Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 10/23/1984 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 1984 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Carol Stoner at 7 :30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 23, 1984 in the Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Stoner, Chairman Nancy Rudy, Vice-Chairman Robert Anderson Robert Badger Douglas Cullen Raymond Ward EXCUSED: Richard Foslin Chuck Lambert ABSENT: James Byrne PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Associate Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary SPECIAL GUESTS: Carole Connell and Mike McKeever CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SOLAR ACCESS Chairman Stoner opened the AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE AND SUBDIVISION CODES continuation of the public hearing on the solar access amendment to the zoning and subdivision codes. (Verbatim Minutes) Carole Connell , CMS consultant for the Solar Access Project: Before I start speci- fically on the memorandum, I Just want to point out the Advisory Committee members that are here again--Gene Smith, Puqet Power; Jerry Slick, behind him with the i glasses, architect; and Carl Hendrickson in the back, who wasn' t here last time. I think that' s it, and Mike McKeever, my partner from CMS and Pete Skowlund from the Washington State Energy Office. Also just a quick reminder, last time was the first hearing and prior to that we had two workshops and we did have a public involve- ment program this summer that you' re pretty aware of, I think. We also went through the findings of fact, the reasons for the solar access protection plan and listed for you the economic benefits, etc. to give you a quick background. -1- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23 , 1934 There were some specific questions you had with the ordinances and what I 've pre- sented to you in your packet is a response with primarily a clarification in language, but there is one substantial issue regarding the solar access permit and the pro- tection of tree shade on page 2. But starting with the first item on page one of the solar access setback ordinance, which is in relation to new building construction on existing platted lots, the question was asked as to whether or not standard build- ing yard and setback requirements would prevail over solar setbacks. And the answer to that is yes, and it was suggested that it be stated as such in the ordinance so it was clear, and that' s what number one is. Number two did not come up in the meeting but it is an important clarification in the formula. If you don 't have the solar factor table before you, you can do the formula by hand, and I made a slight correction to the formula that needs to be made in the ordinance. Number three, it was suggested, I think, by Bob that the solar factor table is not quite right when it says minus point zero three percent. It should gust say 30 percent, and we will make that change in the ordinance when we add these suggestions and revisions. Chairman Stoner: Can I interrupt you for a minute. I missed the first part of the workshop on the access setbacks, and as I was reading through it tonight I realized that I was not clear. If you go to the second page on the formula and at the bottom of the page it says 1 . (H - 6) / ( .42.5). :could you explain that? Carole Connell : What that is. Chairman Stoner: It's height minus six. Carole Connell : Solar fence, which isthe. . .the imaginary fence, the property line, divided by .42, which is the tangent of the altitude of the sun on January 21st, plus the slope. Chairman Stoner: O,K. Does that number six need to be defined as feet? Carole Connell : H minus 6. Chairman Stoner: Both those numbers are feet, but do they need to be defined as such? Carol Connell : Well it says. . . it clarifies that H is the height. There could be a foot in there. I think that would be easy to add. f Chairman Stoner: It's the same thing in the second item then when you are talking about that 14 foot. Carole Connell : That' s when you can't meet the first standard and you slipped to the roof protection automatically. And that's the 14-foot fence. Chairman Stoner: O.K. Let me ask if there are any other questions on this particular portion of it, the solar access setbacks. (silence) Carol Connell : Under the solar access design standard, which is the standard for new development when you are laying out subdivisions and providing solar access at that stage of development, I think the only question that came up was basically a language clarification to page 3 of the ordinance, item C. Exemptions. And Carol -2- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1984 asked. . .does that mean that an existing tree can grow? Is everybody up with me? Commissioner Ward: What was the page? Carole Connell : Page 3 Solar Access Design Standard, item C under 3.1 .11 .4 entitled Exemptions. The problem is number 1 . It is very legal language, and that is how you get hung up on it. And the question was. . . I ' ll read it: A structure or vegetation 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 21st is shaded at this time by existing structures and vegetation. So there is no point in providing protection when it is already shaded is the point here, and so that it causes an exemption. What Mike and I did was sit dorm and started getting into it again. . .actually made a change beyond what your question of clarification was, and it now says that: l A structure may exceed the height of a solar envelope to the extent j that the area that would be shaded by the proposed structure at noon 4 on January 21st is shaded at this time by existing structures or 1 exempt vegetation. Would you like us to sketch that out to make it more clear. Mike would you mind doing that. . .the sketch that we worked on today. Here' s the existing language. Mike McKeever: The only time this provision in the ordinance will ever have effect, and this is a fairly minor part of the ordinance. . .the only time it will have an effect is when. . . in cross section if you have a lot in a new development which abuts an existing developed area so this is the new development, and this is the r existing development, and if there is, say it is a commercial area and there is a tall building, three-story building that already exists there, and here is the sun up here, so your shade is coming down like this, here is the property line here. You are trying to site a home on this lot and protect access back here. If this building is already casting shade beyond, let' s say its shade comes like that, beyond what the sun angle is , and there is no point in requiring this person to stay under the lower sun angle here, because that shade argues this. So all that says is that the house on this lot can go up to that new angle, whatever that existing shade is, but it can ' t go beyond that. It can't add any more shade. O. K. So that' s the principle to work with. Don't try to protect any more solar access than already exists. So if there is an existing building violating the standard, what that. . . Another place that that could happen would be on a remodeling project i on. . .let' s say this is an existing house, no that wouldn't be the case. . . (unclear) . Carole Connell : The way it affects trees is. . . Mike McKeever: Same way. This is a tree. This is a tree here creating shade beyond the standard. . .that could violate the standard of the home . . . to the extent that the tree already was. -3- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1984 Commissioner Ward: So if that was a house. . . if there was a house there to be developed or remodeled, you could build a tree-shaped house that would not cast a different. . . as long as it didn' t exceed that tree-shaped shadow. . .what you are saying. Mike McKeever: It's going to have its biggest effect with buildings. Voice: Where is the determination made? Is it. . . 