Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 06/28/1999 at a CITY OF ��� %IrN Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (253) 856-5454/FAX(253) 856-6454 James P Hanis, Planning Director LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing June 28, 1999 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Ron Harmon at 7.00 p.m on Monday, June 28, 1999 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS PRESENT James P. Harris, Planning Director Ron Harmon, Chair Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Terry Zimmerman, Vice Chair Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Steve Dowell Tom Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney Sharon Woodford Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary • LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Brad Bell, Excused Jon Johnson, Excused David Malik, Unexcused APPROVAL OF MINUTES Steve Dowell MOVED and Terry Zimmerman SECONDED to approve the minutes of April 12, 1999 with the following correction to change the term "proper council" to "proper committee" as indicated on page 9, fourth paragraph of the minutes. Motion Carried. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None ZCA-99-6 VIEW REGULATIONS Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill stated that this recommendation is to consider potential amendments to Section 15 08.060 of the Kent Zoning Code pertaining to regulations for hillside development. Mr. O'Neill stated that view regulations have been in affect in the City since the 1973 zoning code was adopted and said these regulations regulate the height of buildings located downslope from 2204th AVE SO, /KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200 2 . Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 2 properties defined as "view properties". Mr. O'Neill said that "view property" is defined in the existing regulations as "any property having a general slope of tiventy percent or more and that property located immediately upslope for a distance of 100 feet from that property". Mr. O'Neill stated that property must have a general slope of 20%, and indicated that if there is a slope at some point on the property of 20%,but the slope of the entire length or width of the property is not 20%, then the property is not defined as view property. Mr O'Neill stated that when staff is looking at a proposed residential development for either single family residential or multifamily, two things occur• • Staff defines the horizontal view angle by drawing a slope line perpendicular to the direction the contours are rummng Properties located down slope of the view property would have their views regulated so that the view property would be protected from view obstruction. • Staff calculates the vertical view angle by drawing a line from the mid point of the view lot and envisioning a six foot high wall on the property than drawing a horizontal line from that point to determine the building envelope for the downslope property. • Mr O'Neill stated that, as discussed at Board workshops held in May and June as well as previous hearings pertaining to the zoning code, both Planning staff and the City Attorney's staff has noted concerns pertaining to the nature of existing view regulations. Mr O'Neill referred to pages three and four of the staff report in summarizing concerns First, he stated that the purpose language of the view regulation ordinance does not specifically define the types of views protected Also, existing purpose language allows for building construction on a downslope lot of at least one story If a downslope lot is level, the current regulations would be fairly onerous on this lot and could nullify the ability to construct any house Mr. O'Neill stated that in 1977 the City's regulations were amended to allow a one-story house to be constructed on a downslope lot where view regulations were restrictive However, more recently a property owner desired to build a home one story in height in a view restrictive area and the one story was 28 feet in height Mr O'Neill stated that staff is concerned that the City's existing definition of"story" does not define a story's height Mr O'Neill stated that other cities' view regulation ordinances defined a specific height allowed for a building in a view protection area. Mr. O'Neill stated that staff felt that the regulated view corridors needs to be defined in order to make existing view regulations more defensible. Mr. O'Neill said that staff is recommending the following amendments to view regulations. He Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 3 stated that the first amendment would amend the purpose language by adding a sentence at the beginning saying "the visual environment of the City of Kent is strongly characterized by scenic vistas to the Green River Valley from the slopes of the east and west hills which frame the valley" Mr. O'Neill stated that the intent of this statement is to highlight the purpose of these regulations and what views they are met to protect and that those views are important community resources He stated that amendments be made to the purpose language clarifying the purpose for protection of view site corridors as well as encouraging placement of residences in ways compatible with public vistas Mr O'Neill stated that language would be provided to allow for construction of any building with the maximum height of 25 feet within a view corridor area Mr. O'Neill stated that the addition of a new section be added to the ordinance allowing the Planning Director administrative flexibility to waive or modify view regulations if one or more of the following criteria applies, 1) where there is no available clear view of the valley from development