Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 11/27/1984 k Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 sun* and is allowed to be in the sun will reduce that energy bill by some 10 to 25 percent, typically. Putting the windows just on the south side with any orien- tation will also reduce that heating bill about 10 percent. So the impact is there. It is very strong. And I think that the ordinance that you are looking at is a very positive step in that direction. Thank you. , Stoner: Any questions. Badger: May I ask a question of you. Stevens: Yes sir. Badger: Earlier Mr. Miller from West Hill remarked that he had received a tax credit of $1 ,400. If a builder in a new subdivision built a solar access house I on lot where he had an envelope, would he receive a tax credit currently, or will this disappear? Steven: The residential energy tax credit is 40 percent of the system cost, and it is a credit against taxes owed by the homeowner on his principal residence. So, to answer your question, technically no, he doesn't take it, he annotates for the purchaser how much of that purchase price was related to the structure up to $10,000, it can be more than that but you are allowed up to $10,000. That can then be taken with a form from the IRS as a residential energy tax credit up to 40 percent of that cost. Those can' t be greenhouses or used for growing plants or for entertaining. It can't be situations with heat pumps involved, but if it is a solar collector, it has glazing, it has absorber, it has storage, it has distribution and it has controlled device, those are the criteria from IRS. Then it in fact is eligible. It can' t be a structural part of the house. It can be approached with a tromb wall . It can be done with collectors for ! hot water systems for either space heating or domestic hot water use. It can j be done with direct gain through windows and the various components can be utilized to annotate what that cost was. The builder does not take the credit. It is a residential homeowner credit, and just on the principal residence, not on your beach house. ` Stoner: Any others? Cullen: You refer to MCS. I Steven: Yes. Cullen: What does that stand for? Steven: I 'm sorry. Model Conservation Standards. The Power Planning Council developed those as a set of guidelines and mandated that they would be adopted by local jurisdictions prior to 1 January 1986 or Bonneville Power could levy a 10 to 50 percent surcharge on power sales. That is something which I don't think you have probably gotten into. I know that your head inspector has. I have worked with him. He was a member of the committee that I was on. Stoner: Any others? Thank you. Steven: Thank you. -20- i Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 Stoner: Is there anyone else who would like to make an initial statement regarding this. i Rudy: Mike, may I ask you a question about what is in the ordinance. Does it have sufficient provisions for the Planning Department, and if necessary the Hearing Examiner, to settle questions , disputes and so on in the permit process in carry- ing out that process without flooding the legal system and even courtrooms with filings, hearings, trials , and so on, when there is a two-year wait on even im- portant things. McKeever: I believe that the answer to that is yes. I 'll explain that in a minute, but think you have to weigh that system of providing solar access pro- tection versus the system that we have now which is solely based on the courts. If you want your solar rights protected and you have an uncooperative party to the south, or parties , you have no recourses the attorneys tell me other than to go to court. People around the country have done that. The pretty clear consensus is that you lose, because you do not have those property rights given to you , so that's the public policy option that you are comparing this option to. I think the answer is yes for two reasons. One, the ordinance clearly stipulates what the standards are that shall be met and what evidences. . .what documentation ; is required. There is very little discretionary language in there. It specifies this type of tree shall be exempt, and this type of tree shall be covered and the trimming costs paid by party X and this other type of tree is covered and trimming costs covered by party Y, and so the disputes. . .the reason for that is to have any disputes center on the facts rather than somebody' s interpretation of what their rights ought to be under the ordinance. Now there is a procedure set up in the ordinance which is, nearly we could do it, mirrors current procedures for resolving land use disputes between neighbors. We tried to tie the solar access permit process into existing procedures for resolving disputes between property owners so that it doesn't add to that existing process. Ue may not have succeeded 100 percent in getting there, because it is a little bit of a different type of a beast, but I think it substantially gets there. Does that answer your question? Rudy: Thank you. (Tape Changed) McKeever: Somebody is going to arrest me if I try to play attorney here, so. . . s Lambert: Would this noncompliance. . .would that be civil or criminal ? DiJulio: Municipal ordinance violations are commonly criminal violations. They'd Fe misdemeanors and classified as such. However, it is unlikely that we'd prosecute A a case in such a fashion. It would more likely be brought as an action to enjoin a violation. We are not in the habit of criminally prosecuting such cases. 1 a Hendrickson: I 'm Carl Hendrickson. I served on the Solar Access Committee. I am a member of the Chamber, maybe not after tonight, but. . .Basically I served on this committee for a six-month period of time. We met twice a month. We spent three hours, sometimes four hours during every one of these meetings. We represented a good, broad base of the citizenry of Kent. We made our recommenda- tions to you. I 've seen a lot of things since then. I 've seen what the Kent -21- x S Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 Chamber wrote. 1 was not consulted on that. I did not attend any of the meetings, wasn't asked to. The Master Builders was aware of these goings on from the first meeting, because an employee of the. . .President of the Master Builders was on the committee, and I have not heard anything that changes my mind as to what we recommended to you. The solar. . .sunlight is a very viable thing. It can furnish up to 25 to 60 percent of the energy consumed in a house that has a south-facing wall . Now with the rising costs of everything, we have a free thing here that we haven' t protected in the past, but now it is a very viable source of energy, a very viable cost item on our monthly budget, so I do think it deserves to be protected, and I think that the recommendations that were handed to you by the Solar Access Committee are valid and viable and can be workable and used by everybody. Any questions? Stoner: Thank you. We usually take a break at 9:00, but I 'm going to poll the audience. Is there any who wants to make rebuttal statements. Our rebuttal statements are limited to three minutes. Harris: I have some things to . . I i Stoner: Is there anybody else who wants to make rebuttal statements. What is your pleasure. Would you like to hear the rebuttal material and break later, or would you like to break now and come back to listen to rebuttal and go into deliberations if you feel so inclined. Anderson: I'd just as soon hear it all while everybody is up to speed. Harris: Also, I'd like to get my stuff in before we go to rebuttal . This is important material needs to go into the record. { i Stoner: Jim wants to read the letter. J Harris : There are a number of things that I want to get in there. Stoner: Jim, why don't you start. Harris: My name is Jim Harris. I am the Kent Planning Director. I am really enamored with this sudden love affair with the tree regulations the city has. It just flabbergasts me. What I want to get into the record first is the opinion that was written into the Kent News Journal Friday, September 28, 1984. I want to read every bit of that into the record. It says KENT PLANNERS SHINE 'WITH A BRIGHT IDEA. It may be an axiom that everyone owns the sun, but the Kent Planning Commission is doing something that may actually protect your property rights to it. The planners are considering a "Solar Access Protection Package" to guard against future construction--or even newly planted trees--putting Kent residences in the shade. It' s a bright idea. Besides apply- ing to new construction next to existing residences , the proposed ordinances would apply to homes within new subdivisions . In the latter case, rather than being mandatory, the proposed solar access laws would encourage voluntary efforts by developers. Builders would be asked to take advantage of the sun by building south-facing homes on east-west streets. The object of all this is to protect -22- i Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 a homeowner's ability to install solar heating devices--as well as to capture some of the sun's warmth through ordinary windows and simply to enjoy a good view of old Sol . It is easy to see that with just a little more thoughtful planning, much improvement could take place. It's also easy to see that if planners went too far, however, too many headaches and too much cost might result. We' ll take Kent planning director Jim Harris at his word when he says the proposals , as envisoned, will work on the basis of "common sense." Harris: As an editorial I want to emphasize that. You've heard an awful lot of testimony here that kind of preempts what the Planning Department might do in solar. I think I would like to reemphasize just exactly what this editorial says: We' ll take Kent planning director Jim Harris at his word when he says the proposals, as envisoned, will work on the basis of "common sense." We also trust, as Kent officials hope, that the city will be able to give homeowners and developers almost instantaneous answers as tohow the shade rules work. Harris: I talked to Deschutes County Planning Director yesterday on the phone. When he first started his solar access program it took 15 to 20 minutes to calcu- late these things with a protractor and a scale at the counter. When he got his little computer it was instantaneous. What took time there was simply keying it into the computer that bops up on the screen, it' s got a printer, presses the printer, gives it to the developer. It's three minutes. . .two minutes addi- tional time. It wouldn't do for . . .continuing on with the editorial : It wouldn't do, for instance, for a builder to have to wait long for calculations. Nor will it be fair if builders are later asked to correct some city calculation once the roof is on. The solar access standards are to be based on the January 21 position of the sun. A new home on a single lot would have to be situated so ; it doesn't shade a neighbor' s house to the north between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on January 21 . We encourage other South King County communities , as well as Kent officials, to adopt a solar protection program ensuring some flexibility and a minimum of red tape. Harris: Now this meeting tonight was continued for specific purpose, primarily to have the Chamber of Commerce go back and study the solar access ordinance. Now you have in your file this evening their input. What actually happened with the Chamber of Commerce is that they never asked the Planning Department for any input. They never asked the consultant for any input or others who may be ' experts on solar, these particular solar access ordinances. Chairman Stoner, Carol Stoner, did ask that the Chamber give their input to the Planning Commission a week early. We got it this evening. You did it through the back door earlier, because I happened to get a copy from Fred Satterstrom who attended one of the meetings, but you didn' t