1 Chairman Stoner: We' re in public hearing, and so you can ask those kinds of questions { but we have to have people up into the mike. All right. You want to move on. III Mr. Harris : I was going to suggest that she. . . Chairman Stoner: Yes, because we do have a rebuttal time coming up. Carole Connell : O. K. Under the solar access permit, which is where we spent more time talking about trees and how you thought the trees should be protected. . . I mean lots should be protected from trees, ,lust to remind you how this works, it's a permit that is offered at the city, and if somebody has a solar system that is productive up to a certain level and they've done all measures to eliminate shade on their own property, then they come to the city and apply for a permit to protect their system at that time and into the future from the vegetation only. This would be an existing development, so it' s addressing the existing Kent neighborhoods. And the way the ordinance is written today and the way the advisory committee is pre- senting it to you is listed in A. Keep the language as written where only existing. . . located in the solar system's sky space at the time of application is exempt. So that when the sun chart photo is taken and the documentation is made, a tree that is in that photograph is exempt. If it's a tree that's beneath the angle of the sun at time but protrudes later into the sky space, then it has to be trimmed back. And if it' s a new planting that didn't exist at that time but is planted and later grows into the sky space, then that also has to be trimmed back. Now there was some question as to whether the Planning Commission liked that approach, so we said there might be other opportunities to provide protection with addressing vegetation differently. B says if you' re . . . exempt existing vegetation that is shown on the sun chart to shade a solar system during the solar heating hours, as we just said, and also, deciduous vegetation to the extent that it shades the solar system used solely for space heating, that is providing a little more flexibility by allowing a deciduous or sometimes called solar friendly tree to protrude into the sky space after the permit has been granted, because of the effects on the solar system j are. . . provide shade in the summer and let light through in the winter when the M leaves have dropped. So that is sort of a medium position from taking one step further from the Advisory Committee. The third option is to exempt all existing vegetation and only regulate new plantings. So, even if it is the sky space or beneath that angle but it is in the ground at the time of the permit, it is exempt. That's an easy way to document it, if you feel that i is the right approach. We also suggested the idea of developing a second standard, i that is the sun angle being actually higher for trees so allowing trees to go higher than buildings. The current standard is January 21st. A recommended additional angle could be February 21st or March 21st. I wouldn ' t think you would want to go -4- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1984 any further than that. It' s our recommendation that if you start having different angles and different standards, that it becomes an administrative problem and con- fusion, and it can be dealt with. It is something that is an alternative, but it does add administrative confusion. And it also provides a lot more shade during the primary heating months during the winter, so you are defeating your purpose to some extent. Those are the options we felt existed at this point. Are there any Q questions about those or would you like to discuss them further? Commissioner Rudy: Do you differentiate between solar friendly trees that let a lot of sun through and those that let Just a little sun through, or are all decid- uous trees considered solar friendly? A Carole Connell : All trees are not equal in this sense, and the question is do you want to define a list of trees that are more friendly than others , as far as decid- uous goes. And, that can be done. With a set of criteria regarding when they drop their leaves , how tall they get, how broad they are and how dense the branch structure is, you can come up with a fairly decent criteria for trees. If you want to make it a little simpler by Just saying deciduous versus evergreen, that is one approach you have here. Chairman Stoner: Any other questions? Commissioner Ward: I have a question. Regarding the compromise so far as to date, the 21st date, aren't we already compromising the ideal date from December 21st to January 21st, and if we go even further, would that. . . Chairman Stoner: I had one other question. The issue was raised about maximum height at one point and we were talking about two stories versus one story. When I quickly went through the ordinances tonight I did not find the specific spot at which that was mentioned. Where is that in the ordinance. Carole Connell : It' s not in the Solar Access Permit, and that's regarding trees. It's in the Solar Access Setback Ordinance which we have already gone through, and it' s on page 2 under the Solar Access Setback - Calculation A. right above the formula. And it says: Under this standard a lot may be developed with a structure with its highest shade producing point 24 feet high, provided that point is half way through the lot. So, what is happening here is you are guaranteeing a two-story house on every lot. Chairman Stoner: And then you had one other change, didn't you. Carole Connell : Two others , and then a suggestion from Jim. First of all I assume you want to make some deliberation on the solar access permit as far as what option you would choose. To the end of section 15.02.4962, I think it was your question to, you said what do you mean by solar energy system, and we expanded the definition to say that even a south-facing wall of a residence is considered a solar energy system as well as hot water heating systems. So what we did was give you a few examples. -5- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1984 I think