bird populations
*7• 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
A~
i -Making no sound
. Resting peacefully as it sits on the branch
,,~w1. soaring in the sky
Flying with the wind.
.g Poem by: Alix
http://www.lowersouthes.org/hbwildlife.htm
PAGE 41 SCHOOL YARDS
. ,
f
School .
• ~ . ~
Creating Habitat A w~
- - t .
~ _ ; ~ r.... • ` ~ `
T
r
}
R
*MP
~ : t `•~'r',~h., ' ' _ . ~ ~i ~ "iir~ _ i
_ 4-S,f~j~`~
, ~
.'Rr -t~•
~
~ r ~ ~ ♦ai_aw ~ ir
i. V
1~ L
- ~ R r ~ j •
7 \ ait
Resources
httP://www.ecoschools.com/SFGSA/2004_SFGSAconf_Photos/SFGSA 2004 Sloat-
~ ,
Workshop_photos.html 1" 'k~_ -~F
http:Uwww.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.neUoutdoored/outdoor.asp
http://www.whitchurchandllandaff.co.uk/School%20Yard%20Glanynant.jpg - " ~
http://irene.wrhine.com/images/school-yard.jpg -
http://www.sssq.org/picture5.jpg -
X
http://www.edibleschoolyard.org/homepage.html
.
.
Y - -
f .
PAGE 51SCHOOL YARDS
I ~
Boulevards and Parkways - 2100
. .
ci Diego Velasco
Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn in 1890 - Jacobs, Macdonald, Rofe, The Boulevard Book, 2002
~
~ ~~v , ` 7` : ~ ~
r~00 ^ ~A
~~'~y" .-h ~rZ~
~~a
r }
yl(~~~`~
Jacobs, Macdonald, Rofe,
The Boulevard Book, 2002
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 ~
variety of street uses. They are often "monumental links between important destina-
tions.°' More importantly, boulevards can be open space systems that serve multiple ~
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
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.'
a
In the mid-19th to early-20th century, boulevards came to be associated with large-
scale planning efforts, such as those of Napoleon III 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
C~ Vaux proposed a system of boulevards for Brooklyn, which they called parkways. y~-
Parkways were more suburban and "park-like° in character than traditional boule-
vards, but maintain many of the same characteristics of boulevards. .,1 1 BOULEVARDS AND PARKWAYS
. ,
I'.. ~ SM1
6 contexts for boulevards k' ^
.W..~... o...........~
in the U.S.
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
residential arterials that are Boulevards are balanced, multi-purpose streets. They have a social component as
already wide and planted Well as a transit function, affording a diversity of activity. They are a central spine of
with medians. the larger street network, and therefore should be located in areas that enhance the
existing street system and give it clarity 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 O
;
Avenue Kleber is a busy little boulevard.
There are four lanes of north-south traffic
r- .
with two lanes designated for buses and
taxies (one of which is separated by a
rolled curb). Avenue Kebler is an example
t=~,' . of how to make a small street do a lot: two
bus/taxi lanes, two through, bi-directional
~•_~`s'.;s T„F~`~.,~_ ` , lanes, two service lanes, a planting strip
s~ - : ` !a`- ~ with bus stops and benches, comfortably
00'.:e': wide sidewalks, evenly-spaced trees,
parallel parking in the service lanes, and
a metro stop off the service lane. There
are a bit of scattered commercial uses
r.~- ~ > - + with moderate activity. Overall, Avenue
JMT-
Kebler is a pleasant, small-scale refuge
-from the busy Avenue de la Grand Armee
nearby.
, i( . ; - Avenue Kleber
source: www.parisliving.com ~
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
r 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
- Altemating pattem 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 - ~y
down crossing widths - safe haven for pedestrians >t.~C - 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 -
street activity is bifurcated r-
- No less than two lanes but no more than 6 lanes
- 2 lanes okay for one-way traffic
ip
- Three lanes in each direction allow for public transit lanes k;~° aF y-':; 'Aa
- Overall width of central lane - depends on availability of right-of-way ~g~ "
dedications, traffic capacity desired, need for safe crossing
- 50 feet - two lanes each way w/ alternating left turn lane (tightly)
7=;,-
- 70 feet - three lanes and left turn
- Public transit best in center roadways, not access lanes
Parking:
- 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 ~ 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
3 ~ BOULEVARDS AND PARKWAYS
kj 1
. _ ~ ~ . .
