Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 07/28/1997 CITY OF )Q IIVID�HIT Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544 James P Harris, Planning Director j LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing July 28, 1997 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Steve Dowell at 7 00 p in on July 28, 1997, in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Dowell, Chair Bract Bell, Vice Chair Tom Brotherton Jerry Daman Ron Harmon Sharon Woodford LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: David Malik PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Teresa Beener,Administrative Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Jerry Daman SECONDED a motion to approve the June 23, 1997 minutes Board member Tom Brotherton explained that the motion made to open the public hearing (on page 7) was MOVED by Ron Harmon. The motion was amended to reflect the change. The motion carried. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGFNDA None. - COMMUNICATIONS None. #ZCA-97-2 CM-1 ZONING DISTR1rT REGULAT10X$ #ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPWENTS #ZCA-97-5 GENERAL CONDITIONAL USES 220 4th AVE SO /KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3300/FAX#859-3334 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 28, 1997 Page 2 NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Director Jim Harris explained that there will be a Special Planning Committee meeting to consider the Downtown Strategic Action Plan on Wednesday, August 6, 1997 at 7.00 p in in the City Council Chamber East Mr. Harris explained that this is a continuation of the July 15, 1997 Planning Committee meeting #ZCA-97-2 - CM-1 ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS - (F Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that this item was previously heard by the Land Use and Planning Board and a recommendation was sent to the City Council Mr Satterstrom explained that this item has been remanded back to the Board from the City Council at the appl(cant's request for reconsideration. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that the request for a regulatory review was received from Mr Glen Sparrow Mr Sparrow has requested to expand the permitted uses in the CM-1 zone to include warehousing and distribution facilities and the storage of goods and products Mr Satterstrom explained that the original recommendation by the Land Use and Planning Board specifically did not permit trucking terminals and rail/truck transfer uses The applicant has requested that these uses be allowed as a conditional use Mr Satterstrom explained that CM-1 zoning is located in only one area within the City of Kent along Central Avenue and is less than one percent (1%) of the City's total land mass. The CM-1 zoning district is adjacent to Manufacturing zones which allow trucking terminals and rail/truck transfer uses. Staff recommends amending the CM-1 district regulations and adding the following principally permitted uses. "Warehousing and distribution facilities and storage of goods and products, provided however, that trucking terminals and rail/truck transfer uses shall be permitted subject to a request for and approval as a conditional use " Mr Satterstrom explained that a conditional use permit requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner He explained that the Hearing Examiner has the ability to set mitigating conditions on a case by case basis. Vice Chair Brad Bell questioned who the perspective tenant was. Mr Satterstrom explained that Yellow Freight made the original inquiry on the site, however, it could be another company, who actually occupies the property in question Chair Steve Dowell questioned what other areas this would effect Mr. Satterstrom explained that CM-1 zoning is located in only one area. (Mr Satterstrom identified the area on the map). • Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing Motion carried. #ZCA-97-1 CM-I ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS #ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTS #ZCA-97-5 GENERAL CONDITIONAL USES Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July-28, 1997 Page 3 John Paul Turner, 3 Lake Bellevue Drive, Suite 100, Bellevue (98005) Mr. John Paul Turner is an attorney with Rogers & Deutch and is representing the applicant, Mr. Glen Sparrow. Mr Turner presented the Board with some pictures that the applicant took of the area. He explained that 218th has undergone a substantial LID project and presented pictures illustrating the improvements. Mr Turner commented that the property across the street in the industrial zone has extensive driveways as does the property owned by Mr Sparrow He remarked that the Sparrow property was previously permitted as a trucking terminal Mr Turner stated that he concurs with staffs recommendation. Board member Harmon MOVED and Vice Chair Bell SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing Motion carved. Mr. Harmon asked for staff to reiterate the original recommendation that was made by the Land Use and Planning Board Mr Satterstrom explained that the original recommendation was as follows: "Warehousing and distribution facilities and storage of goods and products, provided however, that trucking terminals and rail/truck transfer uses shall not be permitted " Chair Steve Dowell questioned whether the property could handle a larger building Mr. Satterstrom explained that it could be expanded somewhat but the site is restricted Mr Harmon questioned the size of the existing building. Mr. Satterstrom explained that he is uncertain Harmon questioned whether the CM-1 zone was established to buffer the heavy manufacturing from the multifamily residential Mr. Satterstrom explained that the purpose of the CM-1 zone is to provide an area for both heavy commercial and industrial uses of land. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the only potential problem staff foresees with the requested amendment is where the CM-1 zone abutts high density multifamily Mr. Satterstrom commented that the CM-1 zone is a relatively small area of land and most of it is already developed He stated that the LID improvements on 218th make this area more capable of handling a trucking type use. Mr Satterstrom explained that three circumstances help mitigate the potential conflict between a trucking use and the multifamily residential The first is the transition requirements that are written into the zoning code. These regulations apply when you have industrial uses next to multifamily residential The second is the grade difference. The multifamily area is located on the hill and the industrial land is in the valley Mr. Satterstrom explained that the difference in elevation and grade helps to separate the two uses The third is the requirement of a public hearing through the conditional use process Surrounding property owners would have an opportunity to go before the Hearing Examiner and voice any concerns they may have with a trucking terminal next door The Hearing Examiner is able to set mitigating conditions when necessary. NZCA-97-2 CM-1 ZONING DISTRICT REG ULATIONS 4ZCA-97-3 PLANNED L§VIT DUELOPMEVTS NZCA-97-5 GENERAL CONDITIONAL USES Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 28, 1997 Page 4 • Mr. Harmon commented that a trucking terminal could be a twenty-four hour seven day a week operation. Mr Bell stated that he is comfortable with the Conditional Use process where the Hearing Examiner can mitigate individual site concerns on a case by case basis. Vice h it C a Brad Bell MOVED and Harmon SECONDED a motion to recommend that the City - Council adopt the staff recommendation to amend Section 15 04.120(A) and add the following principally permitted uses "Warehousing and distribution facilities and the storage of goods and products, provided, however, that trucking terminals and rail/truck transfer uses shall be permitted subject to a request for and approval as a conditional use " as Y Motion carried #ZCA-97-3 - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS - (K O'Neill) Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that the City received a request for a regulatory review of the Planned Unit Development(PUD) regulations from Polygon Northwest Mr O'Neill explained that the Kent Zoning Code currently provides for a PUD in Section 15 04.080. He explained that the intent of a PUD is to create a process to promote diversity and creativity in site design and protect and enhance natural and community features Mr O'Neill explained that the process is provided to encourage unique developments which may combine a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial uses. Mr O'Neill explained that PUD provisions in the zoning code go back to the original 1973 zoning code Typically the purpose of a PUD is to allow for flexibility for site design in terms of layout, lot sizes, and uses, but it requires a formal review and approval process which includes a public hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner The applicants have requested three specific changes to the PUD regulations which are outlined on page 2 of the July 28, 1997 staff report and listed below: 1. Allow PUDs to single-family zoning districts, if the site is 100 acres or more. 2. Allow for attached dwelling units. 3 Allow a phased, or "master plan" process. Mr O'Neill explained that the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies in both the Land Use Element and the Housing Element encourages residential buildout throughout the City in order to meet the housing targets that are provided for in the Growth Management Act, well at the same time, protecting the environmentally sensitive areas like wetlands, steep slopes, and creek and • stream corridors Mr O'Neill explained that a PUD is a very good mechanism for accomplishing that Typically, a PUD is able to cluster the development on the most developable portions of the #ZCA-97-2 CM-I ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS 4ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UA'IT DE[ELOPMENTS 4ZCA-97-5 GENERAL CONDITIONAL USES Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 28, 1997 • Page 5 lot and the environmentally sensitive areas are left alone. In fact, the current PUD regulations require that 35% of the site be dedicated for common open space. Mr. O'Neill explained that there were several issues discussed at the July 14, 1997 Workshop with regard to different housing types Mr O'Neill explained some of the options available • Flexibility with regard to the different types of housing types and allow it to be reviewed as part of the Hearing Examiner process • Allow the attachment of units but not allow any density bonus • Capping any multifamily buildings at two stories • Allowing only side by side units as opposed to vertically stacked units • Restricting the number of units per building in a PUD • Allowing only a certain percentage of overall units to be multifamily With regard to the master plan process, Mr O'Neill