get it voluntarily from the Chamber of Commerce. I think what you have here, as Mr. Hendrickson pointed out at the last meeting, is simply some kind of stonewalling situation where you get your finger in the dike. You don't want change. You want the world to go on, but s you don' t want to be part of it. That's the way I actually see this input. d This input is not the kind of input you, the Chamber, desired. This does not have any kind of an analysis of that ordinance, simply is a bunch of rhetorical -23- r t a Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 questions saying, who in the devil wants solar? Who asked for it? Why is the Planning Department and the consultant doing it? I 'm very disappointed with that input. I want to read into the record, and it is going to take just a little while, but I 'm going to get it in there, it is a letter to me dated November 21 today, and it is from CMS, Conservation Management Services, our consultant. It says: Dear Mr. Harris: A letter dated 11-2-84 by an ad hoc committee of the Kent Chamber of Commerce recommends that the local government committee of the Chamber oppose passage of the proposed package of solar access protection ordinances not being considered by the Kent Planning Commission. The letter was written after the committee had reviewed the proposed ordinances ; it lists several reasons to justify its conclusion that the ordinances should not be passed. This letter responds to the reasons listed in that letter. Need for Ordinance The letter concludes that there is no public demand for solar protection through ordinance or regulation and asserts that any owner of a solar home could and would buy a solar lot and would not depend on the ordinances. The research done for the project concluded, among other things, that: (1 ) the vast majority of the people of the State of Washington support the increased use of solar energy as an energy source; (2) energy prices are going up and solar access can reduce energy costs substantially; and you have heard that several times ' this evening; (3) the citizens of Kent are saving approximately $1 million annually today because of existing levels of solar access; (4) as new develop- ment occurs and the simplest and least expensive solar technologies are utilized annual savings could easily reach $5 million annually; (5) the State of Washing- ton has found that solar energy is an environmentally benign and renewable resource and that it is in the public's interest to promote its use; and (6) current ` development patterns do not protect solar access. While a public opinion poll has not been taken in Kent to measure the attitudes of all local citizens on this topic, several public opinion polls on solar energy and solar access have been conducted in the Pacific Northwest. These polls consistently show that solar energy and energy conservation are the future energy sources most preferred by the population. The polls also show strong support for local regulations to protect solar access. In Oregon, a recent statewide pool found that 73 percent of the population supported the adoption of regulations by local governments to protect solar access . All of the Planning i Commission got a copy of this Ashland, Oregon analysis. I think that is very germane to what we are doing here this evening. O.K. Similar questions included in polls in Ashland, Woodburn, and Portland, Oregon found even higher levels of support for local government action in this area. Results differ depending on the locality, but mankind's love for the sun has existed for centuries. Local government, through its land use regulations, is uniquely suited to set standards for solar access protection which provide the maximum benefit for the community. The letter' s claim that protecting solar access is as simple as -24- i Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 n buying a "solar lot" is simply wrong. This would only be true if the city decided that the only people who should have solar access are those who can afford very large lots -- 1 acre and larger. The letter does not claim that there is a feasi- ble and economical method for a solar owner to receive solar access protection from the five to seven neighboring lots which can potentially shade a house (and it must be remembered that research shows that any home sited in the sun is a "solar house" ) . Finally, the solar home owner may have an economic incentive to site his own home in the sun whereve possible, but he has no economic incentive to site his home so that it does not shade the neighbors to the north. The market has an important role to play in the promotion of solar energy, but the protec- tion of solar access is best done through community-wide land use standards. It is true that solar access is not a "burning hot" issue in Kent, today. That is one of the reasons why the City has had the time to carefully and deliberately design the ordinance amendments which are proposed. The time when solar access will become a highly visible -- and controversial -- issue is after solar appli- cations have become more popular in the marketplace and people' s economic invest- ments have been ruined through shade on neighboring properties. Some ask, "why not wait until that time comes?" There are several reasons for proceeding now. The most important is that every day that development occurs without use of simple solar access siting standards, opportunities are lost for energy and economic sav- ings. A house sited in the shade begins losing energy immediately compared to what energy it would use if it were sited in the sun. Once shaded it will not be possible to restore the sunlight, unless drastic -- and unacceptable -- measures are taken. The typical life of a house is estimated to be 35 to 50 years. An ill considered siting decision made today -- one that could be changed with a five-minute solar setback calculation -- will be paid for by the shaded property owner in higher energy bills for five decades. ` i The best policies are those which have the foresight to see a problem developing and solve it before harm is done. That is planning in the truest and best sense of the word. My side to that statement is that we went to the City Council last summer, or the summer before this last summer, and we asked them how they felt about going into this program. The Council unanimously voted that we go to BPA and get a grant from BPA to work on solar access. Now that's the City Council . That's the seven legislative members of the city who represent the 25,500 persons in the city. When they made that decision, they were properly representing the constituency, the broad constituency of the city. So we have that before us. We have that backing. The City Council has already gone on record a year and one half ago to look into solar access. This isn't something that came out of the air suddenly by a technical committee or pushed by a consultant. Cost of Ordinance The letter cites the experience in Ashland, Oregon as proof that the subdivision regulation will cost $200 to $300 per lot to implement. CMS performed the eval- uation on the Ashland solar ordinance and concluded that in some cases the Ashland subdivision ordinance has increased costs to this extent. However, CMS also con- cluded that this cost increase was unnecessary. The Kent subdivision ordinance -25- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 .4 1 was written to be substantially simpler_ to implement than the Ashland ordinance. And this is the key to having other ordinances in other communities before we write ours, then we can fall back on what has happened there, happened properly or happened improperly and we can make corrections. O.K. The costly portions of the Ashland ordinance have been eliminated. The esti- mated cost for the Kent subdivision ordinance is $25 to $50 per lot plus the training time for developers to learn the new techniques. Ashland is currently revising its subdivision ordinance to be similar to the proposed Kent Ordinance in order to reduce the cost and increase the effectiveness of its current ordi- nance. Finally, even if it were true that the subdivision ordinance would tl increase lot costs by an average of $250, the research indicates that this cost would be recovered by the average house in less than two years. This is a smart investment by any standards. The letter states that the cost of trimming trees to comply with the solar envelope in the subdivision ordinance cannot be estimated, but that it will be high. It asserts that "the findings in the Ashland report indicate that it will be substan- ; tial ". There are no such findings in the Ashland report. Further, there should be no cost of tree trimming at all if people comply with the ordinance. The only time trimming will be required is if people decide to plant trees on their property which grow to penetrate beyond the envelope. Should this occur, like any other violation of city ordinances, the offending property owner would be responsible for remedying the situation. Concerns Not Addressed By the Ordinance The letter notes that the ordinances would "alter basic property rights" . That is correct. Research done by the land use attorney working on the project con- cluded that without a local government solar access ordinance citizens today have no legal protection from shade. The solar access ordinance will provide that protection. The attorney also concluded that Washington State law provides the authority for the City of Kent to adopt and implement the proposed ordinances. The City Attorney' s office has been consulted with on legal matters throughout the project. The proposed ordinances alter property rights in a manner which will increase the total energy savings and economic value of lots owned by citi- zens in the City. The letter recommends that a voluntary, educational program be adopted in place of the proposed regulations. This recommendation indicates that the members of ` the ad hoc committee recognize the benefits of protecting solar access and are I simply questioning the most appropriate means to provide that protection. This is a legitimate and important question -- and one which the City need not and should not resolve based solely on the best estimates of the members of this com- mittee. Several communities in Washington have attempted to protect solar access through a variety of voluntary, educational and incentive-based approaches. The members of the Solar Access Technical Advisory Committee considered such an approach for Kent and recommended against it because experience in other communi- ties showed that it would be ineffective and potentially costly. The Washington State Energy Office has monitored the success of these voluntary programs. CMS recommends that the City request information from WSEO on this matter if this is an important concern to the Planning Commission. A review of the facts will show -26- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 that local land use ordinances are the best -- perhaps the only -- effective means of protecting solar access. Other forms of solar access protection offer protection in name only. Concluding Comments The letter issues several general challenges to the need for the ordinances. These challenges are based on the assumption that people do not want solar access protection and that voluntary approaches will work. All of the available evidence indicates that neither of these claims is true. The letter is as interesting for the issues it does not raise as for the issues it does raise, however. The letter does not dispute the economic value of solar access to Kent' s citizens or the wisdom of protecting that access. I would suggest that any debate on the merits of proposed solar access ordinances should be based on issues such as whether they provide benefits to citizens which are greater than the costs of implementing the ordinances and whether the ordinances are understandable, fair, and can