Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 08/26/1991 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 26, 1991 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Faust at 7:00 P.M. , August 26, 1991, in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Faust, Chair Gwen Dahle Christopher Grant Albert Haylor Edward Heineman, Jr. Kent Morrill Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Linda Martinez, Vice Chair Greg Greenstreet PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Lauri Anderson, Senior Planner Laura Yeats, Planner Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF JULY 22 , 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Haylor MOVED that the minutes of the July 22, 1991 meeting be approved as presented. Commissioner Grant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - ZCA-91-1 Laura Yeats presented the staff report on Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) which are a provision within the Zoning Code to allow creativity and flexibility in site design. PUDs are permitted in all zoning districts except the A-1, Agricultural, zone at this time. In all districts, the principally permitted uses, conditional uses and accessory uses are the same as those in the underlying zoning district with two exceptions: A. In single family residential zoning districts (RA and R1) , attached side-by-side (not vertically stacked) residential units may be permitted in a PUD. B. In residential PUDs of ten (10) acres or more, commercial uses may be permitted. Commercial uses shall be limited to those uses permitted in the Neighborhood Convenience District. Kent Planning Commission August 26, 1991 At issue is whether the City should encourage the development of attached units in single family zoning districts as stated in exception "A". The following major changes were made to the PUD ordinance in 1987: A. The review time was shortened by allowing other land use processes to be consolidated with the PUD review. B. The requirement that each residential PUD consist of all housing types was dropped in favor of a density bonus incentive that encourages a mix of housing types. C. Density bonuses were made much clearer than before. It was unanimously recommended by the Planning Committee that the City Council adopt the revised PUD ordinance and it went into effect in August of 1988. Since the adoption of the new ordinance, one PUD has been approved and is now under construction. PUD regulations establish the following minimum development standards: A. PUDs in RA and R1 districts must be a minimum of 5 acres. B. The minimum perimeter building setback of the underlying zoning district applies. In addition, if a PUD proposed in an RA or R1 district includes attached units, the Multifamily Transition Area setback requirements apply. C. The maximum height of the underlying zoning district applies. In addition, if a PUD proposed in an RA or R1 district includes attached units, the Multifamily Transition area height requirements apply. D. Residential PUDs must provide a minimum of 35 percent of the total site area for common open space. E. PUDs are not required to meet the minimum lot size requirements of the underlying zoning district. This provides flexibility in site design by allowing units to be clustered together which aids in the provision of additional amenities such as common open space, preservation of unique natural features and on-site storm water drainage control. F. The density of the PUD is determined by the gross density of the underlying zoning district. However, the Hearing Examiner can recommend up to 20 percent greater density if the PUD 2 Kent Planning Commission August 26, 1991 proposal provides amenities or design features as outlined in the PUD Density Bonus Standards. In October, 1989, the Mayor's Advisory Committee on Single Family Housing cited "attached singles" as a viable alternative to the detached dwelling in meeting the changing trends in households and homeownership. These residences earn the title "attached singles", rather than multifamily, by their ability to coexist and/or harmonize with single family detached homes. In June of 1990, the City Council received a petition from the Responsible Urban Growth Group (RUGG) requesting that the City Council consider revisions to the PUD ordinance which would require all housing units to be detached, single family units. Attached, side-by-side units would no longer be allowed. The following alternatives to the existing PUD regulations were developed to address the concern over multifamily development (attached singles) in the RA and R1 Single Family zoning districts. A. Increase the minimum site acreage for RA and R1 zoning districts. B. Modify the exception to ensure harmony with adjacent single family neighborhoods. For example, the number of attached units per structure or the number of attached units as a percentage of total units could be limited. C. Establish site design guidelines if attached units are incorporated in single family PUDs. This would establish guidelines for site configuration of attached units. D. In RA and R1 zones, eliminate Density Bonus Standard 16, Mixed Housing Types, which states that "a two percent density bonus may be authorized if a development features a mix of residential housing types". E. In RA and R1 zones, develop a new Bonus Standard allowing attached units and/or increased density when specific amenities are provided. These amenities could include additional landscape buffers, additional five percent open space, perimeter lots which would be permanently retained as single family detached units, or attached units with staggered floor plans to emphasize individual units. F. Remove "Exception - All which allows attached units in single family zones. 3 Kent Planning Commission August 26, 1991 G. No change to existing PUD regulations. H. Eliminate PUDs in RA and R1 single family residential zones. This would, however, eliminate the potential for providing a mix of housing types which was a goal of the PUD. Arnold E. Hamilton, 25410 113th Avenue SE, Kent, asked why we were talking about allowing multifamily in R1 zoning, which is single family. He feels that this gives developers the opportunity to cram more houses into smaller areas. Chair Faust asked Mr. Hamilton which of the alternatives he preferred. Mr. Hamilton said he was in favor of alternative H. Kevin Flatt, 11224 SE 256th Street, Kent, agreed with Mr. Hamilton that R1 is for single family detached dwellings and attached single units seem to be a violation of the atmosphere of single family residences. Since the mix need not include every type of housing, there is a distinct possibility that there could be no single family at all in PUDs. He felt that the open space would be land that was simply unusable. Mr. Flatt recommended alternative H. Chair Faust asked if