explained that this process was utilized during the development of the Lakes project which was a large contract rezone The Lakes project, that was approved back in the 1970's, consisted of a an overall master plan for a site over 200 acres. The master plan prescribed approved densities within the site and each phase was reviewed and approved administratively. iThe advantage of establishing a master plan approval process in the PUD Ordinance is that it could be used for a residential PUD or any type of a large development project that was either going to built out in phases or was going to combine uses Mr O'Neill commented that if the Borden site was ever redeveloped a master plan process could be used. Mr. O'Neill commented that the City Attorney is concerned that the Hearing Examiner is currently authorized to approve an application for a PUD Mr O'Neill explained that if a use is not typically allowed in the underlying zoning district (i e attached dwelling units in a residential zone) it becomes more of a legislative action similar to a rezone Based on the Law Department's recommendation, if a use is different than what is allowed in the underlying zone, the Hearing Examiner should review the application, make a recommendation to the Council, and the Council should have the final approval Mr O'Neill explained that this would only be applicable when the underlying uses differ from the current use He explained that this would also apply when a PUD of ten acres or more includes a commercial use This is currently allowed within the existing regulations and would fall under the same approval guidelines Mr. O'Neill explained the proposed changes to the zoning code that are outlined in the July 28, 1997 staff report. Vice Chair Brad Bell questioned how many parcels of land this provision would effect. Mr. O'Neill . explained that currently there are very few vacant residentially zoned parcels of land that are 100 acres or more The Kent Highlands site is one. He explained that it would be possible for property owners to assemble enough land together for a 100 acres PUD. #ZCA-97-2 CM-I ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS .' ,e #ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS #ZCA-97-5 GENERAL CONDITIONAL USES ` Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 28, 1997 Page 6 Mr. O'Neill commented that the Meridian Valley Country Club is a couple of hundred acres and was originally approved as a PUD. He explained that this provision would provide a process in the zoning code to allow further buildout if they decided to do so later. Board member Ron Harmon questioned the ten year time limit Mr O'Neill explained that the current PUD Ordinance requires that a development permit be brought in within one year of approval of a PUD He explained that the purpose for ten years was allowing enough time for a master plan to be built out in several phases Mr. Harmon questioned if a shorter time frame would be appropriate. He suggested a seven year limit with an option to extend. Mr. O'Neill explained that it would depend on the scope of a specific project whether seven years would be sufficient. Board member Sharon Woodford questioned why the limitations were discussed but were not a part of the staff recommendation. Mr O'Neill explained that the intent was to offer some suggestions of limitations based an the concerns that were voiced at the July 14, 1997 workshop He explained that not allowing a density bonus is a restriction that is currently allowed Ms Woodford commented that she is concerned with the aesthetics and would like to see some type of development that would blend in with the single family zone She commented that side by side units or townhome designs can be made to look more pleasing to single family residents than if a three story apartment looking structure was put in. She would like to see the design fit into the surrounding area. She remarked that the applicant has the same concerns,but this may not mean that a future developer would. Vice Chair Brad Bell remarked that the City of Kent, both the Planning Department and the City Council, has had a history of opposing multifamily development Mr Bell commented that in the "$ early 90's the City practically halted all new multifamily development He explained that the City has consistently annexed property with that had multifamily zoning designations in the county and downzoned the properties to single family designations Mr Bell questioned the staff s motivation for completely turning around the City's position. Mr O'Neill explained that this is not a shift in their position. Mr O'Neill explained that by allowing the option to cluster development in the most developable portion of the site, it allows the site an opportunity to built out at the densities allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that there is a big difference between allowing for flexibility in developing a restricted site and a rezone to MRG or MRM that would allow 16 to 20 units per acre. Mr Bell explained that he is not speaking toward rezone but to the actual down zoning of property Mr Bell asked whether he saw anything ordinarily unfair about taking property owners on the • easthill and downzomng them and now saying okay we can have multifamily on the westhill on a hundred acres. #ZCA-97-2 CM-I ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS #ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTS #ZCA-97-5 GENER9LCOVDITIONAL USES Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 