it was Robert Badger's point to be said in the ordinance somewhere that. . . in the last item under the general housekeeping provisions add to Section 6 and 11 that in some cases multifamily. . .each multifamily unit will not get solar. It's the build- ing placement on the whole that we are looking at solar access. And I think that one other thing that might be added, if it needs to be done at this point I am sure, is that it says now that this ordinance becomes effective in 30 days. Jim suggested that it be 60 to 90 days , if you want to make that change at this point so that we can do what we had planned to do is to train the Planning Department and present a training session to the development community, the builders and the architects and subdividers , enough time there that . . . make sure that everybody understands the ordinance before it goes into effect. And, that is all that I had for your questions last time. Chairman Stoner: If there are no other questions, then we will ask for public testi- mony on the issue. Is there anyone here who would like to comment? Would you come to the microphone, Tom. Tom Reichert: My name is Tom Reichert: I am representing the Seattle Master Builders Association tonight. On behalf of them I would like to ask the Board for a 30-day delay on the decision pending a. . .giving us some time to study the cost effectiveness of this ordinance. That is all that I have. Chairman Stoner: Are there any questions? Commissioner Rudy: Yes. Why would it take longer than the time that' s been available since about July or whenever we started this? Tom Reichert: Well , we really just became aware of this. I know that you people have been working on it a long time, and we are up against. . .where we have to. . . Mr. Harris: Would you come up to the mike, otherwise all you say will be hearsay. Tom Reichert: There has been a grant to these people for them to study this and present to you their ideas. Now their ideas. . .now their ideas should be analyzed by everybody that is involved in it, so that we have a decent say and that we have our time to actually come up with what this thing is going to cost. Nobody really has dealt with how much this is going to cost. There is going to be a cost in this thing that these people haven' t given to you. I don 't care what they say, who says what, this isn' t free. I don' t know what it' s going to cost, neither do they, but it' s not free. As far as time, maybe it's our fault we were' t involved as j early as are should have been. Chairman Stoner: What kind of analysis are you proposing to do? Have you gotten that far in your thinking? Tom Reichert: Well , we have been in touch with the people in Oregon that have already adopted this. We are trying to get their input to see what their actual costs are now that they have adopted this. After that we have to go with the veople. . .our resources. I really don ' t know what those would be, other than we've got several subcommittees that deal with energy and land use, and those people . . .they' ll be the ones that will make our recommendation. -6- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1984 Chairman Stoner: Any other questions? Commissioner Rudy: May I ask a question of Jim Harris. Weren't there presentations on this made to the Chamber of Commerce and maybe another group in town, and what were the dates of those? Mr. Harris: Yes, we and the consultants presented this material a number of times this summer. Beginning with you, the Planning Commission, in July 17 was a workshop, and then in August Jim Chandler and myself talked with the Chamber of Commerce about this. Again on August 21 there was a Planning Commission workshop. August 21st early in the morning was a full presentation by the consultants for the Chamber of Commerce. Also, on August 22nd there was a presentation to the Kiwanis Club. September 7th, another presentation to the. . .was that downtown Kiwanis. . . the other Kiwanis Club. Then on to September 25th, Planning Commission hearing. We also have a letter tonight from the Chamber of Commerce asking for a 30-day delay that I 'd like to discuss when } we get to that. But, also the Technical Advisory Committee met beginning in . . .what. . . January. We also brought this early on to the City Council . I think we gave two. . . ' Mike McKeever gave two presentations to the City Council in workshops. Also I sent the material to the Master Builders prior to the September 25th public hearings. I 'm not sure if it was the week before or Just when, but they had that material for probably about a month. Does that answer your question. Commissioner Rudy: Thank you. Chairman Stoner: Are there any other people who would like to comment? Glenn. Glenn Votaw: I 'm Glenn Votaw and I am coming here on behalf of our Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. We did meet a week ago to consider this. We were hoping that we would have some recommendations from various committees. We have about three different committees that are concerned with this and have been studying it. We have 1 the Industrial Committee, the Local Government Committee, and some of the people who are involved in the real estate and development and also the energy considerations , and we have not been able to get all the data in that we can say here is a recommenda- tion with respect to the ordinance. So I have at least gotten over to the city today. Our request to not make a decision. We are not asking for additional public hearing but asking for not making a decision until we have enough input to be able to say yes we support the ordinance as it is now drafted, or that we would ask you to consider some modifications to that because again, not having sufficient data we don' t really. . .we can' t really say for sure what we are buying into, so we have asked for that. . .for you to consider your decision. . .holding the decision off for another 30 days as far as deciding that yes , this is what you would recommend to the City Council , Chairman Stoner: Any questions? Mr. Harris: I would like the record to clearly show that over a period of time I went to the Chamber of Commerce and asked them why we weren' t getting any input on this matter, and I was told time and time again that the Chamber really didn' t have any interest in it, that the two members of our Technical Advisory Committee that were members of the Chamber of Commerce were evidently adequately handling this through the Chamber. And I was shocked, when I went to a meeting about two or three weeks ago to find that the Chamber had suddenly come to life, and at -7- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1984 that meeting they told me they were going to request a 30-day delay at this meeting this evening. Now I have real hangups with that philosophically. Practically speak- ing I have to go along with the 30-day request, because I think we have to get this out in the open as much as we possibly can, but I want the record to show that I am very disappointed in