be implemented. The committee' s review of the ordinances raised only one specific objection, questioning the meaning of the term "wherever feasible" (language which can easily be made more specific if the Planning Commission so desires) . It is encouraging that this is the only problem with ordinance language the committee found throughout a set of four recommended ordinances. This indicates that the Technical Advisory Committee, the Planning Department Staff, and the Planning Commission have done an excellent job in writing and revising the ordinances. Change is never easy. However, this project has thoroughly reviewed the benefits of solar access and the methods of achieving it to make certain that the recom- mended changes are justifiable and work for the benefit of Kent' s citizens. The sun is a locally available, non-polluting, renewable, inexpensive energy source. It has a substantial economic value today and will be increasingly valuable as the price of energy increases. The concerns raised in the letter from the Chamber committee do not warrant throwing away a year' s worth of hard work by the City staff, a citizens advisory committee, and the Planning Commission. All Kent citizens will benefit when their rights to the sun are protected. Signed, Sincerely, Mike McKeever, President of CMS. 3 Harris: One last statement. A statement was made by Glenn Votaw about the amount of residential land in the city. We are looking at ordinances that 0 are farsighted, that is looking way down the road when energy is going to be really something we are desperate to get our hands on at a very cheap price. The city will very soon, I can tell you this honestly and openly, will begin to embark on a pretty ambitious annexation program, and we probably will be annexing a lot of land that will be residentaly-zoned land, that is residentially zoned in the county today. So the city, although it may have only about 40 percent of its lands zoned for residential today, it's an industrial city, in the next probably 20 years in the next probably 20 years that will be reversed and it will be a normal city. A normal city has 60 to 75 percent of its land zoned for residential . The City of Kent will be a true city probably in about 10 to 15 to 20 years. Thank you for your time. -27- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 McKeever: I know that we are getting late, but I will be brief. I want to say that if any of you have any questions or concerns specifically about ordinance language as the result of testimony that was given tonight, please ask me about that and I will be happy to respond. I will not try to respond ooint by point to some of the claims that were made. I just want to close hitting on a couple of specific issues and then a general comment. I think that the debate over the increased cost of the new development ordinance is based on false figures. It is inconceivable to me that the cost of calculating and putting the solar factor on a plat and calculating a solar envelope and putting the vegetation on the plat, which the current tree preservation ordinance already requires, is going to increase lot costs by $500 to $700. It is my opinion that is not going to happen. I ' ll tell you where it would, and the gentleman from the Seattle Master Builders indicated as such, and that is that if the subdivision is designed improperly to begin with and they have to redesign it to comply with the ordinance. That is true for any ordinance that you have. If the people do not read the ordinance and learn the techniques to comply with the ordinance so that they have to continually design and redesign to comply, costs are going F to go up. It is my contention that as the marketplace works , those people will soon not have design jobs, and the people who do it right first will have design jobs. Part of this program that will occur in December is some training done by ; Robert Shinbo who is a very established and well known landscape architect, owns a landscape architectural firm in the Seattle area. He will tell the people in = the development community in Kent and the planners and Planning Commission that the extra design costs for solar access are zero. That you can not sort them ; out. That it is just as easy to design a subdivision to lay out with the sun as it is without the sun, and he has designed several of them in the King County area. So I think the $500 to $700 figure is wrong. I would encourage you not to get involved in estimates of the carrying costs of the money and that sort of thing, because that incremental cost is just not right. i Secondly, and I need to say this very badly, this is not an anti-tree ordinance. One of the ways to deal with the potential conflicts between trees and the sun can be dealt with as the City Attorney indicated through some good common sense and sophisticated work of the Planning Department. But the committee analyzed the potential tradeoffs between trees and the sun in the new development ordi- nance when it put the ordinance together, and those tradeoffs aren' t there. The current tree preservation ordinance would have you move your housing away from the trees to preserve the trees. That is exactly what the solar access ordinance wants you to do. O.K. When there are dense groves of trees, the City of Kent' s public policy is preserve them. That is the same thing that you want in solar access. You don't want houses built in the middle of a forest of trees. Declare j those as common areas and put them elsewhere. O.K. In the solar access permit I think you will see that nowhere you, are we calling to go up and top a 100-foot native growth Douglas fir tree. That is not there. That tree is exempt. There will be some trimming required if people plant trees that protrude beyond the sky space, but those are not going to be 100-foot Douglas fir trees , and so please do not get the image in your mind that a city of Kent citizens that have sun rights protected is a barren, treeless city, because someone has gone through ! with a chain saw and cut everything down. That is simply not the case. In closing I would just like to say that this is an economic issue and this is a bottom-line issue. You've had that term used by business people in this -28- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 audience, and I plead with you to make your decision based on the bottom line, because the numbers are there. People save money immediately when they site a home in the sun, and they continue to save it in substantial sums over the 35-50 year life of the home. Studies presented indicate that passive solar homes adding a little more glass and a little mass are actually less expensive to build on the front end costs than other homes of the same energy efficiency. Not a single person opposed to these ordinances has come up before you tonight and said anything but that they support energy and they support energy efficiency and they support energy conservation, and that' s where the market is. People want that in their homes. Everybody seems to be in agreement on that. Well , there' s a reason for that. They save money and they save energy that way. These ordinances protect that energy savings over time for a very, very, very minuscule investment compared to the economic value and the cost there. The market has a place to play in proposing the use of solar energy, and it can do it better than the City of Kent can or any other local government. The market will not protect the access to the sunlight. O.K. The person who has { the incentive to site their home in the sun so that they can get the sunlight has no economic incentive to site their home so that they don't shade the neigh- bor behind them. O.K. It is a breakdown. It is a failure of the market. It is the land use systems and the community-wide standards of the local govenment that are uniquely suited to decide what is equitable and fair and effective for the maximum number of people in Kent. These are thorny issues. You people have grappled with them very, very well . You've had two long workshops and three long public hearings. I congratulate you for getting into the middle of those ordinances and learning and understanding them, and I encourage you to take a gulp and take a new stride in the direction to provide protection for sun rights that currently Kent citizens don' t have. Lambert: In the Bible it says there will be wars and rumors of wars, and I think that enforcement of this is going to help that a long a little bit, and I think that there has got be a little more teeth in enforcing a solar access ordinance than I see in the ordinance, and I don't know how to do it. Mr. DiJulio said that the nuisance ordinance might handle the trimming of trees that have to be trimmed. But does it? I think that should be written into , the ordinance. McKeever: I think it is. j I MdKeever: It doesn' t specify under which theory of law it shall be trimmed, but if I can quickly go to the solar access permit ordinance. O.K. On page 6, wherever you find the solar permit access ordinance, I think the last one. . .the next to the last one of the bunch. . .there are several page six in here. Let me Just read it to you if you can't find it. It specifies that If the owner does not trim the vegetation in that time, the City shall employ, contract, or assign staff to trim the offending vegetation so that it does not violate the permit. The permitee shall be charged for the cost of trimming any non-exempt vegetation etc. Then it assigns who is to pay the cost. The notion is that if you have two friendly neighbors who•can get along and decide how to keep that tree trimmed, -29- F Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 that is what you want. But if that can 't be done, this specifies what the City is to do. I think that should satisfy your concern. If it doesn't. . . Lambert: Who do they go to? McKeever: At the city. . .well , probably first, Mr. Harris, Jim Common Sense Harris. Badger: Can I ask another thing of you? McKeever: Yes. Badger: In the last several weeks I have been led to believe by a man in j Portland that the City of Portland is beginning to consider a solar access i ordinance. Can you confirm this? McKeever: That is a true statement. In fact they will be going to public 1 hearings starting in January. Their Planning Commission will begin public hearings on. . . Stoner: Would they like our verbatim minutes? McKeever: They probably would, as a matter of fact. Stoner: Any other questions from Mike? All right. Paul . Why don't you come up so we have you on the record. Morford: My first comment is that I think the City of Kent is a real city, and won't wait for fifteen years. I think the issue here is does the means justify the ends. And I think some of the commissioners have brought up several things and there are numerous more of them . . . the problems . . . just that tree trimming thing. If the Planning Department wants more staff or if the legal department wants more people or the Board of Adjustment wants more meetings and more hear- ings , well , we'll certainly get them with ordinance. But I 'm not here with any axe to grind. Now this study was paid for and the city was paid and the people here are not objective, they can ' t be objective. They wrote the ordi- nance. They were paid to do it. I ' ll be a builder, engineer, or a ditch diqger or whatever whether this ordinance goes through or not. I guess basically I 'm here as a concerned citizen and I have been through a lot of the different aspects and I tried to look at it objectively. I' ve been involved with some f of the things with the Chamber and I think they tried to look at it objectively, and I know the Master Builders talked with some of the people on the committee and gave a lot of soul searching before they came up with their committee and they tried to be objective. The people we' ve last heard on the thing, there is just no way. . .they wrote the ordinance, they were paid and not