J
~-°-,Overall Pedestrian Realm:
"'r`•''~1~~'; , - 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
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
- can use access lanes too
- slight changes in paving or elevation help differentiate realms
transit exits should be on pedestrian ream to encourage use
o . _ (subway exits onto medians)
_
t'~
_ , _ ~ ~ v_ ~ ~I•, ~ °1
. . ✓"'"~•r ~'~'-s ,~'7' ~'~'4..+~~' ~ (g A ~
t~A.T
N O
~ o
ry 2 N <L-~` ~,~~r'~~ ;;a ~ _ ••~'<~`~ro~~~'~: A.; Rl.G~
-Fz
CL
r ~ 'f,• i . ~ ~ ~ ,A ~ ? ~ a;
L ,:t
s
_
O
. ~f `~l` . ~ dl ,~s' • ~ ~ _ ~
y y °
Y ~ • ~ `C I I .y r~ ~
4,~. 'tl~ 1
~1 R
,y. e. V`~'9 *,7Fr /T ~ t
~ :y Case: Passeig de Gracia, Barcelona
:.-4A~ 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.1 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
Jacobs, Macdonald, Rofe, provide entrances to underground parking structures, subway stations and regional
The eou/evard 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 Franciscds voters instituted a policy to tear down the Embarcadero Freeway and replace it with a boulevard. Simi-
larty, 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,
but the project was only recently completed in September of 2005. Oc-
tavia Boulevard was designed to carry large amounts of traffic through
the HaYes ValleY nei9hborhood, while also caterin9 to local needs with i /TJI~
• .~y
slow-moving access lanes. The right-of-way width is 133 feet, with t~:~'v; _ r~ ~l ~ ~ ~i~~ ~ ,
twelve-foot sidewalks lined with evenly-spaced trees and adjacent to r~~ i~ ,~r ~ -I'~.`r
eighteen-foot access lanes on each side. Parallel parking is provided
, r 41..~~
in the access lanes, and a nine-foot wide median is fully landscaped ~ ;1; ~r,~w •J` ~
and has trees every twenty feet. New lighting, benches and flowering ►~~,y~
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
is used by the residents in the area. Overall, Octavia 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
~
~
, y
~I"}~'~9~~'-~'7'~ ~°s~{ : -~j L• 1W' " ~ 1}"'~' !j~ w ' 3
~r~ . ..Y.: ~ "'I `i.•• - ~ 'y ~:t"' - ~ - ~ i~". 1~ts._ L
y^I - - 1e U b-0 22.0. 11.0.• 12•O•.
~ I ~ Pa~ 1'ces; 1-a lhrouyli Raned Tlewgh kesed 0.uess Fs/,ing E.A
. i - -
SWMUl1 .ne Yn.iian Tn1AN ano .1onar_ u.. Wi... are anwax133 ]
71 1
~ 1~`~ ~ - .,•~`-Y~
~ ~ 5 • ?`•K.'T i • ~f' •{1 ~i..,_~ ~ply'1~ ~
f.ri'~,+A~'T~'~"y
~ .ti`I~, " _ ~ ` . - y ~ ~ 4, ■ ~Cy
~ ~ ~ ••,-4~ . L ..r ~ la . s7. p~~. fi 4 A1~.LL F~ a~.'si~ W f r.-~1 Fi~j7
,ry{~~ ;~5+ ' 1~ ` x ~ . ~ • p-i.•, ' ~.ti `1
°+Cr ~ ~ ^ x~~ .~r;-~' 1~i~'~':~~'~~~'~! ~t'1-e-~i~ y,f~ },r ~ fJ ?,c',M,'r•. ~ y'~ '~+~F w,r {~k~ 1 ~ ~ . F.-~ ~'~~,~i f ~.g`~'~t
fkv
L v .tr1d#,
. ~ yh
T
'L ~•~.L
C}~~~+~; 7y~ ~p. • ~ . i fi, ~ :~~i +1 ~ _ ~ ' - ~ t~'y~
~i~ - 1 rY`' Y _ p_ Y ~ ,~a~
M1.~'A'~r .~'jr ••ft ~ ~~~s~~P e` ~ _ 1 I~'
ll~` 1~.~ _ ~ __•-lFlT~~,.~. . .r_ i'r~ ' ■
~ - . m s , . ' . . ~
'S - !y' -•a=~►' ~~~f~ . •y~~ ~ 14il~
fY~ . ~~~~i~ ~ ~ • - ' -
. ~ a .