the Chamber of Commerce and the way they treated this matter, because I was very open with the Executive Director of the Chamber and asked her why in the devil we weren't getting more input from the Chamber. And I was told that the Chamber wasn' t interested at this point. Now they came to life late, and I think you should recognize that. And I think, practically speaking, that I have to kind of go along with the request, because you don't want this to go to the City Council without all the possible input that you can get whether it' s tardy or on time or what. Commissioner Ward: Is a motion in order? Chairman Stoner: Well , we. . .the public hearing is still open, and so is there anyone else who grants to comment. Morgan Llewellyn: My name is Morgan Llewellyn and I'm with Heutmaker Construction Company. I am not speaking for the Chamber but as an individual businessman who deals with ordinances a lot and as builders. . .you guys see builders a lot, and that is under- standable, at these Planning Commissions I 'm sure that we get up and we' re some of the most vocal and visible opposition that you see. Well , the reason for that is because the person who is going to buy my house or who is going to buy one of Tom' s houses, they have no idea what this doing to their house or to the construction. Not that I am saying that this particular ordinance is going to add incremental cost, is going to bump somebody out of the market. I 'm not that naive and I 'm not philo- sophically opposed to the ordinance. But we have a lot of things coming at us as builders , and there is only so much that we can do. I think Tom made that point that we do not have a grant. We have businesses to run, and for us to try to come =in and make as detailed analysis as these consultants did, and they did a great job, they should be commended. The problem is simply time. We meet at 7 a.m. in the morning, and try to get excited about an ordinance at 7 a.m. It's tough. Either for or against. The consultants have suggested that the ordinance be delayed until the developers understand it or implementation be delayed. Well , I would suggest to the Planning Committee that a recommendation to the Council be delayed until the developers understand it. I don' t understand this ordinance. I 've read it through. I have asked Mr. Harris if a development I am developing on Scenic Hill will be affected by this ordinance. There hasn't been time, you know, and I don' t. . .it's 11 nobody' s fault. The ordinance isn't there, but I 'm curious about it. I 've got 22 lots that I 'm going to be spending half a million dollars developing, and if I can' t build an expensive house to recoup that, I 'm out. Now, again, I don 't know. But I don' t understand the ordinance. It' s complicated. It's going to add cost. If it' s going to add ten minutes in the processing of the Planning Department, it's going to add at least, I would say, minimum of �wice that for me to get those things ready for the Planning . , the Planning Department' ten-minute review. So what I would suggest is that workshops be held prior to the Planning Commission making a I recommendation to the Council so that we can understand it. It' s come quickly. Yes, there has been. . . I realize that maybe we haven' t responded to Jim like he would like to. Again, I will fall back on the fact that there are a lot of things coming at us. We've had the sprinkler ordinance in the Building Department, and we've got a security ordinance. There's a lot, and, unfortunately, we don't only deal with -8- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1984 planning issues . The other consideration and question I have with the ordinance is who is going to decide feasibility. When is it feasible to enforce the ordinance and when is it not. I don 't understand that. . .the language seems vague, and that is all I have to say. Chairman Stoner: Are there any questions? Commissioner Rudy: I have a procedural question. Is that in order. On the question of procedure if there is a delay, does that continue the public hearing so that there can be further input automatically, and then there would be a further delay before the vote two weeks after the hearing. Chairman Stoner: Not necessarily. Mr. Harris: I would say. . .my suggestion would be that if you want to entertain a 30-day delay, that you draw the line and say that's it. On the 27th of November we'll be back here to make our decision, because you have had your input. Now that means these people and whoever else have to get their act together if they are going to do it before you. You 've given them the opportunity. They've asked for a 30-day delay. Commissioner Rudy: So the input would be that day, as well as the vote that day. r Mr. Harris: That's right. I think that we all know what probably is going to happen on that night. Commissioner Ward: Could the inputs be in writing. Mr. Harris: Well , I would hope so. Commissioner Ward: In writing prior to the time for consideration. Mr. Harris: We can't dictate how they do their work. It would be nice if they could get it out a week ahead of time to you or in writing, but we don 't know. Commissioner Rudy: So we' d have to make that decision on the 27th or. . . Mr. Harris: I 'd suggest that you do, because you are ready. The Technical Advisory Committee is ready. Chairman Stoner: We've heard initial statements from all of you who wish to make initial statements. Is there anyone who is interested in rebutting something that they have heard. That is the second part of the procedure that we usually go through. Staff is. . . Mike McKeever: My name is Mike McKeever. I don't want to rebut anything, I just want to make certain one point at least is in the record, and that is that the exper- ience of other communities throughout the Northwest that have adopted some form of k solar access protection ordinances was brought before the Technical Advisory Committee in great length and included in the presentations and workshops and smaller portion with you people, and so you should be comfortable that that experience has been looked -9- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1484 at (Tape chapged) Mike McKeever: . . interviews that our firm conducted with 40 people in the development community in Ashland, Oregon, realtors, title company people, lenders, builders, archi- techts , designers on solar access ordinances they have been implementing found to be overwhelmingly favorable, and the cost to be reasonable compared to the benefits by a long shot. That has all been a part of this process and been examined and for the record, and I can provide any of that documentation again to you or to anyone else in the audience who would like to look at that We'd be more than happy to provide that. Chairman Stoner: I think it would be appropriate for you to submit that to us. Mike McKeever: O. K. Thank you. Chairman Stoner: Any questions of Mike? Anyone else who has rebuttal comments to make. Morgan Llewellyn: I would just make one further comment. Jim