Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 07/23/1990 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 23 , 1990 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7: 30 p.m. July 23 , 1990 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Tracy Faust, Vice Chair Frank Chopp Coleen Miller Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Elmira Forner, excused Greg Greenstreet, absent Willie Gregory, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager Carol Proud, Senior Planner Laura Yeats, Planning Intern Margaret Porter, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF JUNE 25, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Ward stated that he was present at the June 25, 1990 meeting. Commissioner Ward MOVED that the minutes of the June 25, 1990 meeting be approved as corrected. Commissioner Faust SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chair Martinez opened the public hearing. PARKING REVISIONS ZCA 90-3 Laura Yeats presented the current parking requirements and existing conditions for multifamily dwelling areas in the city. City Council asked the Planning Department to look at the parking requirements and the existing conditions because of recurring parking concerns at the Bridgewater Condominiums, located within the Lakes subdivision. The investigation indicated that cars were parked along the Lakeside Boulevard and biking lanes causing problems with traffic flow and emergency vehicle access. Public Works has resolved this issue by proposing that the Bridgewater Condominium management provide additional parking along Lakeside Boulevard to accommodate the parking needs. The condominium homeowners' association is currently considering the method of Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1990 funding this project. First, staff investigated existing codes for multifamily developments and then compared these to existing conditions in the City of Kent. Studies indicated a difference between condominium and apartment parking needs, i.e. condominium residents often require more parking because of car ownership patterns and higher incomes. Currently there are no provisions in the code for visitor parking. The existing code requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit for 49 or less units, and 1.8 spaces per dwelling unit for 50 or more. Recreational buildings must provide one space for every 200 square feet of floor area, and day care facilities must provide one space for every employee, plus loading and unloading spaces. A survey to compare our parking requirements with other jurisdictions showed Renton as the only jurisdiction which requires guest parking. There are no jurisdictions which determine parking needs by square footage yet; however, it is considered to be the most consistent way of determining parking needs. Other cities base their requirements on the number of bedrooms. A windshield survey of apartments and condominiums on the Valley Floor, East Hill and West Hill between the hours of 5:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. revealed adequate striped parking in most of the developments. There were cars parked opposite fire lanes, which would make emergency access impossible or extremely difficult. In areas where garages were provided, these were often used for storage, shops or offices. Often cars were parked abutting the garage door even when the space was inadequate. She presented slides depicting certain parking conditions, particularly those associated with garages. Ms. Yeats presented the following four alternatives: Alternative A: No Action. Maintain the parking requirements as they presently exist. However, this could involve discouraging the use of garages for storage and enforcing parking violations in areas that pose safety problems by limiting emergency vehicle accessibility. Alternative B: Amend the code to require parking according to number of bedrooms per unit instead of by dwelling unit. This would allow for more accuracy and more flexibility. Alternative C: The provision of visitor parking. This alternative can work as a suboption to both Alternatives A and B by adding a guest parking provision to either the existing parking requirements or to revised requirements. Visitor parking is necessary to compensate for the parking lost when garages are used for storage, workshops or other uses. It is also necessary where there is no available parking on the adjacent streets as is the case with Lakeside Boulevard within the Lakes. 2 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 23 , 1990 Alternative D: For developments incorporating garages, the development would have to meet certain garage/driveway design standards in order to apply the space toward the requirement. In this case, only garages which are accessed by a driveway 18 to 20 feet in length meet the parking requirement. Garages without the driveway would be permitted, but would not be counted towards the parking requirement. That way, if a tenant chooses to use his/her garage for storage or other use, there is still room off the street for parking. Commissioner Faust asked if there was a proposal for developments which did not incorporate garages into their plans. Ms. Yeats responded that the developments without garages did not appear to have parking problems. She pointed out that Renton, the only jurisdiction that has a visitor parking requirement, requires only 1. 