~ _ ~
~
ye~~~
~ A1~ J'~. ~ RY'1t• _
~5 1 BOULEVARDS AND PARKWAYS
_ . . - _
.W....,m... a..~.........._
r. _ , ~
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 blvd. - 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 Streets program; Creating Livable Streets- example
- Making Choices- street design guidelines in Ontario
- green streets designation
- right-of-way manual
7
References
'Jacobs, MacDonald and Rofe, TheBoulevardBook: History, Evolution,
Design ofMultiwayBoulevards. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT O
Press, 2002.
Jacobs, MacDonald and Rofe, Boulevards.-A StudyofSafety, Behavior,
and Usefulness. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development,
University of California, 1994.
Kostof, Spiro, The CityShaped. Boston: Little Brown, 1991.
z"Octavia Boulevard: The last freeway north of Market and the last rem-
nant of the Freeway Revolt will be replaced by a landscaped boulevard."
San Francisco Cityscape, <http://www.sfcityscape.com/projects/octavia.
html> accessed 29 January 2006.
3City of San Francisco webpage: <http://www.sfgov.org> accessed 29
January 2006
City of Seattle Right-of-Way Manual
R•. P'~ t
. 4 T. . • ~ ~i,
'
s~ h ~ ~Y~'•
Jacobs, Macdonald, Rofe,
The Boulevard Book, 2002
6 ~ BOULEVARDS AND PARKWAYS
~
. ~
Acquistion Mechanisms:
Conservation Easements
0 _ ~
Kari Stiles V
- jt► ~ i ;j'
. ~ '
Conseivancy
http://www.cascadeland.org/
Cascade Land Conservancy Smal]-Scale ~I
Conservation Easements: Land Trusts:
-►.~f,. fl4 The Land Trust
www.lta.or /conserve/o Uons.htm
Baker Woods Urban Preserve: ~j . • Y". ~ 9 p
1.5 acres of forested habitat
Chickadee Hill: 1.25 acres in Issaquah _ - The Nature Conservancy
http://nature.org/aboutus/
Lake WA Blvd Urban Preserve: .33 acres '---}-d~` "owwework/conservationmethods/
Maple Creek Urban Preserve:
15 Easements on over 4 acres The Pacific Forest Trust
Christiansen Creek: Vashon lsland - http://www.pacificforest.org/
maintained as wooded area to protect one of
the island's highest quality watersheds Trust for Public Land
Me dina Ur ban Preserve: 3 easements on 8 acres i -,ttp://www.tpl.org/
of adjoining lakefront properties
! ocal Players:
Mercer lsland Urban Preserve:
"ascade Land Conservancy
4.21 aeres of forested habitat ,;tp:/!www.cascadeland.orq!
Park Hill Issaquah: 13.6 acres of forested habitat b-- -
Richmond Seach: 5-acre wooded parcel next to
public park - - _
Horri2waterw ~Tujeci - ,ornton Creek
Sammamish Plateau: _1.6 acres of forested habitat http://www.homewatersproject.org/
~
Purchase/Donation 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 Julie Ann
d
agreement. 2000) Island Pres ~ck H. Squires,
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
Benefits: 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 University Fact Sheet
and preserving critical native habitat to preserving farmland and active farming. ohioline.osu.edulcd-fact/1261.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.
11 DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 8 CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
. ,
Transfer
5cnd'ireg~4r~re~ ~ '
_ Ret-e lv,mft As C-a, eve o p m e n t 1 -
Iitbrers:eda«,-
-.,~d.-~hai ~a= . - • ~
. . Rights
-a
Noelle Higgins Examples: National
TDR Programs
- What areTDR's?
New York, NY became the first com-
"Transfer of develo ment ri hts TDR is a market based techni Ue th8t GnCOUf- munity in the United States to adopt
p g ~ } q TDR provisions when it approved its
ages the voluntary transfer of growth from places where a community 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 g 1998 designed to prevent the demolition
historic landmarks or any other places that are important to a community. The re- or conversion of iive-Performance tneaters
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, tfaflSpOf- Montgomery County, MD nas
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.
!ill-A&
~ •f - , New Jersey Pinelands, NJ, adopted
~*~r in 1980, is the most ambitious TDR pro-
`9~~ • w- gram in the count ry, encom passin g one
'million acres of land and allowin trans-
` ~~L ~ fers between 60 different munic palities.