is urging to act now. What I don' t understand and what people. . .he is urging you to make a decision in 30 days or urging you to make a recommendation in 30 days. My question is what is the rush? Thirty days to me, Jim, is not enough time for me to sit through three educational sessions or for me to analyze this in depth. You' ve got a very small group of builders in Kent who are active and are going to be able to take a look at this. My rebuttal to that is what is the rush? Is the grant running out? Is that the reason? Mr. Harris: My rebuttal to him, if I may make it, is we've been working on this since January. There is no rush. I don' t know where he was. I don' t know where some of I the others were. We' ve given you all we can. He' s asked you for a 30-day delay. I 1 think I 'm being fair to say I' ll go along with that. Beyond that, no. I won't recommend beyond that. It's up to the Commission, of course, to do what you want to i do. But there is no rush in this thing. We' ve been going through this at a measured pace. This kind of thing. . . I ' ve heard this kind of talk before why we are rushing something through, and I think starting in January carefully forming up a Technical i Advisory Committee, bringing material to the City Council , going through the Chamber and Kiwanis, getting the word out in an editorial in the newspaper, speaking favorably I don' t have it here, I must have given it to some of you up there, speaking very favorably toward solar. it has been out in the community, there is no rush. Morgan Llewellyn: Is the ordinance finalized? Mr. Harris: The material that the Commission has tonight is in its final form as far as they need it. When it comes back to the Council , we may put it in a little different form but it will be the same situation. Mz)rgan Llewellvn: When was it finalized? Just as a rhetorical question here. Mr. Harris: I'm not going to get into that kind of debate. f� f Chairman Stoner: Is there anyone else who would like to comment at this point? Would you come to the mike, please. -10- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1984 Carl Hendrickson: I 'm Carl Hendricson and I served on this Solar Access Committee. The thing I find here in asking for the 30-day stay and that kind of thing, on the part of the ti;io organizations that are represented in those requests , Master Builders and the Chamber, kind of reflects Just the resistance to change per se. I know that the president of the Master Builders knew about this in January when this started. I knew that the Chamber members knew about this quite a while ago. I had a call about two months ago from a fellow chamber member, I'm a member of the Chamber, also, and he says, you serve on this Solar Access Committee? And I says, yeah. He says i you go to all the meetings , so you know what you are doing there? I says yeah. He says I 'm really against that. And this guy' s a builder here in town. I like the guy. And I says well, have you really looked into it? He says no. There' s Just too god damn many ordinances already. Hadn' t even looked at it. So, to the builder here, if he hasn' t had time to look at it, that' s fine. But organizations in general Just have a resistance to change, as we all do. I do. I hate it when they change the style of ties and that kind of thing, and I have to go get another one. But we looked at this thing and we really charged this group, because we were there representing the people in Kent, and to make sure that this was a fair• ordinance, that there was always a way to back out. In other words there is no way a builder is not allowed to build a somewhere because there is no solar access , but what it does do is it gives the pur- chaser of the lot or that house. . . he knows what rights he has at the time he buys it. All right. He knows he has a six-foot solar fence, or he has a fourteen-foot or he has no protection whatsoever. All right. And that then creates a value. Smith when he built his two-story house, he totally wiped out the solar access of the guy behind him. Isn' t that right? (Laughter) So then when the guy built he had a nice sunny area , you know. Now there is an actual dollar value that we can attribute to the sunshine. There is an actual dollar value. Not just that you can go out and lay in the summertime and get a sun tan. There is an actual dollar value associated in relation to the energy conservation, because of the higher cost of energy and that kind of thing. Twenty-thirty years ago when we bought a house our payments were $100 dollars a month, even in our low wages then we didn't really consider the cost of heat. It was 50 bucks in the wintertime, and nothing in the summer. Average, 25 dollars. Now the cost of heat can be as much as the mortgage payments were 20 or 30 years ago. So it is a large factor, so it does have some relation to a value, and we can assign a value in this kind of a thing. So in our findings in the way that I voted to have this thing presented I thought it was a very fair thing, and I think there has been tremendous opportunity if the person wanted to take time to review it. So, you go along with the normal thing to give a 30-day stay, it seems to be a normal thing, because people are not going to take time to look at it until they are given a deadline. So you can play with this thing for a year and a half, and still you are going to resist it. Chairman Stoner: Any questions. Gene Smith: My name is Gene Smith, and I 'm also a member of the Technical Advisory Committee. I want to give rebuttal to the rebuttal . I think that's the order in which it came. We've worked on this thing since last January, as I recall , and the sun's going to be around here for a long time. The builders aren' t, and the prospec- tive buyers of their homes won't be here forever, either. I don't mean to be philosophical about it, but frankly I 'm philosophically opposed to any ordinances, and I think we all knew that early on with the dog ordinances and the tree ordinances, and all kinds of -11- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1984 ordinances and we're protected to death. I don't think we spent enough time on this thing. Even tonight the changes that were told to you. Now, Carole stood up before you and said we have this change, we have this change, and we have this change. I Cade note of that just tonight. I would think between now and 30 days , as Jim has asked, that there will be further changes if 1t were studied in depth, and by those cost affected. I 've already done my damage to my neighbor. And one of the things, however, I think you've overlooked or has been overlooked, and it must not, in the model conservation standards there is a requirement in there that I believe, and I can' t put focus on it, is that there is a required 30 percent of the area of any house, any home constructed under those standards has to have solar access. So this is another reason for this ordinance. We are being looked after by somebody back someplace, I don't know who it