Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 09/25/1984 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 25, 1984 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Carol Stoner at 8:20 p.m. on Tuesday, September 25, 1984 in the Council Cham- bers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Stoner, Chairman Douglas Cullen Nancy Rudy, Vice-Chairman Richard Foslin Robert Anderson Chuck Lambert Robert Badger Raymond Ward k James Byrne PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Jim Hansen, Principal Planner Bruce Creager, Assistant Planner Chris Holden, Recording Secretary SPECIAL GUESTS: Carol Connell - CMS, Solar Consultant CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT: