Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 10/23/1995 CITY OF Jim White, Mayor PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Hearing October 23, 1995 The regular meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kent Morrill at 7:00 PM on October 23, 1995, in Chambers West, Kent City Hall. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Morrill, Chair Russ Stringham,Vice Chair Gwen Dahle Connie Epperly Janette Nuss Robert MacIsaac Mike Pattison Edward Heineman, Jr. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Kenneth Dozier, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Linda Phillips, Planner APPROVAL OF AUGUST 28. 1995 MINUTES Minutes will be approved at the November 27, 1995,public hearing. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None. COMMUNICATIONS None, NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Manager, Fred Satterstrom, notified the Commission that the City Council held its first meeting on the Meridian Annexation zoning on October 17, 1995 The second hearing with the City Council will be held on November 21, 1995, as scheduled. 4ZCA-95-10 MI-C Amendment #ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development 220 4th AVE SO /KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895 1 TELEPHONE (206)859-3300/FAX#859-3334 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 #ZCA-95-10 MI-C AMENDMENT (Fred Satterstrom) Planning Manager, Fred Satterstrom, presented the staffs recommendation for a zoning code amendment of the MI-C zone. The request for the zoning code amendment was submitted to the City by Martin Durkan Jr. in August, 1995. The staff recommendation is to amend the MI-C zone to allow drive-through restaurants and to reduce the minimum lot size required (in the MI-C zone) to 10,000 square feet. Presently the minimum lot size in the MI-C zone is one acre. The minimum lot size for commercial zoning in all of Kenfs commercial zones is 10,000 square feet. Therefore, the request would be consistent with the prevailing minimum lot size in the commercial zones. The City currently has only two areas that are zoned MI-C. One is on West Valley Highway at 212th and the other site along the Valley Freeway at Willis Street. The Planning Department staff recommends the approval of the requested zone change in two parts. The first part would add language to the existing Ml-C zoning which would allow drive-through eating facilities. The second part would change the minimum lot size in the MI-C zone to 10,000 square feet. Again, this would be consistent with the other commercial zones in the City. Commissioner Nuss questioned if allowing another use to the MI-C zone would be reducing the already limited manufacturing space. Mr. Satterstrom reititerated that Kent has only two MI-C nodes and therefore it would only effect a small portion of the MI zones. Chair Morrill opened the public hearing. Martin Durkan Jr., 330 SW 43rd, Renton. Mr. Durkan represents the Aldara Management Corporation which is part of the Boeing family trust that owns property in Kent which is currently zoned as MI-C. Mr. Durkan is requesting the zoning code amendment in order to offer drive- through restaurants in the M1-C zone. He is also requesting the amendment to allow a smaller lot size (10,000 square feet) which is consistent with other commercial zones. Chair Morrill closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stringham MOVED to adopt the staff recommendation and change the zoning code language in the MI-C zone as outlined in the staffs proposal. Commissioner MacIsaac SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Nuss raised the question to Commissioner Stringham as to whether or not it was a conflict of interest for him to participate in the issue presented. Commissioner Stringham pointed out that since restaurants are currently allowed in the MI-C zone and that the issue at hand is to specifically allow drive-through restaurants; he did not believe this to be a conflict of interest. #ZCA-95-10 MI-C Amendment #ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 Commissioner Pattison informed the Commission that he had personally driven the sites in question and believes that the proposed use is appropriate. Commissioner Pattison supports the recommendation. Motion Carried. #ZCA-95-2 & #SCA-95-1 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT - (L. Phillips) Planner Linda Phillips, explained that this was the second hearing on the proposed cluster and zero lot line development standards. Ms. Phillips summarized the issues discussed previously and information obtained from other departments and other sources. Basically,this issue involves trying to fulfill the obligation of population projections and housing targets for Kent while utilizing mostly single family housing in diverse types and affordability. The issues that have come up while looking at cluster housing regulations have to do with lot sizes. One alternate proposed is not to allow cluster development in the R1-5.0 district. In addition, the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet would be maintained in the R1-7.2 zoning code district. This proposal would make 5,000 square feet the smallest lot size in the Ordinance. Ms. Phillips discussed the issue of impervious area limits. She stated that Gary Gill from the Public Works Department previously voiced that his Department is in favor of such a limit. At this time there is no limit to impervious areas and ultimately single family lots could be paved 100%. The need for some type of limits are of special concern in the Meridian area where there are some aquifer recharge areas and it will be quite critical in the next few years as development and growth continue. There was also a question regarding the five foot separation between a garage and a house located on the property line in zero lot line development. Ms. Phillips stated that,Assistant Fire Chief Berg previously explained that if code provisions for construction, which are mostly provided for by the Building Department (Development Services), are met there would be no problem with locating buildings five feet apart. Another issue was the requirement for conditional use permits when there is not a full subdivision process. A conditional use permit requires the applicant to file a SEPA(State Environmental Policy Act)Checklist for review. It costs$150 to file and takes about thirty days to process. A conditional use permit application is then filed at a cost of$500. The conditional use permit process takes about two months and requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. This requirement is not meant to be used to deny the use, but allow public input and apply conditions to make the use compatible with surrounding uses. The process for revising the street standards for cluster developments is still being determined. Staff is working on putting a tour together for the Fire, Public Works, and Planning Departments to look at some streets that have been developed under King County and Bellevue's reduced street standards. The cluster development provisions will still work without reduced street standards. However, #ZCA-95-10 MI-C Amendment 3 #ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 reducing the street standards increase affordability and if designed properly other issues can be avoided as long as there is good parking, adequate sidewalks, and so on. The preparation of a public information manual which would contain recommended design principles is another issue. The question is whether the City would like to spend some budget money preparing a design manual to guide the public who would like to develop cluster housing. The manual would give some general ideas for good design and examples of how cluster developments can be done. The last issue was the provision of common recreation space, and whether or not that would need to be provided in addition to any other open space that was reserved. A subdivision is required by the Parks Department to dedicate recreation space or pay a fee in lieu of the dedication to the Parks Department. The Parks Department uses the fee to provide additional parks. There is a provision in the suggested Ordinance that says that if a developer devoted the open space that was saved (the 20%)to recreation purposes and the recreation area was approved by the Parks Department the fee in lieu could be waived. Commissioner Stringham questioned that if there are still unresolved issues in the Ordinance at this time will the Commission be able to come to a decision. Ms. Phillips stated that the issues are not outstanding with additional information needed, they are simply issues that have not been resolved by the Commission. Commissioner Stringham further questioned the issue of reduced street standards. Ms. Phillips clarified that cluster development is not dependent on reduced street standards. This proposal is favored without the reduced street standards by the technical experts in the City. Therefore cluster development is not an issue that is dependent on reducing the street standards. Commissioner Dahle questioned if the Commission could pass the cluster Ordinance with a recommendation that the street sizes remain the same. Ms. Phillips explained that if the Ordinance is recommended the street standards would remain the same. At this time there is not a proposal to reduce street standards. Commissioner MacIsaac clarified that any request for a cluster housing development would have a public hearing through a subdivision process or a conditional use permit process regardless of the size of the cluster development. Ms. Phillips confirmed that according to the proposed Ordinance a cluster development would require some form of a public hearing. Commissioner MacIsaac stated that he thought that the goal was to try to provide another means for developing some of the in-fill areas and try to keep some of price of housing down while staying in our single family housing mode. He voiced his concern that the City was putting so many restrictions on cluster housing that no one would build cluster developments. #ZCA-95-10 MI-C Amendment 4 #ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development Planning Commission Minutes - October 23, 1995 Commissioner Dahle questioned what the cost was to hold a public hearing. Ms. Phillips explained that the Planning Department has not evaluated the actual cost, although there is a lot of time devoted for research and reporting for a public hearing. Commissioner Dahle questioned if the cost of the hearing is added to the fee for development. Mr. Satterstrom agreed that it would cost something to go through the public hearing process because it will add time Cluster developments are generally more than four residents. State law requires any plat of more than nine lots to go through a long subdivision process,which requires a public hearing. There would only be an extra hearing if a conditional use permit is required, and the proposed cluster housing request is for less than nine lots. The purpose of the conditional use permit hearing is to allow the neighbors in the area an opportunity to comment and be aware of the proposal. There would not be a requirement for a conditional use permit or a public hearing for four lots or less. If it were a very small cluster development, there would be no hearing involved. Commissioner Dahle clarified that there would not be a vast amount of money involved in each individual land development. Mr. Satterstrom commented that generally speaking that would be a correct statement. In cases where an additional hearing is required it would be considered a cost increase. Commissioner MacIsaac said that when you consider building lots are $45,000 and up and if you tie up construction for three months for a hearing; that is three months of interest that has to paid by someone. It ends up that the person paying for the interest is the person trying to buy the house. Certainly it is not something that is going to be paid for by a developer. Mr. Satterstrom remarked that the Commission needs to remember that the Planning Commission has already recommended to the City Council modified standards for single family development. It has already been recommended that optional ways be considered so that people can take advantage of the density that is allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. Some optional flexibility is already allowed, for example,the minimum lot size in the RI-7.2 zone is actually proposed to be less more like 6,200, and allowing greater flexibility in the subdivision process (lot width). Commissioner Stringham addressed the issue that even a minimal amount of a cost increase that is unnecessary is too much. In it of itself a 30 or 60-day delay may add a small amount to the purchase price and when you compound that with all the other things you have to deal with -mitigation fees, conditional use permit fees, and all the traditional delays, it just makes the problem worse. He agrees that we need to avoid any time delays as time is money in the construction business. Commissioner Stringham stated that it was his understanding that the City currently does not require a public hearing for developments of eight lots or smaller. Ms. Phillips reaffirmed that. Commissioner Stringham questioned why we should now require a public hearing for lots five to eight in size, what benefit is that? Ms. Phillips explained the concern is that the lots would be smaller and closer together than the rest of the neighborhood. The concern was with the smaller lot sizes than the rest of the neighborhood. #ZCA-95-10 MI-C Amendment 5 4ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 Commissioner Stringham clarified that four or smaller lots would not require a public hearing. Ms. Phillips confirmed this. Commissioner Stringham did not see the relevance to adding a public hearing for 5-8 lots. He did not see there was a significant difference between the 1-4 lots and the 5-8 lot sizes. Commissioner Nuss stated that the difference lies in the different size of the lot is not a small issue. Commissioner Nuss stated that there have been studies done on rats at the University of Washington where they put them in a box and they watch them all fighting because they are too crowded. When you are getting more and more dense with people the monetary cost weighed against the cost to human beings,the effects to the human beings need to be considered here over who could make the fastest buck. Commissioner Stringham rebutted that he did not think it was about the fastest buck. He believes it is about is trying to create ownership situations in the single family market for young couples who are now priced out of that market. He also pointed out that unlike rats human beings have the power of reasoning and logic and we are not requiring a public hearing on three or four lot size developments there is little difference between three or four lots and eight lots. Commissioner Nuss questioned the Chair as to whether or not the Commission was in the discussion process or at questions. Chair Morrill explained that they were in deliberations at this time correction we are just asking questions to Ms. Phillips. Chair Morrill opened the public hearing, Mr.Paul Morford,P. O. Box 6345, Kent, WA 98064. Mr. Morford addressed the water problem and the site coverage. He has a piece of property near Kent Commons that he has just short platted. He was on the standards committee for the public works and any piece of property in the City of Kent that is over 5,000 square feet of impervious area has to have storm retention. He felt that the street standards was a big issue and felt they should wait to vote on the whole issue instead of voting on a half issue. The other thing is that the growth management is trying to encourage in-fill. The only in-fill in the City of Kent is on small lots. The last time he tried to voice his opinion on not having a minimum lot size and there was a lot of debate on that. If you have 20,000 square foot of property and it was zoned 5,000 square feet you could have four