is, but I think we all know who it is, but I won't comment any further on that, but it is going to take a little more time to wfen we since hopefully have finalized this ordinance. Now all the changes have been made and let the people most affected by it take a look at it and say hey, maybe there are some other things that we could chunk into this thing or I 'm opposed to it. I happened to qo to two Kiwanis meetings where the presentation was made. I didn' t make it, and it was not accepted very much. People kind of laughed at it, and I can think of one service club that didn' t want to have the presentation made because they weren' t interested. They didn' t know anything about it. Time. . .Gosh, we've been working on it 10 months. That's not very long. It's going to dramatically affect a lot of people. You think about the ordinances that you folks have worked over the years and you have given a lot more time than ten months, and they haven't 4 been any more dramatically effective on our life styles than this, so I would urge that you have another hearing in 30 days from now and not be required to make a decision. Chairman Stoner: Any questions. Last call . Any other comments. This is rebuttal . Glenn Votaw: This is rebuttal , thank you. I feel compelled to make a comment. I understand Jim's concern and I understand your concerns, and I would also like you to consider the concerns we've always had in the Chamber. I think we have tried to be more proactive as we got to understand what the issues are. Now, unfortunately, when you have a technical subject like this is , and we have had people that are representing the Chamber from a technical standpoint, but you still have to get the rest of the membership to understand it or the rest of the people involved to under- stand it to get the board to understand it. What are they really agreeing to, or what is the issue to really understand it. So I feel that we have done our best during this past year in trying to get an understanding of what affect does this have. We all agree with the concept, because we'd like to be able to do something about the clouds, too, but we haven' t worked that one out yet. But we do agree with the basic concept. It is a matter of how do you put it in words that will make the most sense, do the most good, and still keep problems from arising because we didn't think about what words we were using, so I feel that we do. . .we are trying to do that, and the reason we are asking for this time is just so that we can understand it and say yes, what you've got is good. We can support you in it. Because we would like to be able to do that. We want to do that. And whatever we are doing within this community, we do want to be able to support what you, you and what our Council does with respect to making sure our community is a better place to live. So I appreciate that. -12- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1984 Chairman Stoner: A motion would be appropriate at this point. Commissioner Ward: Were you looking at me? 1 Chairman Stoner: No, I was sort of off in the distance. Either to close the public hearing and deliberate or to continue. Commissioner Ward: I 'd like to make a motion, Madam Chairman. I would like to make a motion that we allow an additional 30 days for any additional input before making the final decision. I would like to have a maximum of 60 days before this Commission would reach a final decision, that is thirty days for any additional input by any organization and 60 days before any decision is made by this Commission. That is the motion. Can I say something. Chairman Stoner: I ' ll let you speak to it if we can get a second. Is there a second to this motion. Commission Cullen: Second. Chairman Stoner: O. K. Doug has seconded. You may speak to your motion. Commssioner Ward: I believe, and I make this motion because of the fact that I do hear some concern, even though it might be belated, but the basic people that we are trying to do a job for, so far as our recommendations, have here expressed some concerns. Perhaps they have not had adequate time in order to get together their cost figures and what have you that are involved. Perhaps the greater portion of the population has not totally comprehended the fact that we are about to bring about a change, and perhaps for these reasons and others that we don't have a tremendous deadline. In other words January 21st is that ideal date that we have to reckon with, and I think that we should do everything that is possible to allow everyone to make that given contribution to a final decision-making process Chairman Stoner: Anyone else want to speak to the motion. Commissioner Cullen: I'd like to make an amendment to the motion. I move we make it ' 30 days on both counts rather than 60 days. Chairman Stoner: Now let me clarify. You are moving that we amend the motion to say 30 days for additional testimony, but we will also make the decision at the end of that 30 days. Commissioner Cullen: Correct. Chairman Stoner: O. K. We have a motion by Doug to amend and a second by Nancy. Does anyone want to speak to the amendment? Commissioner Ward: I would agree with that amendment. I would modify my initial motion to be with the 30-day extension, decision making and input. Chairman Stoner: O.K. So, I think. . . -13- 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1984 Commissioner Ward: So, we don' t have to have a vote. Chairman Stoner: Well , we will have to have a vote, but. . .so now the motion that we are voting on states that we will allow an additional testimony and also to reach your decision, 30-day time frame, which would be the fourth Tuesday in November, November 27th. And at that meeting we will take additional testimony and also make a decision. Does everyone understand the motion? All in favor. Voices: Aye. Chairman Stoner: Opposed. (silence) So the motion carries. The public hearing then is continued until the 27th. I would suggest to you that because we are looking at a possible decision on that date, that if you can possibly submit material in writing ahead of time that is passed out to the Commission and it gives you a chance to. . . gives us a chance to be more thorough in our examination of what you have to present. #SMV-84-1 VAN DOREN'S LANDING Chairman Stoner: The other item on our public hearing agenda is to consider a request by Kent Parks Department for a Shoreline Management Variance to establish a public park. The park will be known as Van Doren' s Landing on Russell Road. Chairman Stoner: The record needs to show that Bob Anderson is excusing himself on a conflict of interest problem. Mr. Hansen: I will give you a brief review of this Shoreline Master Program variance request from it and run through it with some overheads, and then I 'd be glad to try to answer any questions you might have. The reason for this variance is because, of course, we have a Shoreline Master Program in effect, and this is a request to have impervious