28, 1997 Page 7 Mr. Bell explained that with a 100 acre site that has only 50 acres that are developable the PUD would double the amount of housing units that can be placed on the site Mr O'Neill commented that it potentially doubles the amount of housing units that can be placed on the developable portion of the site,but the entire site is still regulated by the underlying zoning Mr. Bell questioned whether that was doubling the intensity of the site Mr O'Neill stated that the site is regulated for a certain number of units per acre and that provision would still apply. Board member Sharon Woodford commented that the applicant has previously spoken to the Kent School District and discussed allocating some land to use for a school She questioned whether the City has any authority to require that an application with a site of 100 acres or more have to allocate a percentage of land for schools or at least facilitate a discussion with the school district. s Mr O'Neill explained that the Board has the choice to make that recommendation. He explained that any large project would go through an environmental review. He commented that mitigating conditions and factors would be analyzed as part of that. Ms. Woodford commented that one hundred acres or more has a potential for a lot of families. A project of that size could easily overpopulate the schools instantly. Planning Director Jim Harris questioned whether Ms Woodford was proposing that the regulations for a PUD with one hundred acres or more have a requirement that a school be placed on the site or 5 that consideration be given for a school site Mr Harris stated that those are two vastly different concepts Requiring a development to provide a ten acre elementary school site or a fifteen acre junior high site may not fit into the school district's overall plan. The school district may want to locate down the road. Ms. Woodford questioned what the City had authority to require. She would like to see some requirement that an applicant must discuss the school district's needs Mr. Harris commented that schools are allowed in any zone through a conditional use permit Board member Ron Harmon commented that he has some of the same concerns as Ms Woodford. He would like to see some consideration given to schools on a hundred acre site The school district needs should be considered by the developer of a hundred acre site. Mr Harris pointed out that city and school district operations are two separate governmental entities. To expect the two to work together simply by ATiting something into the City of Kent Zoning Code may be unrealistic Mr Harris commented that the Board has some good ideas The City could require the developer to work with the school district. Ms. Woodford asked what the City has the authority to do. Mr. Harris explained that the City has the ability to suggest an idea,but the school district has their own ideas Mr Hams commented that talking with each other is very important. 4ZCA-97-2 CM-1 ZONING DISTRICT REGUATIONS #ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS #ZCA-97-5 GENERAL CONDITIONAL USES Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 28, 1997 Page 8 Board member Tom Brotherton commented that we are all acutely aware of the City Council's concerns on multifamily dwelling units. He questioned whether the City would have any difficulty meeting housing targets if the PUD is not approved Mr. O'Neill explained that on the particular site in question this is probably the only way that the density could be accommodated He commented that is not necessarily the case on the large scale because the 100 acre requirement limits the use. Chair Steve Dowell stated that the developers pay the school districts a fee for each dwelling built. Mr O'Neill commented that school impact fees are required for each new dwelling unit constructed. He explained that the fee is different for single family versus multifamily Mr. O'Neill stated that single family residences are charged $3,500 per home and multifamily units are charged approximately $2,000 per dwelling unit. Chair Dowell questioned the allowance of commercial uses. Mr O'Neill explained that the current PUD Ordinance allows commercial uses on any residential PUD of ten acres or more, hence, this would apply to a hundred acre or more site He explained that the current Ordinance would only allow those uses that are currently allowed in the Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zoning district. iChair Dowell questioned what would be some allowed uses. Mr. O'Neill explained that the principally permitted uses would be any local retail business for sale of new merchandise, as opposed to a resale or thrift store, personal services such as barber and beauty shops, and any other retail or personal services use as determined by the Planning Director to be of the same general character of the local retail businesses and services as well as municipal buildings. Dowell asked what conditional uses would be allowed Mr O'Neill explained that only conditional uses allowed would be the general conditional uses that are listed in Section 15.08. General conditional uses would include schools, retirement homes, and those uses that are allowed in every zoning district as a general conditional use. Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing Motion carried Eric Wells,Polygon Northwest,4030 Lake Washington Boulevard 4201,Kirkland,WA 98033 Mr Eric Wells presented the Board with a letter (Exhibit 42) Mr Wells explained that Polygon would like an opportunity to build a community. He explained that there are several types of communities, multifamily, single family and combinations of the two. Polygon proposes an opportunity to come in on a large piece of property in the City of Kent and have the flexibility to provide housing for a variety of different lifestyles, for a variety of different people that can afford • homes at different levels. t 4ZCA-97-2 CM-I ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS 4ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS #ZCA-97-5 GENERAL CONDITIONAL USES Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 28, 1997 Page 9 Mr Wells stated that if a hundred acre site is developed with only single family housing with the constraints you have on development today, road improvements, school impact fees, and the time required to develop a complicated site with steep slopes and the wetland issues, a lot of people are priced out of the market He commented that he sees that today, as the market goes up He explained that a variety of different housing needs can be met in a single project with a master planned community or a large PUD. Mr. Wells commented that Polygon has had open communication with the school district. He stated that they do understand the school's needs and stated that school impact fees are set a to address P P some of the school district's needs. Mr Wells commented that when designing a large project you need to take schools into consideration ^ Board member Tom Brotherton commented that some of the concerns for multifamily stem projects from renters not taking as much pride and ownership in a rental unit He commented that people who make an investment and plan to stay for an extended period of time tend to make a commitment to the community and the area. Mr. Brotherton questioned whether Polygon would object to a requirement that the multifamily housing be built for single ownership or would apartments need to be included in this development to be saleable. Mr. Wells explained that Polygon builds homes for sale product. Whether they build side by side townhomes, single family or detached condominium. or even stacked condominium, they are all for sale product and that is there intent. He doesn't foresee a difficulty committing to single ownership dwellings. Mr. Brotherton commented that one concern is not to degrade the quality of service in the neighborhood when you bring in a PUD or a large development. Mr. Brotherton questioned whether Polygon would agree to maintain current service levels Mr Wells explained that this may be difficult to address He explained that issues involving parks, traffic, roads, school impact fees, water, and sewer are brought out during the environmental review and mitigating conditions are set Mr. Brotherton discussed an issue if a phased development when a high percentage of the multifamily is developed first Mr Brotherton commented that he would like to see a proportionate amount of single family development along with the multifamily development in a phased development. Mr. Brotherton questioned if this would be a problem Mr. Wells explained that from a developer stand point that is their goal. They try to develop a variety of units simultaneously to offer something to sell for everybody At the Lakes, Mr. Wells explained that they have actually opened four separate communities at one time so they could offer a variety and choice He commented that restricting a development to a specific proportion could be difficult to write into the regulations, however,they try to offer a variety Otherwise, they could • commit business suicide He explained that the market demand drives their business direction #ZCA-97-2 CM-I ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS #ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UV1T DEVELOPMENTS #ZCA-97-5 GLNERAI,CONDITIONAL OSES Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 28. 1997 • Page 10 Chair Steve Dowell commented that a lot of research has gone into the downtown plan and dispersing commercial uses sporadically in outlining areas does not concentrate the focus. Mr Dowell questioned what type of retail uses if any Polygon was considering. Mr Wells commented that it's not Polygon's intent to develop retail or light commercial into the PUD. He explained that the allowance of some commercial uses is presently allowed in the code and, therefore, was referenced by staff. Chair Dowell questioned what type of multifamily rental units Polygon was considering. Mr. Wells explained that it is not Polygon's intent to build any for rent product. He explained that they intend to build for sale product. Mr. Wells suggested setting a height restriction of two stones above grade. Mr. Dowell questioned what types of units Polygon was considering for the PUD site Mr. Wells commented that they are considering a detached condominium. side by side two story townhome, single level side by side townhome, carriage style two story six-plex with integral garage. Board member Sharon Woodford questioned whether the Lakes had on-site day care facilities. Mr Wells explained that there is a day care that has been there for years. He explained that it is located in the older Lakes near the apartments Ms Woodford questioned whether Polygon had considered a day care facility for the PUD development. Mr Wells explained that the day care facility at the Lakes community seems to be doing well; however,the Lakes is a much larger project with 240 acres and approximately 2400 