Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 08/28/1995 (3) — KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Hearing August 28, 1995 The regular meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kent Morrill at 7.00 PM on August 28, 1995 in Chambers West, Kent City Hall. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Morrill, Chair Russ Stringham, Vice Chair Gwen Dahle Kenneth Dozier Connie Epperly Edward Heineman, Jr. Robert MacIsaac Mike Pattison PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Janette Nuss, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Linda Phillips, Planner Chris Holden, Administrative Secretary APPROVAL OF JULY 24, 1995 MINUTES Commissioner Stringham MOVED and Commissioner Epperly SECONDED to approve the July 24, 1995 minutes as written. MOTION CARRIED. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None Cluster Housing and Zero Lot Line Development #ZCA-95-2 and#SCA-95-1 1 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department, mentioned the up-coming Meridian Annexation zoning hearings. It was discussed that there would be consecutive nights for the hearings. The hearing is scheduled to start on September 25 with a possible follow-up hearing on September 26 and, if necessary, having deliberations heard on October 2, 1995. Commissioner DAHLE MOVED and Commissioner PATTISON SECONDED that the Meridian Annexation public hearings will be held on September 25 with continuations, if necessary MOTION CARRIED. CLUSTER HOUSING AND ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT#ZCA-95-2 AND#SCA-95-1 Linda Phillips, Kent Planning Department, presented the staff report. Ms. Phillips commented the discussion being heard tonight is about cluster and zero-lot-line development The Growth Management Act and the Comprehensive Plan encourage the provision for a variety of housing opportunities to accommodate the expected population growth within Kent's boundaries within the next twenty years. Public officials and Kent's residents have expressed a broad opinion that Kent has enough multifamily housing, about 60 to 68 percent, and in order to accommodate the predicted growth in Kent, more single-family housing will be needed. Some of the ideas being presented tonight will offer some options and opportunities to meet housing goals while maintaining the character of single-family neighborhoods and maintaining some open space areas for various purposes. Single family residential cluster development could also be an alternative in multifamily residential zones. The handout distributed earlier is written in code form for ease of understanding. The following are additional issues that were discussed in the Planning Commission workshop held on August 14, 1995: 1. Revised street standards. This is a separate, but related issue when talking about developing shorter streets, shorter utility runs to save money in cluster housing, and constructing streets that are appropriately sized for smaller lots. Even though the Planning Department feels that street standards would need to be different for cluster housing there is not a consensus agreement with the Public Works or Parks Departments in regard to the matter at the present time. Cluster Housing and Zero Lot Line Development #ZCA-95-2 and #SCA-95-1 2 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 2. Preparation of a Public Information Manual. This would contain recommended design principles and some suggested designs with the cluster housing development. When alternative housing is used, design can become an important issue so the Planning Department would like to supply some recommendations. 3. Provision of common recreation space. The concerns the Public Works Department had with regard to street standards was with parking of cars, space for emergency vehicle traffic and children playing in the street. This concern led to the inquiry as to whether enough recreation space is provided in the small-lot development. This was addressed by recommending that common recreation or playground space be provided within cluster development. This recommendation could be addressed as a requirement to cluster or small lot development through the conditional use or subdivision process. Ms. Phillips briefly summarized the recommended Zoning Code section 15.04.020 G. In addition, the conditional use section of the Zoning Code would be revised to add clustered development if five or more residences are planned. There is one exception and that would be if it was a long subdivision which already requires a public hearing. It was concluded that clustered housing should be allowed in all of the single-family residential zones as well as the multifamily residential zones. Ms. Phillips continued to summarize the recommended zoning change. A chart comparing the proposed densities and dimensions of cluster development to Kent's proposed ordinance and King County's was attached and discussed briefly by Ms. Phillips. Ms. Phillips gave a brief synopsis of the Zero Lot Line Revisions document. This recommendation would add the 5,000 square foot lot residential zone to the zero lot line section as well as the MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. The minimum site requirement has been reduced to one acre. There are recommended revisions to setbacks between dwellings. Commissioner Stringham asked that on the chart for cluster housing under minimum street setback what does "average" mean? Ms. Phillips replied that the "averaging" in this case means averaging within the development. It is another type of flexibility so that the developer could chose to put houses close to the street so long as they averaged ten feet throughout the development. Averaging would be applied to the entire development and not just one street. Cluster Housing and Zero Lot Line Development #ZCA-95-2 and #SCA-95-1 3 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 Commissioner MacIsaac asked that under the zero lot line development could one side of the site be ten feet and if there was a garage that side could be as little as five feet. Isn't ten feet still required between dwellings? Ms. Phillips agreed. The ten or five feet are minimums and that came from our existing code. She felt it meant that if one side included the garage, the property owner would need only a five foot setback. Commissioner MacIsaac asked if it would be zero on one side and five foot on the other? Ms. Phillips responded No. It means, that if you have a garage, you would have to maintain the five feet even if it was on the zero side. Chair Morrill asked if Ms. Phillips could provide a clearer explanation of the zero lot line setback requirement. This would give extra space to a garage in a zero lot line development. Thus is one side of the lot there could be a garage and a 5-foot setback would be required. The other setback would still be zero. Commissioner MacIsaac commented on the zero lot line buffer area, you would still have to have a ten foot buffer width all the way around on all boundaries of the development. Ms. Phillips commented that is an existing recommendation in the Zoning Code and that part had been left out and at the Planning Commission workshop that part was crossed out. There was some discussion at the workshop about it and it was then left in. A zero lot line development not in cluster housing would need to be buffered but cluster housing would not. However, most cluster housing would be subject