Mr. Flatt would consider, as an alternative, limiting the number of multifamily structures that could be built in a PUD and making sure that they were clustered toward the middle of the PUD. Mr. Flatt felt that that sounded better, but there was still no assurance that there would be genuine open space that was usable. He felt that the potential for abuse still existed. Commissioner Haylor asked if Mr. Flatt felt the PUD would be a good idea in multifamily areas. Mr. Flatt said it was an excellent idea for multifamily zoned areas. Jim Orr, 24909 114th Avenue SE, Kent, said he does not support alternatives A, B, Cr D, E or G for the following reasons. By increasing the minimum site acreage, the potential for PUDs in Kent would be decreased now, but as annexations occur, people living in single family zones could find themselves with multifamily neighborhoods. Allowing buildings up to four units in size hardly fits in with single family and could not be considered low density single family. Alternative C would help protect existing single family neighborhoods, but would still add more multifamily to a City that is near 70 percent multifamily now. Eliminating the Density Bonus doesn't go far enough to protect existing neighborhoods. He doesn't believe there is any need for further density increases no matter what amenities are provided. Alternative H would be his first choice and alternative F would be his second choice. 4 Kent Planning Commission August 26, 1991 approved that involved the tearing down of single family, just as any development could be approved that might eliminate an already existing structure. In answer to the second question, Ms. Anderson said that a PUD allows the density based on gross acreage, rather than net acreage, so the potential is there for more units. Mr. Sanders supported alternative H. When he moved to Kent, he felt the mix was supposed to be 70% single to 30% multifamily. He wanted a quality of life in a single family, established neighborhood that gave his family certain services that you come to expect from that. This quality of life has eroded so far that he cannot live here any more. People must have enough room to live. He felt that if the parcel size were increased to ten acres, you could do a lot more planning and could provide more facilities for the people. Chair Faust asked if Mr. Sanders would be in favor of design guidelines to make sure the units at least look like single family and to encourage diversity. Mr. Sanders did not feel he could support this because of the density of family units that would be put in a given acreage. Commissioner Ward MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Grant MOVED that the Planning Commission adopt alternative H which would eliminate PUDs in RA and R1 single family residential zones. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Grant pointed out that four of the five people who spoke were in favor of alternative H. Also, a year ago, over 1,600 people signed a petition that said they wanted all housing units to be detached, single family dwelling units, no longer allow attached side-by-side units and establish a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. Commissioner Morrill asked staff if they knew how many 10 acre sites there are now in the RA or R1 zoning districts which could potentially be PUD sites. Ms. Yeats said that in R1 there are 35 sites of 5 acres or more and it sites that are 10 acres or more. In RA there are 34 sites that are 5 acres or more and 19 sites that are 10 acres or more, but many of those are on the valley floor and may not be suitable for residential development because of wetlands. Chair Faust stated a preference for alternative F. She felt that would prevent multifamily in single family areas, but would still 6 Kent Planning Commission August 26, 1991 Commissioner Ward asked if Mr. Orr had any suggestions to provide an alternate in the R1 area and if he felt one of the reasons we haven't had PUDs in the past is because of general feeling in the community that no deviation from R1 zoning would be publicly received. Mr. Orr felt that the reason there were no PUDs in the past is because developers have been too busy building apartments. Now that there is no apartment land left, PUDs are the next alternative. Commissioner Grant asked Mr. Orr if he had any feelings on lot size. Mr. Orr felt that lot size should be no less than 7,200 square feet. Commissioner Haylor asked if Mr. Orr felt a PUD in his neighborhood would lower the value of his home. Mr. Orr felt it definitely would. Chair Faust asked if Mr. Orr was saying he didn't want PUDs at all in single family areas, even if all the homes are single family homes. Mr. Orr felt that when homeowners buy 7,200 square foot lots, they want other homes in their neighborhood to be on minimum 7, 200 square foot lots. Steve Babbitt, 945 E. Maple Street, Kent, thought the Planning Department had done a very thorough investigation in presenting their report. He disagreed with everyone who spoke before him. He was very much in favor of flexibility in guidelines for developers provided there is a design review. His preference was alternative C. He was very much in favor of 5,000 square foot lots and felt that some of the most attractive areas of any town are the older, historical areas where lot sizes are very small. He felt that alternative A would, in effect, outlaw PUDs because there are not that many 10 acre sites left in Kent. He also pointed out other alternatives besides those mentioned, such as small lot singles, zero lot line subdivisions, cluster subdivisions, and accessory units. Elbert R. Sanders, 10925 SE 244th Street, Kent, asked if a PUD could be approved which would allow single family housing to be torn down and if a PUD puts more family units in an amount of acreage than single family, single house units would. Lauri Anderson of the Planning Department said a PUD could be 5 Kent Planning Commission August 26, 1991 allow a developer some flexibility to create a single family neighborhood using the landscape and creativity in putting the houses on the land. Commissioner Grant's motion to adopt alternative H was carried. PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT Regarding the Planning Commission Retreat on September 7, James Harris told the Commissioners that it will begin at 8:00 A.M. and will be held in the Senior Center. There will be a facilitator who will lead the Commission through some exercises to get them geared into some common goals. Chair Faust pointed out the importance of this retreat because of the number of new Commissioners. The retreat will help them understand what the Commission is for and how it fits into the world at large. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Haylor MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, 1 Jam P. Har is, Secretary 7