located upslope of a proposed building or 2)the orientation of a development located upslope is towards a different view angle then prescribed • in the view development regulations or 3) the shape or topography of the lot or lots located upslope make a strict application of the view requirements unnecessary or impractical. Sharon Woodford voiced concern that protecting Mt. Rainier views had not been addressed Mr. O'Neill responded that some Mt Rainier views are protected by existing view regulations and that the original purpose behind existing view regulations is specifically view protection for hillside development He stated that many properties within the City with potential views of Mt Rainier are not located on hillsides and exist on flat lots with a view of Mt. Rainer, as the mountain is such a prominent feature. Planning Director, Jim Harris stated that it would be nearly impossible to protect a view of Mt. Rainier, as it is so vast and far away. Steve Dowell suggested changing terminology in Section 15.08.060(A) 2 which states "...shall not prohibit construction as measured from finished grade" in some manner that would protect the views, as he voiced concern that a finished grade could be altered if the property was in filled. Mr O'Neill stated that wording in Section 15 08 060(A) 2 could indicate that building height is measured from the grade that exists prior to the occurrence of any site development. Mr. O'Neill stated that the term "finished grade" is used in the original definition and that the definition of grade in the existing zoning code refers to the lowest point of the finished surface of Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 4 the ground. Mr. O'Neill stated that the term "natural grade"could be used in the amended version of the ordinance. Mr. Harmon asked Mr O'Neill if it was his understanding that Planning staff s purpose for recommending view regulation amendments was to preserve the City's view ordinance and redefine the ordinance to allow the City's legal department to protect the views of those residents that pay taxes based on their view property. Mr. O'Neill stated that in prior discussion with the Board, the existing regulatory framework was to be preserved However, it was determined that the addition of a maximum building height needed to be added to the view regulation for further clanty and defensibility. Sharon Woodford MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to open the public hearing Motion earned. Edward Shemeta, 9405 South 205'h Place,Kent,WA stated that view property commands a higher monetary value, which decreases when, that view is obstructed. Mr Shemeta said that as construction progressed on 94" Avenue below his view property that he met with the City. He stated that as construction progressed on the residence, that the height of the home exceeded the City's agreement. Mr. Shemeta stated that in meeting further with the City planners and the developers it became difficult to determine how the height of the building should be measured. Mr. Shemeta said that he would recommend that a builder place a pole on the construction site with a flag or marker to indicate the height of the rooflme. Mr Shemeta stated that in this way, impacted parties would clearly understand what the consequences of a waiver request decision would be. Mr. Shemeta stated that when he was presented with the architectural drawings for the house, the drawings did not show the additional garage structure added later with only a two-foot setback from the road. He stated that the location of the garage obstructed his view more than the house. Ron Harmon inquired of Mr. Shemeta that if a view pole had been erected and the height marked at the time that the permit process was in progress, would the view regulations have been defined enough for lum to either approve or reject the structure's height Mr Shemeta concurred and stated that he would have been able to calculate that four feet based on his understanding exceeded the height limitations. Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to close the public hearing Motion earned. Mr. O'Neill stated that a view pole is erected to assess view impacts. Mr Harmon said that he understood Mr. Shemeta's proposal was to erect a view pole on the property prior to a variance. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 5 Mr. O'Neill stated that a section could be added to the view regulations to include the use of a view pole in a case where a variance is requested. Mr. O'Neill suggested a phrase be added to the view regulations that say, "that f someone requested a variance part of the process would be to erect view poles on the property " Mr. Hannon suggested that if a house is constructed in an area with view regulations that a pole be placed on the property during the permit process He stated erecting a pole on the property would allow impacted parties to determine if view from their properties would be obstructed Mr. Hannon stated that terminology should be added to the view regulations to address erecting and marking a view pole when any development takes place on view regulated property. Mr. O'Neill stated that a developer is complying with the code when he abides by the maximum height threshold established by Planning staff and if view poles were erected and neighbors objected to the height, they would not have much recourse Mr O'Neill stated that if a builder or property owner were to request a vanance to exceed their height limitations, it would be fair to erect view poles at that time to allow neighbors to address their concerns. Mr. Dowell stated that in Section 15.08.060(A)2 he would like"finished grade"be reworded to read " . as measured from original or natural