`a rn,la^cJs ervironmentally sensitive sites The total area preserved through sever
ance increased to 15,768 acres as ofI
Definitions end of 1997. ~J
source: (Source. Bredin,2000)
Development Rights
Land ownership is commonly described as consisting of a bundle of different rights.
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 a
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 retum on their property while maintaining it in farming, forestry,
habitat or parks and open space in perpetuity.
Receiving Site 10 Sendfng S+te
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 ~ap,,,wd nwq
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 Retemng Site ~
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 otherwise allowed by the base zoning.
Source : http:!/dnr.metrokc.~~ov!wlr/tdr/definitions.hmi
1 ITDR
Local Precedents gASIC ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL TDR PROGRAMS
C Seattle 1411912004) city councii A clear and valid public purpose for applying a TDR program, such
approved the sale of TDR's at $1.6
million for low-income housing and to as open space preservation, agricultural 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 allowed increased Clear designation of the sending areas and the receiving areas, pref-
density in the new office tower and an erably on the zoning map.
expansion to the Seattle Art Museum
at 2nd and Union. Washington Mutual
Towerwill achieve 420,000 square feet Consistency between the location of sending and receiving areas
of additional density.
Source:seatfle.9ov website http:uwww.sean1e and the policies of the local comprehensive plan, including the future
g ovlnews/detail. asp? I D=4264& Dept=28
land-use plan map.
K1119 COUllty-The County currentiy
uses two different transfer of residential Recording ofthe development rights as a conservation easement,
density credit ordinances to encourage
private 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 landmarks, agricul-
tural iand and Park Sites. Uniform standards for what constitutes a development right, prefer-
ably based on quantifabie measures like density, area, floor-area-ra-
SeattleRed, tfl011 has d a - TDR locatedjust program in outsideof which the tio, and height, should be used to determine what development right
sending areas are lands zoned Agricul- IS b@Iflg tf8l1Sf2t'r@d.
ture or Urban Recreation or lands clas-
si SU'FflCleflt Pre-plannin9 in the receivin9 area, including provisions for
fied as critical wildlife habitat. When a
sending site is not classified as critical adequate public facilities.
habitat, the transferable development
is simply the amount of development Source:BREDIN
.Ilowed by the site's zoning once wet- $OURCES
;ands and other unbuild able areas have
been excluded from the calculation.
Source:Pruetz Rick Pruetz, AICP, 1999, APA National Planning Conference,
ChiefAssistant Community Development Director/City Planner
City of Burbank, Califomia
hftp://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings99/PRUETZ/PRUETZ.HTM
Tools for quality growth_Transfer Developemnet rights
hftp://outreach.ecology.uga.edu/tools/tdr.htmI
Cases, Statutes, Examples, and a Modei
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
h ttp ://d n r. m etrokc. g ovJwi r/td r/d efin iti o n s. htm
Seattle.gov website, City of Seattle News Advisory, 4/19/2004
CITY GAINS HOUSING, DEBT FUNDING THROUGH SALE OF TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS, http://www.seattle.gov/news/detail.asp?ID=4264&Dept=28
http:l/www.rivercenter. uga. edu/education/etowah/docu ments/pdf/tdr.pdf
Seattle, Office of Housing, Transferable Development Rights (TDR)
& Bonus Programs, Seattle.gov, website, hftp://www.seattle.gov/housing/2001[TDR-BonusPrograms-
2001.htm
2 ITDR
r y
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 ART ~
reduced or cancelled if particular sustainable practices are used. For example, the state ~ O T'll'of Illinois offers a property tax exemption for commercial, residential, and industrial 9A 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 T, -n~ ,
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 significantly advances the city's goals, development or water/wastewater
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 Ecological 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 environmental charity. In exchange, donors gain a
tax credit for the fair market value of their gift that can be applied against net annual
income (Canadian Ecological Gifts Program 2005).
Resources
The Canadian Ecological Gifts Program. 2005. www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/ecogifts.
City of Austin. 2005. Smart Growth Incentives webpage. www.ci.austin.tx.us/smart-
growth/incentives.htm.
City of Chicago. April 2004. "Financial Incentives for Building Green." www.cityofchi-
cago.org/Environment/GreenTech/pdf/FinanciallncentivesforGB.pdf.
Scholz-Barth, Katrin. 2001. "Green Roofs: Stormwater Management From the Top
Down." Environmental Design and Construction. BNA media. O
PAGE 1 ~ FEE WAIVERS