surface, paving, within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Green River, thus the need for the variance. The City of Kent Shoreline Master Program was adopted in 1974 and was revised in 1980. The document provides goals , objectives and policies like most of our documents that relate to the development in the shoreline area, and that is the 200-foot landward from the river or the ordinary high water mark. Also, too, a development of this sort, a park, in an MA zone is required to go through this variance process. In addition to the Shoreline Master Program we have, of course, our city-wide Comprehensive Plan in effect which has goals, objec- tives and policies that speak to matters related to recreation, developments, and development within or near the river. And we have a Valley Floor Plan in effect that speaks to preservation of environment along the Green River. In particular the Valley Floor Plan classifies this area as open space trails , whereas the Shore- II line Master Program classifies this area as conservancy, which means little if any development, and development that would occur would have to be extremely compatible with the river and the environs along the river. I have three transparencies. The first one is simply to locate the subject property which I will point to along here which straddles an area between Russell Road and the Green River, just south of 216th. Frager Road, of course, is across the river. This is 228th, the old sewage ponds are here. This is a little closer view, and not only does it delineate the subject property with the patterned area, but can also see illustrated the surround- ing land use which for the most part is fairly rural . An exception to that is Cole's -14- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1984 u •i Plant Soil . This is an operation to the south of the property. North, by the way, is always up, at least we try to keep it that way. Holiday Kennels , of course, is at the south end of the property. Russell Road abuts it on the east, and the west, of course, is the Green River. Again we have a lot of ag land, crop land, that is located just west and across from Van Doren' s Landing property. We have one more here which shows the proposed park site. Maybe I should explain where the name came from. Back in the 1860' s this parcel was the site of a landing for river boats , and a fellow named Van Doren was the founder of that landing, thus the name. Just to touch on a few things that are being proposed by our Kent Parks Department for this site... I think that you can read some of this. A parking lot for, I believe, 47 cars would be included here. Obviously it would have landscaping, a play area, and the site anywhere near the river would be left pretty much in its natural state. Most I of the improvements are to get in some passive recreation uses and a parking lot. The reason for the variance request is that the impervious surface is within that 200-foot area. Variances like the one before you deal with specific requirements 1 of the Master Program. Its objective is to grant relief when there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the Master Program. Variances of this sort can be granted under four different points which are included on page 7. I don't think I need to go through each one of those nor the response since we already have that explained on page 7, 8 and 9 of the staff report, but I 'd be glad to answer any questions. We of the staff recommended approval of the variance in that we feel it would be for the most part compatible with the intent of the Shoreline Master Program in its goals , objectives and policies as well as the policies of the Kent Comprehensive Plan and the Valley Floor Plan. Can I answer any questions. Nancy. Commissioner Rudy: You are planning to put blacktop on there, right, to pave the parking area. Mr. Hansen: The Parks Department is. Commissioner Rudy: Of course. The Parks Department is planning to blacktop the parking area. Mr. Hansen: Yes. Commissioner Rudy: Have they considered using just gravel . Mr. Hansen: We have a requirement when we have parking lots for almost all uses in the city that it be paved. That might be a possibility, but looking at the long-term usage.. .gravel in this country, and with the amount of rain we get, and the ground gets soggy, tends to absorb and swallow the gravel , and the mud and soil begin to rise. I think ,lust from a long-term maintenance standpoint the city would prefer to pave it. Mr. Harris: The problem with gravel also is that in the summer you have a long, dry spell , and gravel turns up dust and the suspended dust particulates • • • Air Pollution Control Agency doesn' t like because we have too much of it in the area now. So we do have a requirement that we have worked long and hard for in the city, that we do pave off-street parking so that you don' t have the problem of mud and muck in the winter getting into our drainage system, and in the summer the dust blowing around. -15- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1984 Commissioner Rudy: Is this going to affect the water level on the farmland across the street? Mr. Hansen: Well , if it does, it would be very minimal . I don' t know the exact total square footage of paving. For the most part the entire site is being left in a pervious state, in other words unpaved. Just the parking area would affect the surrounding land. If I remember the drainage correctly on that site, most of it runs for the most part between Frager Road and the river-- in other words, westerly from the road. Commissioner Cullen: Will this parking area be approximately the same size as the one further down on Russell Road? Mr. Hansen: Well I 'm not sure--enough to hold 47 cars. Which parking lot are you referring to? Commissioner Cullen: Down toward Kent Kangley. It wouldn't be that large. i Mr. Hansen: Oh, no. You mean by Russell Road Park? I 'm not sure of the capacity I of that, but that is quite a bit larger. Mr. Harris: One other thing I 'd like to add, I think Carol Stoner was familiar with the Valley Studies. When we came down with the 200 foot corridor and then the 800 feet beyond, one of the requirements is that as development comes down the river that it provide off-street parking every so many feet so that people can use the river. The whole idea here is to get people over to the river. One of the proposals here is to have ramps eventually to go down to the river so that you can get down in there. Commissioner Badger: Do I see a boat ramp indicated? Mr. Harris: I think a boat ramp would be one of the types of ramps they are talking about. It is just to make the river more usable. The river is absolutely nonusable now. I wouldn' t take a small child anywhere near that river. It has very steep banks and there is no off-street parking. There is tall grass on each side of it. Mr. Hansen: As Jim pointed out there are very few places where the river can be accessed safely, and any opportunity the city can make the best of a tough situation. . . The last time we