grade.. Mr O'Neill advised changing the terminology to "natural or finished grade, which ever is lower". He stated that under certain circumstances builders are sensitive to up slope property views by grading lower or building daylight basements. Steve Dowell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to accept staffs recommendation of ZCA-99-6 View Regulations with the following amendments To amend Section 15 08.060(A) of the Zoning Code as recommended by Staff with an addition to Item 2, Page 5 by changing "finished grade" to read `from natural or finished grade which ever is lower". To add additional languages to the code to allow erecting a marked view pole if a variance is required. Motion carved unanimously. ZCA-99-5 Condominium Zoning Strategies Mr. Satterstrom stated that a tour of condominium developments in the East Hill area of Kent took place with the Land Use and Planning Board in May where they looked at a variety of densities and condominium designs. Mr. Satterstrom stated that prior to staff s submittal of their recommendations, several alternatives were looked at by the Board and City Council in encouraging homeownership in multifamily developments. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Satterstrom stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicates that staff needs to look into the concept of proposing some regulatory mechanisms for encouraging condominium housing in Kent Mr. Satterstrom stated that this concept is traced to Housing Goal H 4 policy of the Comprehensive Plan which states " revise zoning and development standards to facilitate small lot sizes, manufactured housing on single family lots, townhouses, condominiums, clustering and other options which increase the supply of affordable ownership opportunities." Mr. Satterstrom referred to Page 2 of his staff report in identifying the following four options that the Board and City Council evaluated in their search to encourage condominium housing in Kent. • Contract Rezoning • Planned Unit Development ordinance • Townhouse Zoning District • Overlay(or"Incentive")Zoning. Mr Satterstrom stated that even though Contract Rezoning is legal, it is poor policy and considered the antithesis of zoning. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the PUD ordinance was looked at by the Board and tabled in order to acquire further information He stated that the Overlay or Incentive zoning option was viewed to have limited application and not a viable option Mr. Satterstrom stated that after careful review of the four options, staff is recommending the creation of a separate zoning district called the MR-T (Multifamily Residential-Townhouse) zoning district He stated that staff proposes that the Board recommend to the City Council that the MR-T district be added to the City's zoning district with a purpose statement that says "that it is the purpose of the MR-T district to provide suitable locations for low to medium density multifamily residential development where home ownership is encouraged consistent with the comprehensive plan " Mr Satterstrom stated that staff is proposing the addition of a multifamily townhouse definition that says "a townhouse dwelling is a residential dwelling unit which is attached to other dwelling units along one or both sides and which occupies the building area from ground level to the roof with no dwelling units located above or below" Mr. Satterstrom spoke at length from Page 4 of the staff report in stating that the proposed "Principally permitted Uses", "Accessory Uses" and "Conditional Uses" for the MR-T zone will remain predominately the same as in the MR-G zone. Mr. Satterstrom referred to Page 5 of the staff report in speaking at length on development standards. He stated that the maximum density for single family would be 8 71 dwelling units per acre, the same as MR-G. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the multiple family density would be 12.0 dwelling units Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 7 per acre. He reiterated the proposed development standards as indicated on Page 5 of the staff report. Mr. Satterstrom stated that an additional standard is added stating that"All Multifamily townhouse developments in the MR-T zone shall be condominium only. A condominium plat shall be filed and recorded prior to approval of a development permit by the City." Mr. Satterstrom pointed out the five criteria relating to property rezoning as indicated on page six of the report. He stated that to ensure that rezones to the MR-T are consistent with the intent for which this zone was created, staff is suggesting, for the Board's edification, the addition of the two following criteria in respect to MR-T zones. "The proposed rezone site is adjacent to or has direct access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T development does not travel through single family residential neighborhoods" and "The proposed rezone site is conveniently located near transit stops and commercial services." Mr Satterstrom submitted a letter for the record from Jack Lynch and Associates as Exhibit 1, . suggesting that the density per acre be "a range"rather than a"specific number"of units per acre. Mr Satterstrom responded to Terry Zimmerman's request to reiterate the City's approval process for this recommendation He stated that if the Board recommends approval to implement the MR-T zone,this item would then be sent on to the Full City Council, with initial review by its Planning and Public Works Committee Mr Satterstrom stated that when this recommendation goes before the Council, it will be voted on and an ordinance would be generated. Terry Zimmerman asked Mr. Satterstrom at what point further comment would be received. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the Council recognizes people who want to speak at the Public Works/Planning Committee and at the Full Council meeting Mr Satterstrom stated that the Land Use and Planning Board public hearing is where public comment is most likely to influence the Council in reaching a decision In response to Ron Harmon, Mr. Satterstrom stated that Green Meadow Townhomes were the first stop on the workshop tour of condommums and that the density on the buildable portion of the site was 10 units per acre as the preponderance of the site is wetlands Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to open the public hearing Motion carried. Robert Howe, 5446 Hvada Blvd NE, Tacoma, WA stated that he is a member of a couple of limited liability companies that are engaged in developing property in the City of Kent. He stated that if the intent of the City is to provide a viable program that will result in townhouse development, staff needs to assure that the restrictions and guidelines enforced are not so restrictive that this recommendation becomes unworkable. • Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 8 Mr Howe voiced concern over staff s recommendation that a townhome site needs to be located adjacent to or have direct access to an arterial street He stated that developers should be given opportunity to address viable egress and access alternatives to a proposed site. Mr Howe questioned if MR-T zoning was restricted to the current MR-G zone or could this zoning apply to SR-6 or SR-8 He stated that the development process is time consuming and would like to see a method implemented to decrease the length of time for the rezoning process, perhaps by deleting the comprehensive plan amendment process Bill Dinsdale, 13700 SE 266`", Kent,WA stated that providing affordable housing is crucial. He stated that the proposed zoning does not provide for more affordable housing for people Mr. Dinsdale stated that to decrease cost, densities must increase to more than 12 units per acre. Mr. Dinsdale stated that by restricting egress and ingress for townhome developments next to an arterial,property that can take advantage of the MR-T is limited. He stated that there are numerous developable properties not located directly on arterials. Mr. Satterstrom in clarifying an issue stated that staff is not proposing that existing MR-G zoned property is going to be affected by this proposal at all He stated that what is proposed is the creation of another zoning district to give landowners and developers the option of rezoning land to a higher density Mr. Satterstrom cited the example that if property were zoned MR-D, 10 units per acre,the MR-T zone would represent an increase in density MR-T is an option that the Council would be given to encourage homeownership in the situations that are intended in the purpose statement and in the criteria. Charles Burridge, 27001 114`6 Avenue SE, Kent, WA stated that he is involved in several developments in the City of Kent. He stated that he is considering developing several pieces of property in Kent with multifamily and a townhouse project Mr Burridge stated that some of the properties have mitigation problems with wetlands where the MR-T would allow townhouse units to be developed surrounding these wetlands. Mr Burridge stated that requiring locating the condominium sites next to arterial roads would be prohibitive and if allowing for only one entrance would be restrictive. He suggested that staff might look at the feasibility of two or three entryways for a development. Hugh Lieper, 815 Reiten Road, Kent, WA stated that he is a commercial real estate consultant. Mr Lieper stated that he believes the City has been attempting to accomplish a distinct separation between the concept of condominium and apartment zoning with the creation of the MR-T zone Mr Lieper read and submitted a proposal for a new condominium-zoning district for the record as Exhibit 2. Mr. Lieper defined this new category as Condominium Townhouse Type Zoning(CTTZ) Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 9 which included allowing for one unit of living space in a two or three story configuration on a maximum of sixteen units per acre Mr. Lieper stated that a density of 12 units per acre is not affective when working on developing a piece of property and that he favored three story units in order to include construction of garages underneath the townhomes. He felt the 30-foot height restriction limits the workability to construct adequate townhomes. Mr. Lieper stated that the last item in additional standards says that "a condominium plat shall be filed and recorded prior to the approval of a development permit". He stated that with a condominium you can not record a total plat until construction is complete and the property has been surveyed Mr Lieper further stated that an actual survey of each unit and each part of that piece of property has to be recorded and that becomes part of the total conditions that must be met to satisfy the statutes of the state. Paul Morford, Post Office Box 6345,Kent,WA voiced his disappointment in the proposed MR-T zone as it does not lend itself to the creation of affordable housing in Kent. He referred to a development in the City of Des Moines where detached units are currently under construction on 25- • foot lots with 15-foot wide units and 5 foot setbacks Mr. Morford stated that the lots were platted in the 1920's. Mr Morford stated that the units are expensive but more affordable than a typical single family residence and encouraged staff to look at plans, which he submitted to the Board. Mr. Morford submitted an architectural version of the Mann Grove Community floor plans for the