that that's I against them for that, but there is no objectivity there. The objectivity that hopefully in the end will come from the Planning Commission and the City Council . Probably the thing that bothers me the most is the item that Mr. Lambert brought up and that Mrs. Rudy brought up. . .and based on my experiences, I can just see so many more of these that I just don' t think the means justify the ends. Stoner: Thank you. Any more questions? Does anybody else want to speak in rebuttal . Yes, Carl . -30- f Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 Hendrickson: One comment. Nobody is under the impression that I was paid to be on that committee, are they? Were you paid? Thank you. Lambert: Neither - are we. Stoner: We are all paid what we are worth, aren't we?. . .and I quote Mike Powers. Let's take a ten-mintue break and be back at 9:40 or so. Please notice that we have a couple of other items on our agenda tonight, so let's get back promptly. For those of you in the audience, the deliberation phase, and I 'm assuming that you all agree that we want to deliberate and make a decision or recommendation on this tonight, during the deliberation phase that is our time to discuss what we feel are the pros and cons and reach a recommendation for the City Council . It is our prerogative, however, to ask questions both of staff and people in the audience, so if you are concerned with possible clarifications if you are asked questions by members of the Planning Commission, you might want to remain. I am not guaranteeing that you will be asked, but that option is available to the people who sit up here. O.K. Let's be back at 9:42. (Break) Stoner: Jim, is December 4th available for us to meet, or is the Board of Adjustment meeting that night? Harris: The Board of Adjustment is meeting that night. Stoner: All right. Nancy, I ' ll let you make your proposal . Rudy: Because of the time and because we have previously discussed a number of small items in these ordinances that we are going to want to take up one by one, I suggest that we table this until the next available date. . .not to continue the hearing, but to hold our discussion and our vote for that time. I do not think that at this hour that we have the time to do justice to the issue and still remain fresh enough to consider it adequately. Stoner: Next available date would be December 18th, which is a workshop date. Badger: I ' ll second that motion. Stoner: Is there any discussion? Mr. Hansen. Hansen: Just wanted to reference that the 18th of December, if I recall , we have the zoning code revision report that will be made, the CBD Plan evaluation, and I thought there were three things. Rudy: Wouldn't this be a fine way to start the new year. Harris: When I talked about . . . ( machine became unconnected) but also, we don't have time. This is the main thing on the agenda tonight. Now if you can' t get to the other items, that's what you ought to be putting M off, not solar. Solar is something that you were continuing for one month so j you could get at this thing. All of a sudden there are some other little items -31- .3 i ,q f Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 that are intruding into this. It is needed to get through this tonight. It would be a lot easier to get through all those other little items at a later date. Lambert: Also, I believe that the contract with Conservation Management Services terminates at the end of the year. Harris: Well , our contract with BPA that we by the end of the year would get this to City Council if we could at all possibly do it. Now we' ve had a month delay which really threw us off. Now if we had another month's delay, we'd be thrown totally off the track. It seems that it'smore an administrative thing, a housecleaning thing than it is that you have a problem with the or- dinance. You have a problem with the rest of the agenda. I would suggest that if you can't get the rest of the agenda, that you want to get your voting tonight on who is going to be chairman and vice chairman next year. That is my suggestion. I don't know if you want to do that or not. Just continue with this for the next half hour and get it out of the way. Rudy: I don't know that we' re going to be able to finish this is a half hour, Jim. Harris: How long do you think it would take to finish the rest of the agenda? 4 Rudy: Well , I don't know. I wasn't considering the rest of the agenda. I was just considering the solar. Harris: If you put solar off to the 18th and take up the rest of the agenda and that is kind of unfair to solar. That's what I am trying to get at. Solar has been before you three times now, that would be four times. Rudy: The idea is not to delay it, it is just to consider it carefully and while we are fresh enough. Harris: You' ll have to start all over again on the 18th. Stoner: Any other comments? Hansen: The third item on the 18th is the La Blanc Gardens Comprehensive Plan change request. Stoner: Nancy is saying that we have some time restraints that we need to think about and the issue of. . .are we getting tired enough to get sloppy in the way we ' work. Jim is saying he has some time pressures in terms of moving this to City Council . I have no preference. I would just as soon see it go and have it off our plate and move it on, but I have no preference, but I think we need to make a decision on how you feel about sitting on this . Are you ready to vote on the motion to table? Lambert: If there can be put into it. . . I am still concerned about the enforce- ment. . .that it could be conveyed to the Council that more teeth have to be put into the enforcement, and that there should be a penalty for not complying plus. . -32- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 Stoner: I think that what we need to do is decide whether or not we want to continue working on this item tonight, and that is the issue before us. Nancy's motion is to table this until the next available date, which would be the 18th. She is suggesting to us that we will close the public hearing and at that meet- ing all we will do is deliberate. . .and there are pros and cons to either side of that. O.K. Are you ready to vote? All in favor of the motion to table. Opposed. O.K. We' ll gut it out. At this point it would be in order to have a motion to close the public hearing. Jim has moved and Doug has seconded that we close the public hearing. All in favor. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Opposed. O.K. At this point I would suggest to you that we work on this thing piece by piece and start with the one that we worked on first, which is the solar access setback. I went through and noted in mine what the changes were, and. . . I may have made a procedural . . .Jim do we need to accept into the record before we close the public hearing? We have not accepted into the record the amending memo from CMS. So we need to do that before we close the public hearing? Thank you, Mr. DiJulio. (Transcribing equipment intermittently quit functioning) Not Verbatim Minutes Stoner: Chairman Stoner made the following recommendations for Solar Access Setback changes: 1 . Page 1 (15.08.232 Solar Access Setback-Apolicability)62 deleted: 2. Solar Factor. A property that has a Solar Factor of 46 or less, based on Table 1 is exempt from section 15.08.234. 2. Page 2 (15.08.234 Solar Access Setback - Calculation) A is changed as follows: N [ ( 1/.42 + P) / 2.381 3. Page 2 (15.08.234 Solar Access Setback - Calculation) 63 is added: 3. For any lot with a solar factor less than 47, the shadow of a structure cannot be any more than the shadow cast by an 18 foot pole located one half the distance through the north-south dimension of the lot. 4. Page 3 Slope Percent chart. Eliminate the decimals so that the percentages read 5 percent, 25 percent, etc. End of Non-Verbatim Minutes -33- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 (Verbatim Minutes) Badger: I MOVE that we accept the solar access setback ordinance with the changes that you mentioned. Anderson: I SECOND it. Stoner: Bob Badger has MOVED and Bob Anderson has SECONDED that we accept this. Is there any discussion? i Rudy: Did we ever settle the question of what happens on properties that are flat but one lot is significantly higher than another, like five, six, seven, eight feet, but they are in a flat area? It esentially becomes a landscaping problem, but what about that lower house. Stoner: Mike, could you address that? McKeever: The principle in the ordinance was that the solar setback should be defined by the lot characteristics of the lot owned by the property owner trying to site the house. Rudy: The houses are there. McKeever: Pardon. Rudy: The houses are already there. One of them wants a permit. i McKeever: Then the solar access setback ordinance. . . Stoner: That's solar access `1 McKeever: That' s the next one. That is not the setback. f Stoner: To clarify, this is to provide setbacks so that the siting of new houses is appropriate. It applies to those single family and multiple family zones. Any other questions , any other discussion on this ordinance. Do you understand what you are voting on? Byrne: You are not talking about a person applying for (unclear) . . . you are talking about a person who wants to build a house in 1986, they are going to j have to comply with this. Stoner• Right. f Byrne: It's a bit of a problem, insofar as we' re saying we know what is good for the people and we know they are wanting to save money and they are wanting to have solar access, so we are putting forth this ordinance. I can see solar jI permit for a person for a person who wants to file a solar permit on the property, but to come across and say, hey in that case (unclear) . . .I have a bit of a problem . . . (unclear) saying we are going to save money for you. (unclear) . . . I can see where a person has a piece of property and they want solar protection and they want to apply for it. . . (unclear) that we should give it to them. -34- H d? Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 Stoner: O.K. Any other comments? As the chair I have the right to debate this, and 1 would simply say that this is insuring that new development is planned where feasible, and I think that is an important thing, to make. . .to give access to solar where it is possible. And I think that is the critical thing. We are not asking people to sacrifice density, we are not asking them to sacrifice number of lots. What we are saying is that where it is possible the streets should be oriented east and west and that houses should be placed so that they don' t shade their neighbors. I see this as the least restrictive potentially, or one of the least restrictive of the package. Byrne_: The person can file for an exemption. Harris : There are three levels. If you don ' t make the first standard you go to the second standard. If you can't make that standard you then go to the third standard, and then you are out of it. It is a filtering down process. I think it is a fair process. We are dealing only with the lot where someone wants to build a house or add on to a house that may shade that person to the north. . . south roof. This ordinance does not deal with subdivisions. It doesn't deal with asking for a permit. . .you protect the property from trees and all of a sudden there is an envelope and the person on the south side of your property isn' t going to build something that will come in and (unclear) on your south g wall or south roof. Byrne_: That's even if a person does not have a solar permit on his property. Harris: This is saying that the person has solar access--passive solar. That's what we are trying to come up with at this time. It also helps them put in solar paneling. . . (unclear) . . .now the sunshine on the south wall has to be protected if at all possible. If that can't be protected, you want to protect the south roof. If that can' t be protected, nothing can. Byrne: (Unclear) Harris: (Unclear) Stoner: Any other questions. R Anderson: I have a question or comment. There has been a lot of discussion both pro and con on this issue. I wonder if the Planning Department staff intends to sort of keep a record of how many times. . .what kind of track record we are going to develop with this ordinance and have some kind of feedback to say the City Council or whatever so that. . .one of the things that I could live with a lot more easily is just simply some kind of a feed-back system so that if it does appear to be really unwieldy and say for some reason the reasonable Mr. Harris is not with us at some time in the future and we get an unreasonable replacement that there is some means to provide evaluation of the implementation of the new ordinance. a Harris: I think what will happen here is probably what happened in the Ashland case. We will keep time records of how long it takes someone at the counter. -35- 1 A Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 'We are doing records now on what staff is working on now and what projects (unclear) . . .This would simply be a smaller version of that. . . (unclear) . . . It would simply keep the time that it would take to work that out. What we plan to do is get a computer that would help us. We need a computer not for just this but many other things in our office, but this would speed it up as (unclear) . . . we could also keep a record through your computer what is going on and work through the ordinances we have. Anderson: Another thought might be to ask the design engineer of the plat, i and even the builders if you have the opportunity, to get some feel . . . if { there are some problems or added costs that they incur. Hopefully they would ` 4 be factual and would also be something that could be looked at from time to ' time. Stoner: That's a recommendation we could make to City Council , if there could be some kind of monitoring or evaluation process. Harris: I think that would be very appropriate if that is one of your concerns, if you would like to have that built into the process. Stoner: Because we obviously have formats. . .we have the Deschutes study and we have the Ashland study and they both have been evaluations of those ordinances that have been passed. And I think we have a model to do that. Harris: I think we would want to do one within the first six months for ourselves, same as they did in those two counties. i Stoner: Any other comments. Are you ready to vote. The motion is to recommend s the solar access setbacks ordinances as amended. All in favor. i Voices: Aye. ! 1 Stoner: Opposed. (silence) . O.K. The next one I suggest that we look at is and that is Solar Access Design Standards . This is the one that applies to subdivisions. O.K. Looking for the change. Rephrase section 3.1 . 11 .4.C. which is on page 3, Exemptions. The modification to that one is very simple. You are strickingthe words or vegetation in the first line and or vegetation 1 on the fourth line so that the modification would read: A structure may exceed the height of a solar envelope to the extent the area that would be shaded by the proposed structure at noon on January 21 is shaded at this time and date by existing structures or vegetation. Harris: We inserted the word exempt in there. . .exempt vegetation. Stoner: Excuse me. Did I misread it. O.K. I 'll read it off the memo. 1 A structure may exceed the height of a solar envelope to the extent the area that would be shaded by the proposed structure at noon on January 21 is shaded at this time and date by existing structures or exempt vegetation. -36- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 Stoner: This was in response to the comment about having shade already existing on the property and therefore you could exceed the solar envelope to take advan- tage of the fact there was already shade in that area. . exempt vegetation or existing structures. That's the only change in the Solar Access Design Standards. Rudy: Is this the one where the lots are on two different levels, Mike? McKeever: No, you' re getting there. Stoner: Next one. So we are talking about division of contiguous land under common ownership into five or more lots, so there is a minimum there. Is there a motion? Mike, would you like to give us a quick summary, just to jog people's memory. McKeever: There' s two pieces to this section. One requires that new lots meet a solar factor standard which is the chart where you measure the north-south lot dimension and the slope and you lay out your lots such that they provide good solar access opportunities. They had a very good explanation of that a couple of hours ago. It was clear then, anyway. If they cannot meet the preferred standard, which is a solar factor of 85 which would protect access to south wall , if they can't meet that standard and get the densities that they are allowed in the current code, then they are allowed to go to a more lenient standard, which is a south-roof protection standard. So that is the performance standard design to provide solar access in a subdivision or PUD is laid out, which is the best time to do it. And you 're right. It' s the easiest time to do it. The second piece the protection device to insure that that solar access continues to be there over the life of the structures on the lots. And that protection device is the solar envelope. That is an angled plane over the top of the lot which affects both new and all non-exempt vegetation. All vegetation protected, for instance, by the existing tree preservation ordinance is exempt. They may protrude beyond that envelope. New plantings must stay within the envelope. Stoner: Any questions. Lambert: Would it be wise to place some place in here that a certain percentage i of the exterior surface would be available to solar access. McKeever: Of the actual structure. . . I think that is a new issue and I would i not want to discourage you from dealing with it, but I would encourage you to separate it from this issue. Lambert: Separate it from the issue. Would it be. . .add to the ordinance. McKeever: Where that would be placed would be more in the city's standard setback ordinances, because it would affect how a house is positioned on a lot going in, and I think that is a defensible idea and certainly one that would save energy, but it is a substantial departure from this program to date which has simply been to provide the opportunities and mandate the use of the solar. So I would just encourage to get this one done, and then if you want to open, probably not tonight, discusson on that issue, go from there. -37- J Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 Lambert: I am thinking that the person to the south has that added into their deed, that the person that forced them to do it ought to be forced to take . . . McKeever: Put it in the sun. Lambert: Yes. Stoner: Do we have a motion on this? i Rudy: No. Stoner: It would be appropriate at this point to have a motion on solar access design standards. j Cullen: I MOVE that we accept solar access design standards with the change. Lambert: I SECOND it. Stoner: Doug has moved and Chuck has seconded that we accept the solar access design standards as amended. Is there any discussion? All in favor. ! ; Voices: Aye. Stoner: Opposed. (silence) The third one is is Solar Access Permit. Mike, I 'm going to start with you because this is the one that Nancy wants to know about. i McKeever: Now your issue is different from the issue in here, so I 'll deal with. . . Rudy: This is the one that we brought up back at the workshops. McKeever: Your issue is here. The sun is here. There is a lot here that wants to put or add a solar system and the house is up here. That plane from here to the sun is a 23 angle starting from the bottom edge of that collector. So if you drew a horizontal lino there and you drew another line here, that angle has to be no less than 23 . It could be greater. . .but it has to be no less. So, the way I drew that that isn 't even close to scale. The way I drew that. . .hypothetically that house could already be protruding beyond that angle— it would be exempt. It would only affect trees. If there' s a tree here that is beyond the plane, it's exempt. All new trees would have to stay within the plane. If there' s a small tree here, when it hits the plane it would have to be trimmed and paid for by this person. . . (unclear) . Rudy: What if the person in the house on the right wants to add a second story to his house. McKeever: This has no effect on that house. This only affects only vegatation. The solar setback affects the house. Rudy: But we' re already done. That' s what I asked about this. You said that wasn't it. -38- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 KcKeever: I believe your question was that this person wants protection from trees, how does that work? Rudy: No, I said protection. I don 't care what kind. Stoner: Well , let's go back and talk about that issue then. If we feel we need to make a change. . . Rudy: All of this is getting to one basic point. Throughout all of these ordinances there seems to be an inclination to give all the advantage to the last guy who comes on the block. The house he wants to build, no matter how big it is, no matter where he wants to put it, if he wants to have three stories , if he wants to have a roof that takes off and goes five miles out and drops with a glass wall , whatever he wants he can get because in order to meet the other requirements he would have to change his design. He couldn' t build the house he wanted. So each thing becomes exempt down the line until he gets what he wants at the expense of everyone else. There is nothing here to protect the guy who is there first. And that one issue bothers me. McKeever: I don't think that is a correct interpretation of the. . .in a general sense of the ordinance. For instance, this person here could not build a three- story home, it would violate. . .let's say this is a split. . .This is a six-foot solar fence there. That person could not violate that angle if this was at 85. . .flat lot 85 feet or greater in north-south lot dimension by putting a three-story home on that lot. They could build a two-story home on that lot. And you are right there. That is protected. That was an explicit policy recommendation coming from the committee that this angle be not so restricted that it may be impossible to build a two-story home. . .because that is an energy efficient construction device in and of itself. But they can't make their roof line go any which way, they can't build a five-story home, they can't build a three-story home. They can build a two-story home. Now it's a legitimate, debatable point that the ordinance is too lenient and it ought to be written stricter to protect more solar access, but I think that issue has been pretty fully aired. Everybody may not agree as to whether it is strict enough yet, but I think the issue has been aired. Rudy: O.K. Going on what has been said is the way it is. All right. I 'll go along with that and I don' t like it. McKeever: I apologize if I misled you regarding which piece of the ordinance I was in. I just didn' t understand. Stoner: All right. Our amendments on the solar access permit are a bit hazier than they were on the other ones which were very specific. We have multiple choice here. Would you like to cover the multiple choice options we have for revising this and that we discussed. McKeever: The ordinance before you works as I diagrammed it here. There is an angle on this lot, and there is a preexisting tree that exceeds the angle it's grandfathered for the full growth for that tree. All new trees stay within the angle, and all small trees there when they (unclear) must be trimmed when they (unclear) . . . by this person. So there are three different types of trees to -39- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 think about. The tree that doesn't yet exist, which is regulated. The tree that already exists and