5 parking spaces per dwelling unit and .25 for visitor parking. This 1.75 total requirement is less than the Kent parking requirement. Mr. Satterstrom added that Kent requires visitor parking for a recreational building in addition to the 1.8 per dwelling unit. He felt that these additional spaces could be used for visitor parking. Commissioner Miller wondered if the developer should be encouraged to design parking where the residents could park near their dwelling units. Ms. Yeats responded that this should be handled through design standards and guidelines. Chair Martinez asked for clarification regarding the statement in Alternative D " . . .conduct a site plan review to insure that adequate parking is provided within close proximity to each unit entrance. " Mr. Satterstrom felt that if adequate stacking space were required, this problem would be easily solved. It was a matter of requiring the developer to provide the space. The issue of convenience to parking place is complex and might inhibit site flexibility and creative development. Carol Proud attended the City Council Public Works Committee meeting in which residents of the Lakes development expressed concern regarding parking in the area. She explained to those attending the meeting that once the development is approved, there is little staff can do to regulate how individual condominium users 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1990 or apartment managers choose to allocate their parking. From the development community standpoint, requiring additional parking stalls might alleviate parking problems, but every parking stall adds an addition $3, 000 to $7, 000 to the project cost because of land value, costs, etc. She quoted from Section 15.09. 010 in the Development Plan Review under B3 "Pedestrian circulation system must become a part of any development plan when the proposed development will generate or attract pedestrians" . A statement suggesting that parking be within close proximity to the individual living or business use could be added, but it would be difficult to enforce. Discussion followed. Commissioner Miller MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Faust SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Faust MOVED that the Commission Adopt Alternative D as proposed by the Planning Department with the additional request that the Planning Department work with Fire and Police in the city to ensure that parking regulations regarding fire lanes and emergency vehicles are enforced as strictly as possible. Commissioner Chopp SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Ward asked if a statement regarding access to the garage should be included. Commissioner Faust responded that Alternative D included a statement about stacking spaces in front of garages. Chair Martinez suggested that the following statement be added to 15. 09. 010 Development Plan Review, page 137 B 3 . "The Planning Department should conduct site plan review to ensure that adequate parking is provided within close proximity to each unit entrance. " Commissioner ward felt there is a parking space problem within multifamily units in Kent, and that there should be a minimum of two spaces for each two-bedroom dwelling unit. He felt there should be wording to encourage developers to designate parking for residents. Commissioner Faust felt there were sufficient restrictions on developers and urged the Commission to adopt Alternative D. Discussion continued. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the garage would be counted as a parking space, but the stacking space outside the unit would not be counted as a parking space. It is intended that the garage be used as car storage and the stacking space be used temporarily while the resident waits for the garage door to open to move the car into the 4 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1990 garage. If the garage is used for another purpose, there would be adequate space for parking outside of the garage. Ms. Proud added that garages without driveways would be permitted but would not be counted toward the parking requirement, and that a parking stall would be required in another location. She felt that people would be parking in front of their garage. Mr. Satterstrom remarked that 18 to 20 foot driveway was suggested but felt that 18 feet would be sufficient. The previous motion made by Commissioner Faust and seconded by Commissioner Chopp, that the Commission adopt Alternative D as proposed by the Planning Department with the additional request that the Planning Department work with Fire and Police in the city to ensure that parking regulations regarding fire lanes and emergency vehicles are enforced as strictly as possible, was carried unanimously. Chair Martinez MOVED that the following words be added to Section 15.09. 010 B3 : The Planning Department should conduct site plan review to ensure that adequate parking is provided within close proximity to each unit entrance. Commissioner Faust SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Faust felt that the amendment should state "shall" instead of "should" . This was considered a friendly amendment by Chair Martinez. The motion was amended to state that the Planning Department shall conduct site plan review to ensure that adequate parking is provided within close proximity to each unit entrance. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Ward MOVED that an amendment be included to further encourage designated unit parking where it is not in front of the garage. Commissioner Miller SECONDED the motion for discussion purposes. Mr. Satterstrom responded that there are 13, 000 multifamily units in Kent. At 1.8 stalls per dwelling unit there are over of 20,000 parking stalls. It would be difficult to work with all of the developers to ensure that each stall be numbered. This is currently left up to the management of the complexes. Commissioner Faust felt that it is important that parking spots be identified with specific apartment units. Mr. Satterstrom felt that this activity was not in the purview of Planning Department. He felt the problems had been identified and addressed in the wording that Planning Department shall review the site plans to make sure that the parking is spread out over the 5 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 1990 site in an appropriate manner. He felt this approach should address the problems that staff is currently experiencing. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Faust MOVED and Commissioner Miller SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ><\ (71 P. Harris, Secretary 6