record as Exhibit#3 Mr. Morford stated that in the 1920'the City of Kent based development on small lots, located close to commercial,rail and waters and suggested changing minimum lot widths to 25 feet. Mr. Morford referenced Section 15.08 of the Kent Zoning Code on Nonconforming Lots of Record in saying that an ordinance was passed in the 1950's that stipulated if a property owner owned two lots side by side, the lots had to be combined in order to develop them He stated that he believes by removing the nonconforming lot, a home could be built on one lot and a townhouse on the adjoining lot. Mr Morford stated that the original intent of rezoning was to discourage multifamily and encourage condominiums or home ownership and that he feels that the MR-T zone should allow for a higher density to decrease the cost per unit. Mr. Morford suggested redefining the MR-T zone to Townhouse District only so as not to limit zoning to multifamily but rather encourage small townhouse developments He stated that the staff report refers to the "T district as providing suitable locations for low to medium density multifamily" Mr Morford suggested striking that statement out and add "it is purposely marked T district to provide suitable locations for residential development where home ownership is encouraged." Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 10 Mr. Morford quoted the staff report's definition of a multifamily townhouse dwelling on page four of the report and suggested rephrasing the definition from " a townhouse dwelling is a residential dwelling unit,which is, attached..."to a townhouse dwelling is a residential dwelling umt which may or ME not be attached..." in order to develop unattached units on small lots. Mr Morford spoke at length on his concerns regarding density limitations within the multifamily residential zoning district. Mr Morford stated that he would like staff to receive input from Jerry Snyder of Snyder Homes who P m'S Y Y built two planned unit developments in the County which have since been annexed to the City and although they are close to an arterial, access is not from an arterial Mr. Morford stated that he feels it to be nebulous that this zoning require a townhome development to be located near transit stops and commercial services as well as to require access from an arterial. Mr.Jerry Prowdy,276081141e Avenue Southeast,Kent,WA stated that he believes the new MR- T zoning does not provide enough concessions to encourage multifamily developers to build condominiums • Mr. Prowdy stated that he favors the proposed zoning as it more adequately applies to single family zones with steep slopes or partial wetlands where townhomes could be clustered on lots. Mr. Prowdy stated that he did not favor developers going having to go through the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning process as it is lengthy and would discourage developers from constructing townhomes. Mr. Prowdy questioned if the rezone process could be streamlined and stated that even though the lot sizes and units per acre were conservative, none the less, he is in favor of moving this recommendation on for approval. Mr. Satterstrom stated if a property owner has existing MR-G zoning which allows 16 units per acre, condominiums can be developed to that zone at 16 units per acre and in MR-M zoning, condominiums or apartments can be developed at 23 units per acre. The MR-T zoning does not propose to change that. Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff believes that the MR-T zoning constitutes a form of multifamily zone because the density of 12 units per acre is more than would be permitted in any of the City's single family zones. He stated that generally you would not find 12 units per acre in a detached configuration. Mr Satterstrom stated that the intent of the MR-T zone is to treat it as a multifamily zoning. He stated that the unique feature of the MR-T zone requires that development in that district must provide affordable owner occupied condominiums. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 11 Mr. Satterstrom stated that he would beseech the Board to not remove the distinction of a multifamily zoning district from the MR-T zone, even though single family could be constructed within this zone. Mr. Satterstrom reiterated the criteria for siting of condominium development. He stated that the MR-T zoning would be applied to property through the rezoning process and if the conditions of the rezone remain consistent w ith the comprehensive plan, than there would be no need to apply for a comprehensive plan amendment. Mr Satterstrom stated that direct access to arterial streets is a criteria not a requirement. He stated that the crucial factor in evaluating a proposed rezoned site is to allow the Hearing Examiner and City Council to see that traffic patterns accessing these sites do not generally run through single family areas adversely affecting these neighborhoods. Steve Dowell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to close the public hearing. Motion tamed. Communication ensued at length between Mr Dowell and Mr. Satterstrom concerning changes to the PUD ordinance and if as result,the changes would require a comprehensive plan amendment in September, which Mr Satterstrom replied in the negative. • Mr. Harmon stated that this condominium zoning ordinance has been brought about from the last comprehensive and zoning change requests that were held in October and November of 1998 pertaining to two properties, one on Pacific Highway South and one on East Hill. Mr Harmon stated that the Board looked at the requests and were informed by the applicants that if a townhouse ordinance was implemented, that the applicants voice interest in