lots of all the same size. But with the cluster development, or if you didn't have a minimum, you could have a 3,000 square foot lot and have a little more open space. For instance, most of you are familiar with the property over near Fourth Avenue next to Kent Commons, that could be short platted. It is a big trend to have a smaller lot so you can have your own lot and have more open space. Mr. Morford felt that having a conditional use permit is a step backwards in mandating public hearings. The neighbors are notified during the short plat process and can speak at the short plat #ZCA-95-10 MI-C Amendment 6 #ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 meetings. He suggested using the same factor to determine the number of lots allowed based on the zoning. However, allowing for smaller lot sizes which would cause more open space. Commissioner Dahle questioned what to do with small children and no place to play. Mr. Morford explained that there would be a place to play. Most of the people buying the smaller 4,200 square foot lots have children. The only choice for these families is to get into their own place with their own yard or an apartment. He thought that the reason for these was to try to give families another alternative to apartment living. Each time you make the lot size bigger or the process more cumbersome, you push the families into apartments Commissioner Nuss questioned Mr. Morford's comparison of apartment living and cluster developments. Tom Sharp, 11126 SE 256th,Kent. Mr. Sharp was a member of the study group to change the PUD Ordinance because it was not working. He felt that when the PUD Ordinance was changed it became too restrictive. Mr. Sharp questioned whether we actually wanted the in-fill. Commissioner Stringham asked staff what percentage of the Comprehensive Plan relies on in-fill and redevelopment to accomplish our housing goals. Mr. Satterstrom was unsure of the answer. He explained that it was fair to say that a portion of the capacity of the Comprehensive Plan depends on redevelopment as well as in-fill. He believes a lot of the area that depends on in-fill is probably accommodated by your previous proposal on single family. The Planning Commission recommended a 50 foot lot width that goes a long way in offering a subdivision alternative. As mentioned before the minimum lot sizes are reduced by approximately 20%to ensure that the single family density number that was put in the Comprehensive Plan could actually be achieved through subdivision. A small portion of the capacity is dependent on cluster development. This is another way in which people who own land's that are constrained and wouldn't be able to subdivide the same as land that doesn't have constraints. This way they can transfer the density from the sensitive area to the developed area of the site. Mr. Satterstrom does not have any concrete numbers for the Commission nor did he think they got that finite in the analysis. Chair Morrill closed public hearing. Commissioner Dahle commented the Commission has no objection to 5,000 square foot lots. However,there was objections to lots of 3,000 square feet. The lots she has observed were 5,000 to 6,000 square feet in size and they were very close together. Her recommendation is for nothing smaller than 5,000 square feet lots. Chair Morrill questioned the Park's involvement in the cluster development process. Ms. Phillips explained that the only time that the Park's Department would become involved in a development differently than they do now is because there is a fee in lieu required for full subdivisions. This means that if a person who wanted to develop property and did not have a critical area that they had to save,they could devote their entire 20%of open space the Park's Department could waive the fee #ZCA-95-10 MI-CAmendment 7 #ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 in lieu. The open space would have to be totally usable recreation space. That is the only different way that Parks would become involved. Chair Morrill asked if the fee in lieu would be used for neighborhood parks. Chair Morrill stated that three years ago all parks systems were shying away from neighborhood parks because they are so costly. Ms. Phillips explained that it is a priority right now because in the Meridian Annexation area there just aren't enough neighborhood parks and the Parks Department is also trying to refurbish some neighborhood parks. She did not mean to infer that all of the fee in lieu money would be spent for neighborhood parks that would depend on the park plans at that time. Commissioner MacIsaac asked for a further clarification of the fee in lieu and how it applies here with the cluster development. Ms. Phillips explained that it only becomes an issue if the entire 20% that is reserved for cluster open space is devoted, developed, and appropriate for recreation. This would not apply where there was a wetland that had to be reserved or if it was part of the 20%was a stream or a slope. Commissioner MacIsaac again questioned what the fee would be in lieu of. Ms. Phillips explained that it is a fee in lieu of providing a park. The Parks Department does find that dedicating a lot in a subdivision for a park does make for a lot of small parks spaces for the City to maintain. It is in lieu of dedicating land for parks and is based on the gross area or the number