is tall and is exempted. And the tree that already exists but is small and must be trimmed. So that is option A. That is the recommendation coming out of the advisory committee. Option B provides a little less solar access protection and a little more tree rights, if you will . And that would say that if this small tree here, which is not already exceeding this plane is a deciduous tree, that it also shall be allowed to grow and exceed that plane and qo to its full . . . under the argument that the deciduous tree loses its leaves in the winter and will allow on average half the sunlight to penetrate through. So if you did that you would have a little more shade, the person would have a little less sun- light protected, and you would have more flexibility with trees . Option C is a little further on that spectrum. It provides even a little less sunlight protection and a little more tree growth. . .tree rights. It would say that any tree that is in the ground when the permit is applied for is exempt or grandfathered, even if it is below the plane, it may grow to its full height. If it' s an evergreen tree or a deciduous tree, it doesn't matter if it is preexisting, it's exempted. . .small or big. Option D, which we recommended against, was to make this a more lenient angle instead of going with January 21 angle to move to a March 21 angle. We recommend that using a second standard would Just add to the administration issue and provide substantially less solar protection during the time of the year when you need it the most. M In my opinion either A or B or C are viable, defensible policies. What number of the code . . . of the ordinance would they appear on your agenda. I f McKeever: They would affect only one sentence in the ordinance, and that is the I definition of Exempt Vegetation which is on page 6, 15.02.134. Stoner: Mike, I have a question, and that is. . .B, exempt existing vegetation that is shown on a sunchart to shade a solar energy system during solar heating hours and existing deciduous solar friendly vegetation . . . why is that final phrase to the extent that it shades a solar system used solely for soace heating. Why that rather than . . . McKeever: Good question. Let's take this example. . .where this is an active solar hot water heating system which needs sunlight year around. In fact the hot water system will be most productive in the summer. Same would be true of a portable tank system ten years from now. . .generate electricity. The notion that a deciduous tree is a solar friendly tree is only true for a solar use that you use only in the wintertime, and that is a space heating use in this climate. Stoner: Does that mean that you do not exempt existing deciduous trees if they are impacting another use. Is that the implication of your statement? That if you have solar hot water heating system and that person applies for a solar access permit, then deciduous trees would not be exempt. -40- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1994 McKeever: The way that is written that is correct. The small deciduous tree would be treated the same as the small evergreen. Stoner: What I am asking for first, is a motion on this ordinance including a specific amendment, A, B, C, D, A being the one that exists. . .so if you opt for A, what you are really asking for a motion on the solar access permit ordinance as it is written so that we can discuss. Byrne: Make a motion that we accept it as written with option C. Stoner: Jim has moved that we accept it as written with amendment C. Is there a second. (silence) Motion fails for a lack of a second. Do we have another motion? Badger: I move we accept the solar access permit odinance with option B. Stoner: Is there a second. (silence) O.K. The motion dies for a lack of a second. Do I have another motion? Cullen: I MOVE to accept option A. Stoner: Doug has moved that we accept the solar access permit ordinance as written. Is there a second. Anderson: I 'll SECOND it. Stoner: Thank you. Bob Anderson has seconded. Is there any discussion. Byrne: I'd like to state that C would protect the person's trees. The person who planted the tree that may not have exceeded the plane when the solar permit was filed for but it was known that at one time or another it is going to exceed that plane. . .that person spent money and time putting that tree in, that tree should be protected. That person has a right to have that vegetation grow. And that is why I went for option C. They may want that tree there for a reason. They. . .be on the other side of this house to shade the front of the house. They may not care about Old Sol . I feel we owe it to that person who put the time and money in before the solar access permit was filed for to let his tree grow. We deny him some rights too by doing that. Anderson: I have a comment, and that is that the tree that he has planted that hasn t et grown to enter the solar envelope has to be paid for and trimmed by the person who gets the permit, which I think makes it fair. As I understand it, it would be six feet at the property line which would be adequate to provide screening at least for the first floor and possibly the second floor of the home that planted the tree to begin with I presume as an option if the person on the lot who obtains the solar permit and has the right to demand that the tree be cut may allow the tree to enter that space anyway, if it is not inter- fering substantially with his solar device on his roof. . . presume that is allowable. So he does have an option not to make waves if he so feels that is the case. Byrne: I have a little problem with who pays for the trimming the tree when it gets to a certain height. If that is the case, my problem is to make it mandatory -41- t Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 that it gets trimmed when it gets to a certain height, because that person planted that tree and maybe he . . . (unclear) . . . Stoner: Anybody else. Badger: Could I ask Mike to read option A again. McKeever: Option A simply states that exempt vegetation is existing vegeta- tion that is shown on a sun chart to shade the solar energy system during solar heating hours, and those are defined elsewhere by that plane. So if the shade is there first, the shade stays. If the sun was there first, the sun stays is another way of putting option A. Stoner: This is the one part of this package that I have real problems with and not with the intent of it. I think the intent of it is just fine, but the mechanics of it leave a great deal to be desired, and I have no suggestion or 4 , remedy. My question with the mechanics of it is simply how do you make sure i that every person in that neighborhood who moves in and out. . .that each person who has the solar access permit is aware of what the consequences of that permit are, and I see no mechanism in this ordinance to. . .that really makes ' sure that information is available to anybody who needs it when they need it. I see a subdivision or the solar access setback for new homes as being something that can be easily conveyed because it applies to a whole community, but this applies to individual people and their immediate neighbors, and I don't see how you keep that information alive in a community. i McKeever: Actually I think that you could almost argue the other side of that and that is that this regulation will be easier for the effected property owners to find than the solar setback for the reason that this permit is recorded in the chain of title of all effected properties. When property changes hands and a new owner comes in and a title search is done, the effects . . .they will find that. That doesn't guarantee that they will understand what that means. And in part whether they understand it will depend on how successful j we in the city are at providing a good, clear explanation of the effects to find in the title . . . when they get something that they have something that is understandable to them. I think that we can do that. If somebody doesn't read their title report, it is just like any other regulation. There is nothing you can do to make them do that. Stoner: I agree. But my concern is that if you have a community that has developed with solar design standards or the solar setbacks , then you have a group of people who have that knowledge in common who can pass that knowledge on. But in this instance what you have is a single homeowner who has asked for that permit that affects two or three of his neighbors, and as those properties change hands over time, I see that as being very difficult to maintain that piece of information with the people who need to know it, because it is a reasonable thing that you have to know, and I don' t see a mechanism in this for making sure that happens. McKeever: I don't know how you can totally to your satisfaction accomplish that, and to some extent it's worth recognizing that as a weakness . I think the policy -42- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 option you have to weigh against that is no solar access protection from trees, and that has its own set of costs and problems with it. Stoner: I have one other comment. . .some real specific things in terms of the ordinance itself I ' d like to throw in here, unfortunately. On page 1B (15.08.242) Evidence that a solar energy system is installed or a written commitment to install the proposed energy system within one year of the effective date of the permit We made an addition in the definition section and that is number 2 on here that I didn' t get to. . .that that includes a south-facing wall of a residence is considered a solar energy system as well as solar equipment, such as water heating systems. I think that needs to be included in B somehow so that is there right up front. So that you don' t get to the definitions. Evidence that a solar energy system is installed or a written commitment, you know, solar energy system includes south facing wall . . .something there. McKeever: Take that exact sentence and also put it in B. I would leave it in the definition section, also, you don't need to change your work, just add it on the end of B. Stoner: It also has to be added into J on the next page, because Evidence the solar energy system will be situated on the applicant's property so each other property affected by the permit is restricted to the minimum extent practicable by means including but not limited to removal of vegetation on the applicant' s property that would other- wise obstruct a solar energy system . . . We are talking about south-facing walls here as well as solar energy systems , and I think it needs to be consistent. F, G and H list the criteria . . .are part of the criteria that needs to be met, and I looked at those and I thought, boy, that's going to be tough. On the applicant for one thing, not to say that that information does not have to be there, but (F. ) A list of all lots. . .including unbuildable areas, and the following information for each lot: the Solar Factor; the legal description; the owner of record and his or her address ; and, for each lot with a Solar Factor of 47 or greater, vegetation identified as exempt or non-exempt. s And the same for G (G. ) A plan of the applicant's property. . . other vegetation that may shade the solar energy system, labelled exempt or non-exempt; and the solar energy system, its height above grade, distance from property lines, and orientation from true south. -43- f Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 And then H (H. ) For each affected lot, a description of the requested solar access permit height limitations defined in. . . i I see this as a very difficult ordinance to make workable or use, and I think the thrust is entirely appropriate. I think if people could get protection for south walls or for the energy systems that they invest their money in, that is a legitimate need that people have, but I just have real questions about whether this ordinance is the way to