to a conditional use permit and could have a buffer by condition. Commissioner Stringham remarked the buffer zone applies only to the perimeter of the development. He asked if the zero lot line development applies only to interior setbacks. Ms. Phillips remarked there could be an outside yard that was on the zero lot line depending on how the development was designed. The perimeter buffer would still apply to the outside. Commissioner Dahle asked about the Parks Department review of the playgrounds, etc., of these developments. -- Cluster Housing and Zero Lot Line Development #ZCA-95-2 and #SCA-95-1 4 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 Ms. Phillips commented the Parks Department receives all of our subdivision applications for review and comment. However, if 20 percent of the property was for recreational space, the Parks Department would like to have the authority as to whether or not that space was appropriate for recreation. Chair Morrill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. Paul Morford, PO Box 6345, Kent, WA 98064, commented on the staff report and felt there should be less restrictions. He commented on the zero lot line setbacks and storm detention. He felt the cluster development should be a out-right use and a conditional use permit should not be required. Mr. Morford commented that any restrictions to impervious surfaces should be left to the Public Works Department. He felt that open space would just happen with cluster development and there shouldn't be any minimum requirements. Mr. Morford felt there should not be any minimum areas for zero lot line developments. There was no further public comment. Commissioner Epperly MOVED and Commissioner Pattison SECONDED to close the public hearing. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Dozier MOVED for more time to consider the comments made by Mr. Morford. MOTION WITHDRAWN. Ms. Phillips commented that when the lot size requirement was brought before the Commission and the neighborhood groups there was concern about how compatible cluster development would be with existing development. That is why the lot sizes vary. Thus, when an underlying zone requires a certain lot size, the minimum lot sizes were varied in order to be compatible. In regard to the maximum impervious surface requirement, the Zoning Code currently has maximum building coverage. However, maximum impervious surface requirement, has to do with the driveway, the sidewalk and all the other types of surfaces that water won't penetrate. This doesn't have anything to do with how much retention a development is required to have. In addition, the minimum site area both in zero lot line and cluster housing is there because of how much open space might be gained by a certain size lot. For example, anything less than an acre, 20 percent becomes a very small open space area relative to a the neighborhood and the community and what actually would be provided in allowing smaller lot size. King County requires more recreation area than we do. It is true that King County allows cluster housing outright without a conditional use. In addition, King County provides density bonuses for certain kinds of open space preservation. However, in our meetings and at the Planning Cluster Housing and Zero Lot Line Development #ZCA-95-2 and #SCA-95-1 5 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 Commission workshops, it was decided, that the neighbors should have a chance to look at what will be happening in their neighborhood. Most cluster ordinances that were reviewed from other jurisdiction by the Planning Department required more than 20 percent open space. Commissioner Dozier felt that if a public hearing is required for any kind of zoning to see how the neighbors feel about it, there is no certainty at all. He felt this causes more hard feelings and tears a community apart more to have these kind of things. He thought that any of the zoning laws should be aired at a public hearing before any laws are made. Thus, any developer would know what standard he has to build by and if anyone wants to change the standard, they can go change the law. Commissioner Dahle felt that the narrow streets cause problems. In addition there should be some control on size of the lots. She felt there should be controls for protection to the neighbors as well as safety protection. Commissioner Stringham asked what department is currently controlling how much impervious surface can be put on property? Ms. Phillips stated there is not a maximum impervious surface regulation right now. Since under the proposed Zoning Code changes there will be higher density allowed, there will be more impervious surface created. This regulation is to compensate for the increased building and still allow water to percolate back into the ground in a natural way to the aquifers. Mr. Satterstrom commented there is currently no maximum impervious surface regulation in the City. It is not uncommon for a zoning code to have this type of regulation. Chair Morrill felt that when this matter is sent to the City Council, it could be requested that this matter be put in the Public Works Department. Commissioner Stringham felt that since cluster housing requires a certain amount of open space there isn't a problem. Commissioner MacIsaac felt that the retention area should be included in the percent of open space requirement. Commissioner Heineman commented there are two possibilities here: One, we take this back to workshop to discuss this further or two, we reject the whole thing as proposed. Cluster Housing and Zero Lot Line Development #ZCA-95-2 and #SCA-95-1 6 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1995 Commissioner Stringham felt there was a third possibility and that was to add their own input and make a motion on this plus their recommendations. Commissioner Stringham MOVED to adopt the staff recommendation as written. Chair Morrill SECONDED MOTION. Commission Dozer asked that it be amended that there be no conditional use required for cluster housing, there be no Park Department approval on the land set aside, there be no minimum area size and no public hearing will be held after ordinance made. Commissioner Stringham could not accept the friendly amendment regarding no public hearing. Commissioner Dozer withdrew his amendment request regarding the public hearing. Chair Morrill did not accept the friendly amendments regarding the Park Department approval and the minimum area size. MOTION DEFEATED. Commissioner Dable MOVED to adopt the staff recommendation without any amendments. Chair Morrill SECONDED. MOTION DEFEATED. Commissioner Dozier MOVED to accept the staff recommendation as written with no conditional use permit required, no Park Department approval and no minimum area size. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED. VOTE: AYE: Dahle, Morrill, Heineman and Pattison. NAY: Dozer, Epperly, Stringham, MacIsaac. MOTION FAILED. It was MOVED and SECONDED to send the matter to City Council with a four-four vote. Chair Morrill stated it would be without a recommendation. MOTION WAS WITHDRAWN. It was MOVED and SECONDED to take this back to workshop for further consideration. MOTION CARRIED. It was MOVED and SECONDED to close the hearing. MOTION CARRIED. The public hearing was closed at 8:35 PM. Respectfully Submitted, F ed N. Satterstrom, Secreta y a:pcmin8.28 Cluster Housing and Zero Lot Line Development #ZCA-95-2 and #SCA-95-1