had a variance come through the Planning Commission, I believe it was this past year when we had pavinq underneath Meeker Street Bridge where there is a bike, walking, jogging trail . (Voices unclear) Commissioner Ward: Is it for nonmotorized boats? I Mr. Harris: Yes, it is not for cars to back in. It is for people to carry something down. It is mainly so people can get down to the water' s edge with boats. f Chairman Stoner: It's a path wide enough to carry a canoe down, basically. (Voices unclear) -16- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1984 Commissioner Ward: Has any investigation been made to determine as to whether there are any species of plants , animals or insects that would be damaged by this parking area? Mr. Hansen: This matter went through an environmental review committee and a checklist was filled out and a negative declaration was filed, so that portion has been reviewed. Actually, anything that is disturbed will be restored like the other park developments along the river. In fact in some cases they have gone a little extra to try to curb any erosion that had been occurring in the area prior to the development of the site. , The other thing is that the Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over that river area, and any development has to be in compliance with their requirements. Chairman Stoner: Any other questions? Commissioner Rudy: What is a no-skinned infield? I understand unscheduled play, but no-skinned infield I do not follow. Will Wolfert: A bare infield where they have removed the grass is considered a skinned infield. Like Russell Road is skinned. Like the elementary school playfields where they are left with grass. Voice: So this will be considered a non-sports oriented park. Mr. Harris : This will be considered a people park. Go in with your family and start ( - throwing frisbees with another family. Mr. Hansen: A passive park. We really don't have many in the city. We have a lot of park land, but most of the areas are active and not that many are passive. This is a passive-friendly park. I still can' t get over solar-friendly trees. Passive park 7s one that does not have organized football , soccer or other intensive programs going on. It is one where you can go to relax and maybe have your lunch or a walk on Sunday afternoon. Commissioner Badger: Why do we have to pave it? One of the most consistent things over the years is that the Valley is being paved to death. Are we encouraging the paving of this? Mr. Hansen: Well , the requirements certainly encourage it. I think really when it comes down to it, I know there is a philosophical argument there, but it really comes down to maintenance in the long term. Mr. Harris: It is practical, butI pointed out that we have been on an alert . We are not on an alert right now but have been because of the suspended particulates coming from dust. Now there are other methods of paving and one of those is a block system where grass grows up through the blocks. This has been used in Dayton, Ohio, parking lots; downtown Los Angeles has one of their municipal lots paved with i this material . It reduces heat, it reduces dust, and it also lets the water infiltrate. Per square foot it is a little more expensive. The technology is not used that much. It may be something that the Parks Department ought to look at, although I am sure that the budget is super tight on this project, but I do think you do have a point. At some time we ought to face it and maybe we ought to talk about the new technology. -17- I Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1484 Commissioner Badger: That's a continuous thing that needs to be talked about. Mr. Harris: The dust and the muck and mud in the winter that flows off into our drainage system, and then clouds the creeks and streams and the river itself are the problem. Commissioner Badger: Does it go directly into the river? Mr. Hansen: Well , indirectly. It won't go into the river directly, because the paving is near the road and the property extends westward for quite some distance, probably about 150 feet or so. But the other thing is that you raised a good point. The city could probably set a good example by encouraging . . .like grass creek that Jim was referring to and there are some other products out. They are expensive, though, and I think this project along with some of the others. . .they ,lust squeak ; through with enough bucks to do it. But I think it would set an excellent example. Commissioner Cullen: How expensive is expensive? Mr. Hansen: I don't know what the price is. Mr. Harris : If it were 50 cents a square foot to put in asphalt, it would probably be 1 .10 a square foot to put in the other stuff. I suppose if you were paving a Boeing-type lot that would come down to 65 cents a square foot or something. Usually it is done on odd lots , so that' s why it is so much more expensive. Commissioner Rud,�: It lets grass grow through. Mr. Harris: Yes. It's blocks, and then dirt is put in and the grass grows through the blocks. The way the tires come over they hit the edges of the blocks so they are not destroying that grass all the time. Mr. Hansen: There is a little at the Seattle Center. Twenty years ago Richard Hague, landscape architect in Seattle, put in a forerunner of what we have today. It works well in this climate since it' s mild and damp. Commissioner Badger: The request as I read it here is to allow for an impervious surface. Could this be modified to read request to allow impervious surface or another exemplary. . . Mr. Hansen: Well , the only issue really is the impervious surface, one within 200 feet. That is the only issue of the variance. By allowing it you really allow them to choose the impervious surface which is more than likely going to be asphalt. But I think you have raised a good point. In the future maybe we can get an alternate paving to be considered in the budget for one of these parks . Commissioner Badger: Is this thing all signed, sealed and delivered except for the. . . We can' t ask them now. Mr. Hansen: Not quite. It needs a conditional use permit, because it is a park in a'- n t zone. Mr. Harris: The budget is set, though, pretty much. -18- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1984 Commissioner Badger: A park in an MA zone but within the Shoreline Management. Mr. Hansen: Yes. We make them go through the same hoops as everyone else. Chairman Stoner: If there is no more discussion, a motion is in order. Commissioner Cullen: I move that we accept the recommendation of the Planning Department on Van Doren' s Landing. Commissioner Badger: Second it. Chairman Stoner: Doug has MOVED and Bob has SECONDED that we accept the recommendation Any discussion. All those in favor. Voices: Ayp. Chairman Stoner: Opposed. (silence) (End of Verbatim Minutes) MOTION CARRIED. I ' The hearing was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. ; Respectfully submitted, ..p - James P. Har _ ris , � annin� Director I -19- F r a C .� y, � ; I • I 1 I I i