do it. I will not argue the case { any more. I just have some real concerns about the technical . . . { i Lambert: What I am saying too, which includes the enforcement. . .if a car is double parked, you call the proper authority to come out and give him a ticket. Here, if someone has a solar access permit, they have to get a copy of the solar access permit, which is fine, a new sun chart, the legal description of the lot in which the alleged non-exempt vegetation is situated, when they (Tape Changed) Lambert: The next sunny day they show up (unclear) . . .he goes up and writes him a warning. . .and put a little teeth in the ordinance. Not only does he have to pay for cutting the top of his tree if he doesn't want to do it, but he's got to be hooked with a fine or something. I McKeever: I think that is a legitimate issue. If you want to talk about toughing it up. It' s a different issue from Carol 's issue which is that this is a burden on the solar owner and it is cumbersome to get through. Lambert: Not really, because she is saying how' s this new guy who moved in know about it. Stoner: It' s the information flow that I am most concerned about. Lambert: And I have east casting shade on my solar access. . .I go up and knock I on his door and say I have a solar access and he tells me to stick it in my ear. It' s big Joe Green. I 'll see if it'll fit. McKeever: Either one, whichever one he wants you to out it in. It may not help, but if I could give you a couple of minutes on how the technical advisory com- mittee wrestled with that issue. First of all let me say that in my opinion there is no doubt the thorniest of the issues, and the other policy options that I think you have. . .one is to go to. . .guess what I would call a community- wide approach to tree regulation in existing developments, like you do with the buildings and the setbacks. And you talked about the potential benefits of that and that you get word-of-mouth spreads and people get talking about it. No other community in the country has succeeded in figuring out how to do that, and when we got to this point with the technical advisory committee, they did the same thing that you are doing right now. They said they got it all designed and they said, Gosh there's got to be a better way. Will you go back, and Jim Reasonable Harris said, will you -go back and see if you can't find a simpler way. So we did that and we brought to them a sort of a comparison on -44- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 s the five design principles that they had adopted. I wish I could stand here and say there's an easier way to do it, but I don't know how in an existing neighborhood and be fair. And so the problem is one of documentation. You know, people don' t have to come to the city and you don't want to have them have to come to the city to get a permit to 'plant and grow a tree. You 've got a whole array of trees right now some of which are casting shade and some of which aren't. What you have. . .if you want an enforceable document is a massive documentation problem with trees. And that is really what this solar access procedure is. It is a documentation situation. The burden for the cost of this falls on the benefited property owner. Your other option is to say it is too burdensome and it's not worth it, and so we are not going to do anything with trees in existing developments. And I think the disadvantages of that are pretty evident by this phase in the process. So, I guess my advice is enter it with open eyes, and if any piece of the ordinance deserves careful scrutiny, look at this one over the first year and make sure there can 't be ways to make it better. This is our professional. . as the best way to do it now and the opinion of the technical advisory committee, too, I think. t5 K Rudy: Now I have a few things. First of a11 . . . I 'm afraid that I may already know the answer to this one. Where in here does it say that a person has the right to build a house of at least 47 feet or whatever it is. . .24 feet. McKeever: Solar access permit has no effect on structures at all . . y Rudy: Which nne was this? Was this the one back in the beginding whet; I asked about it? McKeever: Yes. Rudy: That was why I asked about it. But we had to rush into it and pass it fast. So this, which is something that several people on this Commission questioned at the time of the workshop got right past us. Stoner: We can go back and look at it again if we need to do that. Rudy: Unless everyone here has changed their mind about it, I would like to. Stoner: I think we need to deal with the permit first, and then we can go back to. . . Rudy: That is the one that I thought I knew the answer to, and I didn't. If the person who has the solar permit finds that his neighbor's trees have popped up and is now shading his area, and he wants the neighbor to cut them and his neighbor doesn' t want to cut them, it' s the solar permit owner who will pay to have them cut or cut them himself. What if he just goes over and hacks, what happens? McKeever: Probably the same thing that when they trespass on property happens now for any other reason. If they get caught, they are in trouble. Rudy: But the permit says he has the right to do it. -45- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 McKeever: No, it doesn't. It does not say they have the right to enter anybody else property and trim their trees. Rudy: What' s the process then? r McKeever: The process of for those two neighbors to get together isn't specified. They can walk over there and knock on the door, make a phone call , or talk over the back fence. That is not specified. There is a policy that says we want you to get together and solve this yourself. If you can' t, call the city, and the city will fix it and bill the proper property owner for it. Rudy: O.K. So the property owner would get billed without having to enter the property. McKeever: That's right. Rudy: O.K. Back to the A, B, C, D thing, one comment on that. Solar access is a great thing and I am all in favor of it, but I see too many mechanical problems as you do with this ordinance as it is written. I don' t think anything other than C is fair to people who plant tree, bushes and shrubs. I think j anything else is stepping on their toes. Any one of us would have the same I feeling if we had the tree that someone wantsto cut down. McKeever: It's an equity issue. It is a debatable, equity issue. Rudy: I don' t think anything but C is fair. Badger: In the existing ordinances that have passed in other cities , they are comparable to the one we are considering here. Is there a great number of applications for these individual permits, or is there practially no applica- tions. McKeever: I 'm not sure I 'd go so far as to say practically no, but there is definitely not a great number. Probably the most experience with them is not even in Oregon. Minneapolis, Minnesota has a solar access permit ordinance and at last count the survey done. . .they are in the Department of Energy. . .I think it has been in effect about 18 months. They had thirteen applications. Either Santa Fe or Albuquerque, New Mexico has something like that in the first couple of years. Ashland is really the only city in Oregon that has a track record with it, and they have had about a half a dozen. Badger: In other words this is an ordinance that if we were to pass it, some- body was to apply for it, the tree that Nancy's concerned about would probably f take about seven years to penetrate the envelope sufficiently to be of concern to that fellow on the lower lot. McKeever: That's certainly a possibility. Badger: And we would have about five years to revise the ordinance if we were getting into trouble with the ordinance as it is now. -46- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 McKeever: Well , for that piece of the ordinance. . it is also possible that that tree is right here, that it is right below that angle right now. Or that it has just been planted but it is a poplar tree, going to be there by January. Badger: In other words this is something that is futuristic dream, that's why the problem in the writing of it. You are trying to dream into the future and protect them, and you can't. McKeever: You are trying to provide a means for someone who wants protection. It's a means that matches the problem. Buildings are relatively simple. People come to get a building permit. They have setbacksand height requirements they have to comply with, so the solar setback is a relatively simple amendment to an existing process. Buildings don't grow. They are measurable. . .nice. They are usually one on a lot. Trees, nobody comes to the city to get a permit. They grow every which way. There are sometimes dozens of them on a given lot, so you have a complex situation to begin with. So there is a complex tool designed to deal with those complexities and to make it fair, the costs . . .the administrative burden costs are placed on the benefited property owner, because it is their voluntary choice whether they want it. Now all of that is probably the best argument you've heard yet for a solar envelope in new developments to deal with vegetation, be- cause you don' t have to worry about all of this. Lambert: In a new development a buffer strip or a planting strip is required as a buffer. This also pertains to the solar access. You tell them to put shrubs for trees in and then tell them to top them. McKeever: Plants. . .solar friendly buffers. Make sure they are within the envelope. . .is what it says. Stoner: Are 'there any other comments or discussion on the solar access permit. Could we have a motion. Has a motion been made. Yes , the final motion was Doug's that said option A. Are you ready to vote? All in favor of the solar access permit ordinance as written say aye. Voices• Aye. Stoner• Opposed. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Could I have a show of hands, please. Against, Not verbatim. Against: Byrne, Lambert, Rudy and Stoner) Stoner: All right. Nancy, you want to look at the height of the buildings. Rudy: When this came up before, which I think was our first hearing, and it came up again. . .or our first workshop discussion. . .when it came up again you were saying that 24 feet is a two-story house. Right. McKeever: Right. Rudy: And that a one-story house is 17. . . -47- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 McKeever: Sixteen--eighteen Rudy: Sixteen--eighteen. . .right in there somewhere. If building the house would violate the. . .what' s the word I want. . .the solar envelope that is already raised, the six feet off the ground is it, or the eight feet off the ground, the last point that still gives this other house over here the solar protection. . .the person with the new house would have the right to build a house, but why does it have to be a two-story house. Is a two-story house to be mandated, or is a minimum one-story house to be mandated? McKeever: Well , they can build a one-story house if they so choose. Their ability to build a two-story house or to add a second story in the future would be preserved. . .the way it is written now. Rudy: Even if it breaks through the very top limit of the other house's solar protection envelope. McKeever: On certain sized lots. . . Rudy: I'm probably not expressing that very clearly. McKeever: No, I think I understand what you are saying. On certain sized lots they will be able to site a two-story house and still meet that six-foot solar fence standard. O.K. On other sized lots they will be able to build that two- story house and meet the 14-foot fence standard, which is to protect south roofs. On other sized lots, they wouldn't. . .and this would be very rare. . .hypothe- tically possible they would not be able to build the two-story house and meet even the 14-foot fence standard, in which case they would be exempt. ' r Rudy: I think that is the point at which I would like it to read one-story house. At that third one