units Board member Ron Harmon questioned the total acreage of the land under consideration Mr. Wells explained that the site is 202 acres Mr. Harmon commented that 202 acres is not much different from the 240 acres at the Lakes Mr. Wells explained that the Lakes was zoned for a much higher density The land under consideration for the PUD development is zoned three units per acre. Vice Chair Brad Bell commented that at three units per acre and 202 acres that would allow for over 600 units not the three hundred as previously referenced Mr Wells explained that any reference made to 300 units was a standardization of three units per acre based on a flat one hundred acre site not the project specific site Mr Wells apologized for any confusion. Gar}, Young, Polygon Northwest, 4030 Lake Washington Boulevard 4201, Kirkland, WA 98033 Mr Gary Young explained that he is the principle of Polygon Northwest Polygon is a family based business that started in 1974 He explained that he has personally worked in the City 4 of Kent since 1980 Polygon has invested seventeen years on a number of different developments. He explained that land that is remaining for development is land that typically has much more environmental sensitivity to it The more difficult properties are generally the last to be developed. Mr Young explained that they are not asking for a something specific to benefit their company They are asking for an opportunity to work on a specific property He commented that they do feel that there are other opportunities in the City that this change could benefit. #ZCA-97-1 CM-I ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS #ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTS - #ZCA-97-5 GENF.R4L CONDITIONAL USES Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 28, 1997 Page 11 He explained that this is not opening the door or providing a single unique opportunity. This is providing an opportunity to plan and to take into consideration all of the needs of the City. Mr Young explained that as a builder and having worked with the City in the past they have a keen sensitivity of the issues of Kent They understand the needs for schools facilities and not to have Kent labelled an "apartment" community Mr Young explained that it is Polygon's intent to provide for a range of housing to allow unique ownership opportunities. He explained that this change could help Kent meet its target housing goals Vice Chair Brad Bell MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Board member Ron Harmon commented that he supports the no density bonus and the master plan with phased development. He is concerned with a ten year time limit and would feel more comfortable with seven years He would like the uses expanded to allow for in-home offices He would like to see no more than two side by side units attached, a height limit of two stories above grade, and some provision for a cohesive agreement or conversations pursued with the school district. Mr. Harmon stated that he would like to see the proportion of 75% single family and 25 % multifamily He also supports limited commercial uses such as a day care center, corner grocery, or dry cleaners. Chair Dowell questioned if day care centers were regulated Planning Director Jim Harris explained that day care centers are regulated by the state and are allowed in single family zones. Mr Brotherton commented that he would like the multifamily units limited to individual ownership He remarked that 75/25 seems like a tough proportion. However, he would like to see a mix with greater than 50% single family He suggested a letter of instruction to the Hearing Examiner to ensure that service quality for utilities and roads would not be degraded and if the services had been degraded by one phase that it must be corrected before the next phase is built Mr Brotherton would like to see a limit on the number of side by side units He felt two would be too limiting and would rather limit at four or five. Ms Sharon Woodford supports the restriction of individual ownership and a height limit of two stories. Ms Woodford remarked that limiting side by side units to two is too restrictive. Vice Chair Brad Bell commented that he supports the PUD concept and is pleased with Polygon's interest However, Mr Bell could not support multifamily development in a single family zone under any circumstance. Board member Jerry Daman remarked that he is impressed with the whole process. He is comfortable with what has been presented and with staff s recommendation He supports the height restriction of two stories and would like a provision for home occupations. t� #ZCA-97-2 CM-I ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS #ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS #ZCA-97-5 GENERAL CONDITIONAL USES Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 28, 1997 Page 12 Mr. Harris explained that home occupations are allowed outright if they meet certain criteria. Mr Harmon suggested restricting parking to no on-street parking and Chair Dowell recommended no retail, no commercial, and no apartment or rental units. Mr Young commented that if a restriction was made to require 75% single family and 25% multifamily their ll y j roect would be not be economically viable He commented that 25% single p y family and 75%multifamily would be feasible. Mr Young also commented that limiting six units per building is acceptable Ms Woodford asked if staff had some feedback based on the Board's discussion. Mr. O'Neill explained that the