constructing a townhome development Mr. Harmon stated that the rezone requests moved forward to the City Council, the Council looked at them and decided to table the requests because they did not want to deny the applicants the opportunity to build. Mr. Harmon stated that the Board was given direction from the Council Committee members to g proceed with establishing a townhouse condominium zoning ordinance, in order to allow the Pacific Highway and East Hill projects to proceed. Mr. Satterstrom stated that if a MR-T zoning district is created, the Council has the option to bring the two amendments that were tabled back for consideration The Council has the option to approve them as proposed, deny them or apply a new zoning district like the MR-T. Board member Terry Zimmerman stated that she agrees with a number of the speakers that 12 units per acre are not sufficient densities to provide affordable housing. She stated her concurrence with several speakers that a density of 16 units per acre would be appropriate. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 12 Ms. Zimmerman stated that she agrees with Mr. Lieper in that staff needs to consider allowing three story height limitations where garages could be built underneath She stated that Kent has quite a bit of sloped property that could accommodate a three story high condominium. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she disagrees with the stipulation that condominium sites are required to be located adjacent to or provide direct access to the site from an arterial She voiced her concern that this condition is generated by City Council concerns that residential neighborhoods will not disapprove of multifamily projects being accessed on their residential streets. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she would recommend that the access issue needs to be addressed further either by public process or through Mr. Hams's administrative ability. She stated that a lot of developable property is not directly located on arterial streets Ms Zimmerman voiced her opposition to the rezone criteria #2 regarding locating the proposed rezone site near transit stops and commercial services. She stated that this theory is not feasible, as it seems that transit and commercial follow development and not the other way around Sharon Woodford stated that the MR-T zoning does not seems to apply to MR-G or above, as there • is no benefit for higher density Ms. Woodford questioned if implementing an additional MR-T zone would address incentives for higher density multifamily to encourage them to develop townhouses. Ms Woodford stated with an additional zoning, you could have a townhouse ordinance for single family residents and one for the higher density multifamily with differing regulations. Ms Woodford suggested rephrasing the rezone criteria#1 on Page six of the staff report to read"that the proposed rezoned site is adjacent to or has close access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T development does not disrupt single family residential neighborhoods." Ms. Woodford spoke in favor of the concept of allowing for two or three entrances into a development as long as it was not disruptive Mr. Dowell stated that citizens, staff and members of the board provided a lot of good information. He questioned if the Board was really ready to move forward with a decision. Mr. Dowell voiced concern that he hoped the Board would not base their decision on the benefit of two pieces of property close to Des Moines as it would not be a fair orjustifiable reason. Mr.Dowell stated that he would recommend tabling this issue for further evaluation with staff based on testimony given. He stated that he feels more time is needed to refine a plan that would better address affordable housing. Ron Harmon stated that he had a couple issues, one of which were the additional standards in reference to filing of the condominium plats. Mr Harmon asked Mr. Satterstrom to address this • issue • Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Satterstrom stated that filing of the condominium plat could be a limitation that may have to be changed He stated that the City wants to make sure that the condominium plat is indeed filed and that the city is not creating townhouse rental units. Mr. Satterstrom stated that if in confemng with the City Attorney's office the filing of the condominium plat proves to be a limitation, staff may propose that filing occur prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, at which point the project would be built. Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff would favor language where the City completes the final sign off of the condominium plat at the time the certificate of occupany is issued Mr Satterstrom in addressing the Board's density concerns stated that if 12 units per acre are too limiting in its application, there is nothing to prevent the Board from recommending a secondary type of district He cautioned the Board that staff feels this district is fine the way it is written. Mr Harmon voiced concern that a higher density zoning district may be approved by the Board but be denied by the Council as the public seems opposed to more multifamily apartment complexes and structures of that size. Mr Harmon stated that he supports staffs recommendation for 12 units per acre in the MR-T zone. • Mr. Harmon stated that a traffic mitigation study is currently in progress regarding the issues of who is going to pay for the new traffic corridors. Mr Harmon questioned the possibility that if developers were allowed to provide access to their condominium sites through existing residential neighborhoods in lieu of being restricted to artenals streets, this could cut cost substantially