of lots in the subdivision. State law requires a park to be provided when new houses are constructed, so a fee in lieu was applied to the subdivision process. Mr. Satterstrom explained that if 20%of open space is required in the cluster development then they would of already satisfied the purpose of the fee in lieu of because the fee in lieu of only requires 5%of the land area to be dedicated or set aside for a park. In most cases in cluster development,the park dedication and fee in lieu of Ordinance would be mute because the land would be part of the 20%of the open space required by the cluster development. In no case would the City collect a fee in lieu of because the fee is only paid if someone decides not to provide the open and/or park space. Commissioner MacIsaac asked as far as cluster housing goes clustering it tells you that you're going to end up providing some open space. Fro example,a lot will have been reduced from 5,000 square feet to 3,000 square feet so there would be at least 2,000 square feet given up for some type of open space. Ms. Phillips explained that the 20%must be recreation space not just open space. It can not be wet or sloped to qualify. Mr. Satterstrom explained that what we are trying to do here is to extend the same benefits to single family areas as multiple family development now enjoys in the PUD Ordinance. The City now maintains a Plan Unit Development Ordinance that applies only to multi- family zones. In a multifamily zone in Kent you can now apply for a PUD, you can cluster your development however you want, basically you can even achieve density bonuses if you do certain things such as set aside open space and so forth. Here Kent is attempting to extend the same benefit #ZCA-95-10 MI-C Amendment 8 #ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 to single family. The ability to cluster, the ability to go to smaller lots,the ability to be a little more imaginative in the site design than you can presently do under the existing or proposed subdivision standards. If this cluster housing Ordinance is not approved, then multifamily developments will have greater flexibility for development than in single family. Mr. Satterstrom realizes that the developers are telling you that nobody is going to build it, however, it is modeled after other cities and counties that presently have these ordinances and in many cases Kent's proposed Ordinance is less restrictive. Chair Morrill indicated he did not believe that the developers are not going to build rather developers are saying they just want a little bit more flexibility to make it a little bit more affordable and reduce some layers of bureaucracy. That is what the general public is seeking right now. Mr. Satterstrom explained that this proposal in some respects reduces the bureaucracy and increases the flexibility from the Ordinances that we copied in producing this document. He referred to Ms. Phillips' previous statements that this proposal is less restrictive and adds greater flexibility than what is currently in place in other jurisdictions. Commissioner Nuss questioned some of the housing that she has observed although some of it is nice,she is concerned with the 3,000 square foot lot size. She questioned whether or not there would be very many of these developments and Mr. Satterstrom commented that he did not believe there would be. Commissioner Nuss pointed out other cities (White Center, Rainier Valley) where they have some pretty interesting projects. These projects are small areas and she does not want that to happen to Kent. She believes that the 3,000 square foot lot sizes are too small and she would like to focus rather on quality rather than quantity. Commissioner MacIsaac commented that we have to look to the future for the upcoming generations. We are in an economic era that is reducing the standard of living. Young people today are out on the street because they can't either afford a house or an apartment. They are staying at home with their parents. Our children,our grandchildren especially,are not going to be able to afford any kind of single family house and they are going to be forced into some kind of a ghetto situation unless we do something about cutting as much bureaucracy and get the housing down to some kind of affordable level. What we spend as tax payers for all the paperwork, all the time that is lost, and so on, is passed on. That was an American dream for everyone of us to have a single family house. We are the responsible people that have to look at trying to cut the regulation,trying to cut out some of our bureaucracy so these kids can have some kind of a future in this country. Commissioner Nuss does not have a problem with cutting some of the bureaucracy and making it easier for people to build. She has a problem with looking at Kent right now, our multifamily situation,our human services,our taxes,things like that, that are just stretched out. She thinks that it would not hurt Kent a whole lot to focus on quality. A 5,000 square foot lot is not a huge lot. She thinks we should focus on quality right now instead of how many people can't really afford it and how many can we cram in an area and maybe stretch out our services even further. #ZCA-95-10 MI-C Amendment 9 #ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 Commissioner MacIsaac explained that in speaking of a 3,000 square foot