ownership issue would require a legal interpretation but he felt that the City would probably not be able to require ownership of individual units He suggested that this be left as a part of the Board's recommendation but would be dependent upon a legal interpretation by the City Attorney. Mr O'Neill commented that a height limit could be added to the recommendation He suggested that another option would be to regulate any development in a single family PUD to the single family height limit which is thirty-five feet(35')in the single family zone Chair Dowell questioned how high thirty-five feet would be Mr O'Neill explained that this would be two and a half stones or thirty-five feet. a Mr. O'Neill explained that if the Board would like to consider a proportionate amount of single fammly versus multifamily they would need to come up with a recommendation Mr Harmon questioned what Polygon would be able to live with N1r Young commented that 25% single family is the most they could handle. Mr. Brotherton commented that with the unique features of this specific piece of land it is somewhat restrictive with how it can be built out He remarked that another project may not have the same constraints. Mr Brotherton suggested leaving a proportion up to the judgement of the Hearing Examiner Mr. Harmon asked for the staff s recommendation. Mr. O'Neill explained that there was no staff recommendation for a specific proportion in the staff report He explained that an application would be reviewed by staff, by surrounding property owners in a community meeting, in a formal public hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner, and by the City Council Given this extensive review process, plus the SEPA and multifamily design review process, staff did not feel that it is necessary to specify a certain percentage. • Mr Brotherton commented that he agrees with what Mr. O'Neill is saying. Putting a specific number on a requirement is too limiting. He recommended establishing a goal for the Hearing 4ZCA-97-2 CM-I ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS #ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS #ZCA-97-5 GENERAL CONDITIONAL USES Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 28, 1997 Page 13 Examiner to maximize the,number of single family residences consistent with the development under review. Mr. Harmon MOVED and Mr. Daman SECONDED a motion to recommend approval of the staff recommendation for #ZCA-97-3 outlined in the July 28 staff report and send the recommendation to the City Council with the following amendments: • Height limit of two stories • No on-street parking • Provide documentation of dialogue with the school district Require single ownership (pending City Attorney interpretation) • Seven year time limit with the opportunity to extend to a maximum of three years • Require 75% single family and 25% multifamily ratio Ms. Woodford is uncomfortable with the 75/25 requirement She commented that Polygon would be unable to develop their project Ms. Woodford MOVED to amend the motion and leave the proportion of single family versus multifamily units to the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. Mr Harmon SECONDED the motion. Motion carried(Bell opposed). The original motion carried with Bell opposed. #ZCA-97-5 GENERAL CONDITIONAL USES - (J Harris) Planning Director Jim Harris explained that there are a lot of private schools in Kent. He explained that in fact, there are two schools, within two blocks of where we are sitting tonight, that didn't go through any type of review There is nothing in the regulations that require private schools to go through a review process Mr Harris commented that private schools are very popular today as an alternative to public schools. He explained that private schools are not considered in the general conditional use section of the zoning code He is recommending an amendment to general conditional uses to give private schools the same requirements as public schools. Mr. Harmon questioned whether there was any dialogue with the public schools regarding this matter Mr Harris explained that this isn't competition to public schools. Board member Sharon Woodford questioned whether a school could be located next to an adult bookstore Mr. Harris explained that Kent has established adult use guidelines which do not allow an adult use within 1,000 feet of a school He explained that if a school already exists an adult use can not be within 1,000 feet and if an adult use already exists a school will not locate within 1,000 feet. • Vice Chair Brad Bell MOVED and Board member Ron Harmon SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing Motion carried. There was no public testimony. Harmon MOVED and Bell SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. t 4ZCA-97-2 CM-I ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS OZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS NZC 1-97-5 GENERAL CONDITIONAL USES �i Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 28, 1997 Page 14 Mr Harmon MOVED to recommend approval of#ZCA-97-5 general conditional uses as proposed by the Planning Department and forward the recommendation to the City Council Brotherton SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9 40 p in. Respectfully Submitted, (9J, es P Harris etary U\D0C\LANDUSE\MINUTES\P13MTG7 28 i t� w #ZCA-97-2 CM-I ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS #ZCA-97-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS #ZCA-97-5 GENERAL CONDITIONAL USES