for developers in not having to pay for road way improvements Mr. Harmon voiced concern that traffic should not be allowed to travel through single family neighborhoods and propose wording that would indicate this Mr. Harmon felt that placing a development near transit stops could prove difficult but indicated that locating a development near commercial services was imperative. Mr. Satterstrom proposed rephrasing the additional rezone criteria #1 to say "That the proposed rezone site is adjacent to or has convenient access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T development minimizes the disruption to single family residential neighborhoods " Mr. Harmon acknowledged Mr Dowell's concern in reference to his desire that the Board should accumulate more information but stated that he felt the Board needs to move on this issue as quickly as possible Steve Dowell MOVED to table this issue which died for lack of a second. • Ron Harmon said that he agrees with the motion as stated with the exception that he would like to see the density remain at 12 units per acre and changed his view from a two story high limitation to Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28 �I , 1999 Page 14 three story height limitation to provide for a garage underneath. The cut through limitation is acceptable. He felt that locating a development close to transit should be stricken from the motion, and after reconsideration stated that the rezone criteria "...near commercial services' should additionally be stricken from the motion. Sharon Woodford stated that she disagrees with retaining" . near commercial services"as that leaves a lot to interpretation She stated that "near" could be defined as three blocks or three miles and would be hard to defend. Ms Zimmerman spoke at length about studying this issue further She stated that the Board has previously had the option to bring forward revisions for the PUD. Ms. Zimmerman stated that the Board choice not to address the PUD issues but rather to bring the condominium issue before the Board in order to revisit the PUD issue and study this issue in more depth Ms Zimmerman stated that she would like to address smaller lot sizes as well as infill into the downtown area with single family residents developed on smaller lots. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she would like the Board to make it their task over the next year to develop affordable housing concepts. Mr Dowell stated that if the PUD ordinance were brought • back for further study, he would vote in favor of implementing the MR-T zoning district. Sharon Woodford stated that she favors sixteen units per acre but believes that it would not pass at City Council at this time, therefore, she will concur with what ever the Board chooses. Sharon Woodford stated that she supports the option for allowing three story condominiums development. She stated that with all the hills in Kent, three-story construction could be accomplished without the development appeanng too tall Ms Woodford concurred with Mr. Leiper in noting that the location for such zoning shall be completely compatible and in harmony with the surrounding areas citing that if you are in a single story, single family residential area, it would not seem appropriate to build a three story townhouse. Terry Zimmerman stated that she does not support 12 units per acre,but concurred with three story heights. She stated that we have an obligation to pass on to Council the response that we have obtained from the community through the course of the public hearing and she did not hear anyone speak in favor of 12 units per acre Ron Harmon stated that he would like to see a recommendation proposed tonight that could be passed on to the City Council and approved. He stated that the Board members are appointed and not elected officials. He stated that Planning staff is the Board's ears and eyes and emphasized that Planning staff has as much knowledge in reference to moving this recommendation forward as the developers setting in the audience. Mr. Hannon suggested that the Board look fervently at staff s recommendation Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 15 Fred Satterstrom asked for the Board to clarify if their motion is in favor of the 12 units per acre density and includes the new height limits of three stores restricted solely to townhouse as defined. Ms Zimmerman concurred. Mr. Satterstrom stated that in terms of changing the language change pertaining to the filing of the Condominium plat and issuance of the certificate of occupancy, Mr Satterstrom asked if staff could have some latitude with coordinating the timing issue. Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to accept staff's recommendation of ZCA-99-5 Condominium Zoning Strategies with the additional changes as noted. • That the maximum density units per acre be changed from 12 units per acre to 16 units per acre • That the height limitations be extended to three stones. • That the underlined language be added to the rezone criteria#1 to read as: "the proposed rezone site is adjacent to or has meet convenient access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T development _ae_ not towv_' `'_retio minimizes the disruption to single family residential neighborhoods " • That the rezone criteria#2 stating"The proposed rezone site is conveniently located near transit stops and commercial services"be struck from the recommendations • That for legal purposes the following addition be made that filing of the condominium plat should occur prior to or concurrently with the issuance of the occupancy permit. Motion earned. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9.20 pm. ectfully Submitted, C)Secretretary es P Harn