where it breaks it completely. There should be some protection for the guy that has the solar. McKeever: O.K. so you are saying in what I would call the third lot category, which would be the exempt lot category that the 24-foot high house should be an 18-foot high house. Rudy: Yes, that is what I am saying. McKeever: Well , that provides you with more solar access protection. It makes it a little more complicated to administer because the formula would change a bit. Rudy: Would the formula itself be changing, or are you just changing that third level of access. McKeever: Yes , you are changing the number. You are changing the solar factor number. And I could figure it out here if you want to entertain a motion to do that and give you the number before we have to leave. What you lose by doing that is in one sense is just public education detriment. No longer can you look at the community and say you can have a 24-foot high house on any lot with this ordinance. You have to say except in certain cases and then explain that. And it -48- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 gets more difficult to explain. But I am not sure that is a compelling reason. Stoner: Is it administratively difficult? McKeever: It's more difficult than it would be now, but I don't think it would be burdensome. Rudy: As you said this would not affect a great many houses. There are very few that would not allow at least a 14-foot solar envelope. Is that correct reason for it. McKeever: Well , basically here. . .I 'm just trying to think this through. What you would say is that. . . Voice: (unclear) Lambert: The public hearing is closed. McKeever: Bear with me here and I'll try to find a simple way to do that if that is what you want to do. What you would do. . .see on page 1 at the bottom of the page, number 2, solar factor, you would scratch that. That would be deleted, and over on page 2 at the bottom of the page where you have a 1 and a formula and a 2 and then a formula, and then a 3. . . three would read for any lot with a solar factor less than 47. . . I 've got to think about this. . .With any lot with a solar factor less than 47 the shadow must be no higher than that which would be cast by an 18-foot pole located halfway through the lot. So what you do, this is the lot line and this is a 50-foot wide lot on a 10 per&ent north slope. You could fix an 18-foot high pole right there. You draw a 23 plane through that, and you'd say the house on that lot has to stay within that plane. That' s how you do it. Rudy: That's if it cannot meet the 14-foot. . . McKeever: That's any lot that has a solar factor of 46 or less, which would mean you couldn't meet the 14-foot standard. Badger: If you said that was the north slope, wouldn't that have a percentage grate—already to the north. It wouldn' t be flat like that. McKeever: No, I 'm sorry. You're right. It would look like this. Rudy: What if it were flat? McKeever: If it were flat it would have to have a north-south lot dimension of 46 feet or less to have a solar factor of 46 or less. Rudy: But that achieves what I was talking about. McKeever: Yes, that would get you there. Rudy: So they are guaranteed at least a one-story house, but the other fellow, is guaranteed at least his roof, or the 14 feet, so the 14-foot solar envelop . -49- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 Stoner: I'm not even going to ask you about exceptions to those most cases that you just mentioned. Rudy: It may not happen very often, but I think it is significant enough in i those cases to protect that. I move that. . . Harris: We have to get back into that ordinance first. Stoner: Nancy has MOVED that we modify B, the solar access setback ordinance to read on page 2 under 15.08.234 that we will add a 3 that reads: For any lot with a solar factor less than 47, the shadow of a structure must be no more than cast by an I8 foot pole in the center of the lot. McKeever: Just amend the last one for clarification. . . located half the distance through the north-south dimension of the lot. Stoner: Cast by an 18 foot pole located one half the distance through the north-south dimension of the lot. t Lambert: That's with a north slope. McKeever: In some cases it will be a north slope, and in some cases it will be just an irr2gular substandard lot. Stoner: Do you all understand the motion and the effect thereof would be to f protect southern roof exposure and limit the adjacent property owner to a I one-story house. i McKeever: Just let me make certain you understand that. An 18-foot house right here, if it is up here it will be a two-story house. It is that at that point in the lot it would be a one-story house. Rudy: To give protection above the 14-foot solar envelope. Stoner: Is there a second to that motion. Anderson: Is this the motion to amend, to add number 3. I Stoner: Yes, f Anderson: I SECOND the motion. Stoner: Any discussion? Byrne: In two now it says Solar Factor. A property that has a Solar Factor of 46 or less is exempt. Strike all that. Byrne: Strike all of number 2 of page 1 , the Solar Factor. A property that has a Solar Factor of 46 or less is exempt in providing anything for the down slop-, lot the way this ordinance reads. Is that correct, Mike? -50- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 McKeever: The way the current ordinance reads that is correct. Byrne_: So, the way the current ordinance reads, a two-story house could be built on that lot any place anyway, but it is exempt. McKeever: That's correct. Stoner: That' s the way it currently reads. McKeever: `That's the way it read an hour ago. Byrne: She wants to lower the house to 18 feet. Rudy: That' s if. . .that's only if it violates the 14-foot solar envelope. In other words they already have gone 14 up the side of the other house over here with a shadow so that all that is showing may be just his roof or the upper part of his house, and still they can 't build the two-story house they want over here, so it goes higher and completely cuts off his sun, because it would be exempt since he couldn't built the 24-foot house without going into that solar envelope. In other words it protects the guy who is already there from a two-story house, not a one-story house. Anderson: It appears to me that for a lot with a solar factor of less than 46 and it' s a standard-depth lot, it is going to have a fair degree of slope anyway, probably would be a daylight basement house, and so with the daylight basement the high side of B toward the front. . .and so they could have it. . . it isn 't a very restrictive thing to have. I think like you say it probably would apply only for the smaller lots , anyway if it were flatter. . .to get below 46. Stoner: Let me rephrase the motion, because it is not complete. Rudy: You mean you didn' t like, i move that. . . Stoner: I loved it. I just loved it, but we need to add that we delete solar factor number 2 on page 1 : 2. Solar Factor. A property that has a Solar factor of 46 or less, based on Table 1 is exempt from section 15.08.234. That is correct. To do what Nancy wants to do we have to delete that, number 2 on page 1 , and add number 3 at the bottom of page 2. Cullen: So we'd have 1 , 2, and 3 instead of 1 , 2, 3, and 4. Voices: Yes. Stoner: Is it clear to you what you are voting on and the impact thereof. Rudy: It wasn't my idea to stay here this late doing it. (Voices and comments unclear. ) -51- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 Stoner: All those in favor of amending the solar access setback ordinance to delete number 2 solar factor paragraph at the bottom of page 1 and add a number 3 at the bottom of page 2. All in favor. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Opposed. (silence) Rudy: Thank you. Stoner: Now the final issue is the recommendation about evaluation. Voice: There's a housekeeping ordinance. Stoner: . . .housekeeping ordinance. Can we do that as it sits. . .the deletion of. . . I wouldn't want to leave anything out. McKeever: You wanted that one explanatory sentence added. . .which explanatory sentence. The one that says—actually two times. . .section 6 3 and section 11 , sub 6. . .a sentence which reads In some cases this may not guarantee solar access to every multifamily dwelling. Stoner: Now are there any deletions we need to make in the housekeeping ordinance. that pertains to the solar permit. . .solar access permit that we deleted. McKeever: The now-deceased solar permit. Stoner: Yes. McKeever: Yes, section 2 on page 1 about almost exactly half way down where �} you have five height limitations. You don' t want to delete all of that. All you want to delete is on the second line is or a solar access permit approved under section 15.08.244. Stoner: What about the height limitation. . . it says except as required by solar access setback. McKeever: You want to leave the setback language in there and everything else. . . just take out from where we started to the comma, then down at the bottom of the page it's the same thing. . .the exact same language. Just take out. . . Lambert: Take out what in section 5. Stoner: In both section fives 5. Height limitation. . . or a solar access permit approved under section 15.08.244. • •-52- Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 McKeever: That's it. That'll do it. Badger: How about 15.08.242 on page 2 under number 7. Is that all the same. . . 1 McKeever: Oh, you' re right. I 'm not sure where you are, but down here about two thirds of the way down the page on page 2. . . 7. The Planning Director shall approve 1 , 2, 3, 4, the fifth line down a solar permit approved pursuant to section 15.08.242. Scratch that between the two commas. Then on down section 1--1 , 2, 3, the fourth line down you also have the same thing. Y Stoner: The same thing. Also it is in number 3, section 6 or an applicable solar access permit approved under section. . . Badger: Why can't we just approve the solar access insert (unclear). . .deleting. . . Stoner: Can we have a motion to that effect, Bob. Badger: I MOVE we approve the Solar Access Ordinance by inserting solar access into the zoning code and deleting all references to the Solar Access Permit Ordinance which we did not pass. Cullen: SECOND it. Stoner: Bob Badger has moved and Doug has seconded it. Any discussion. All in favor. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Opposed. (silence) Now, Bob needs. . . do you want to make a motion to recommend to the City Council that we set up an evaluation process. e Anderson: Yes. Stoner: Bob Anderson has MOVED and Bob Badger has SECONDED that we recommend to the City Council that an evaluation process be set up for determining the efficiency or effectiveness of the solar process ordinances. All in favor. 4 Voices: Aue. Stoner: Opposed. (silence) . We have to vote tonight on a chair. Rudy: May I say one thing before we leave this. One thing we didn' t pass was the solar access permit, and that is the part that allows someone and encourages someone to establish a solar system in their house. I think without this all the rest of it isn' t going to do all that much good. I hope that this will not die but that whatever needs to be done to it happens. -53- 5 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1984 (End of Verbatim Minutes) Commissioner Lambert MOVED that the remaining issues be deferred until the December 18th meeting. Commissioner Badger SECONDED the motion. Motion unanimously carried. Commissioner Lambert nominated Commissioner Cullen as the chairman for 1985. Commissioner Byrne SECONDED the motion. Motion unanimously carried. Commissioner Rudy nominated Commissioner Anderson as the 1985 vice chairman. Commissioner Badger SECONDED the motion. Motion unanimously carried. j Commissioner Rudy MOVED and Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the motion to close the meeting. Meeting was adjourned at 11 :20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, amen P. Harris Secretary i i i I i -54-