lot we are referring to that in a cluster development. In a cluster situation we haven't added any more houses to the area if it's five per acre if it's ten per acre. But what you're going to have is more open space. The size of the lot is not a terrible thing,you are having a lot more open space around. If you allow smaller lot sizes with more open space and preserve the open space there will be space for the kids to go out and play in the woods or those little areas. Going to a 3,000 square foot lot is something we should consider. You are not just looking at some little tacky neighborhood of all these 3,000 square foot lots you are actually providing some open space with it that is really nice. It can allow for some trees and some green space. Commissioner Nuss rebutted that she understands that. However, there are areas where there are steep slopes where somebody with a large portion of property could build on it and they are given an allowance to build houses closer/tighter. An example of this would be property with steep slopes, and through clustering they could have ten housed crammed together. Commissioner Dahle questioned the price of$139,500 as being affordable. She also stated that the children need more of a yard to play. Commissioner Epperly explained that the average home in Kent sells for$190,000. Commissioner Stringham questioned why if the fee in lieu is mute in cluster housing why is it even in there. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the Park dedication or fee in lieu is an existing Ordinance. The 20°/mof open space set aside in a cluster development would already satisfy the Ordinance and therefore it is mute. Ms. Phillips further explained that the Park Department has the right in the subdivision code now to decline a dedication if the lot is not appropriate for recreation. She explained that in the proposed cluster development the fee in lieu could be waived if the subdivision residents maintained the open space as recreation. Commissioner Stringham questioned whether the fee in lieu was a state mandate. Mr. Satterstrom explained that it is not a state mandate. However,the state's subdivision statue makes it incumbent on cities is to look for adequate open space or recreation provided in the neighborhood when approving subdivisions. Commissioner Dahle commented regarding the 3,000 square foot lots that she would rather have the children playing in their own yard versus playing in open space. Commissioner Heineman voiced his concern for the 3,000 square foot minimum. He suggested that a 4,200 square foot minimum could be a compromise. It would allow for some basic modification of the basic R1-5.0 in a cluster development. #ZCA-95-10 MI-C Amendment 10 #ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 Commissioner Stringham asked if there were any staff comments on Commissioner Heineman's comments. Ms. Phillips commented that the smallest lot size that has already been recommended by the Planning Commission is 4,000 which is 20% less than the 5,000 current standard She recommended that the 4,000 square foot would be a reasonable minimum threshold if the Planning Commission was going to adjust the minimum. Mr. Satterstrom discussed a meeting he had with Mr. Bill Ruth. Mr. Ruth had indicated that he would like the Commissioners to consider in the R1-5.0 designation that in a cluster development that the right to attach units be given. He would like to be able to attach common walls. Mr Satterstrom explained that it would still be land ownership with side to side development This use to be an option in the PUD Ordinance in single family before it was taken out three years ago. Mr. Ruth considered this crucial in the whole cluster development. Commissioner Nuss commented that if you have a townhouse or a condominiums you have ownership there. The City refers to condominiums as multifamily, so in essence by having a cluster house with attached walls with another dwelling it is still multifamily. Chair Morrill commented on some homes he has seen back East with common walls. He stated that he has seen some very nice homes with attached walls. He believes allowing common walls is a good idea. Commissioner Dahle asked how many walls are attached. Chair Morrill explained that back East it is block after block of attached walls and it is beautiful. Commissioner Dahle commented that it is still multifamily. Commissioner Nuss stated that the houses back East are a lot different when compared to what we have locally. Chair Morrill commented that it would be possible to build with common walls and still make nice looking neighborhood. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned Mr. Ruth's concept and wondered if attaching walls would give the residents a big back yard. Mr. Satterstrom explained that he had not discussed specific concepts with Mr. Ruth. Mr. Satterstrom stated that Mr. Ruth indicated that he wouldn't benefit from cluster developments without the allowance of common walls. Commissioner Stringham voiced his concerned with adding additional items to the Ordinance at such a late date after such a long deliberation. He suggested that if Mr. Ruth wanted to pursue the addition to the Ordinance that he should go to the City Council with his concerns. Commissioners Maclsaac and Nuss agreed. Commissioner Dahle questioned if developers could build common wall structures with a nonconforming permit. Commissioner Stringham explained that common walls could only be built #ZCA-95-10 MI-C Amendment 11 #ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 if it were included in the code. Commission Stringham suggested making a decision on what was already before the Commission and not adding anything new to the deliberations. Commissioner Epperly voiced her concern with requiring a conditional use permit for the five to nine units. The property is already posted and all the neighbors are notified. Five to nine units doesn't impact the neighborhood like ten or more would. It gives the added flexibility to use the in- fill and some redevelopment. She would like to see a conditional use permit required for ten or more units. Commissioner Stringham explained that ten or more units is a full subdivision Commissioner Epperly MOVED to accept staffs recommendation as written with a change that a conditional use permit is not required for five to nine units and increasing the minimum lot size to 4,000 square feet. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion for discussion purposes. Commissioners Dahle and Nuss prefer the minimum lot size to be 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Maclsaac voiced his concern for being too restrictive. He supports no minimum lot size to cluster. Commissioner Heineman questioned the rationale for the one acre minimum. Ms.Phillips explained that the rationale was partially tradition and the 20% open space becomes quite small on anything less than one acre. Motion failed. Commissioner Stringham MOVED to accept staffs recommendation with the following changes: eliminate the one acre minimum size,raise the minimum lot size in the 5,000 square foot zone from 3,000 to 4,000, raise the minimum lot size in the 7.2 zone from 4,200 to 5,000, eliminate the conditional use requirement for developments under ten, and eliminate the ten foot perimeter buffer requirement. The motion was SECONDED by Commissioner Maclsaac. Motion failed. Chair Morrill abstained from vote. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to accept staffs recommendation without a conditional use requirement for less than ten units and a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Motion fails for a lack of a SECOND. Commissioner Stringham recommended for each Commissioner to explain their stand. Chair Morrill agreed. Commissioner Pattison explained his total opposition to cluster housing. Commissioner MacIsaac feels that the proposal is too restrictive to be used. #ZCA-95-10 MI-C Amendment 12 #ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 Commissioner Heineman suggested to table this issue. Chair Morrill agreed. He felt more input was still needed. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned if there was public input early on. Ms. Phillips explained that the Planning Department held two separate forums. They received input from both developers and residents. Commissioner MacIsaac voiced his concern with not coming to a decision after all this time. Commissioner Nuss agreed with Commissioner Pattison to table the issue. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned how the Commission could receive more input. Commissioner Epperly suggested a subcommittee. Commissioner Stringham MOVED to continue the cluster housing Ordinance to an unspecified date so that the Commission can get further research and request that staff seek written information from the development community to use as a comparison. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Commissioner MacIsaac requested staff comments on motion. Mr. Satterstrom explained that there has already put a lot more time on this project than anticipated. The calendar for the rest of the year is already full and if the Commission is unable to act tonight this issue will not be heard again until next year. Commissioner Stringham questioned a time line Mr. Satterstrom explained that there isn't any state mandated time frame. Commissioner Stringham withdrew his motion. Commissioner Heineman withdrew his second. Commissioner Stringham MOVED to forward the cluster housing Ordinance without recommendation ensuring that staff includes all of the Commissions comments from this hearing along with all of the amendments that were offered. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Commissioner MacIsaac voiced his concern with the Commission deadlocking issues. He was concerned that the Commission might not be doing their job if they can't come to an agreement on issues. Commissioner Heineman agreed it might be time to cut this one loose. Motion carried. 4ZCA-95-10 MI-C Amendment 13 #ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 Commissioner Stringham voiced his concern with the nonconforming use issues. King County allows some time for the owner to rebuild. He MOVED to request staff to draft a code amendment that would allow a similar set of circumstances in the City of Kent for those areas that are newly annexed. Chair Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Epperly moved to adjourn the public hearing. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The public hearing adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, JamesAPHarris c:\users\doc\minutes.925 #ZCA-95-10 MI-C Amendment 14 #ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development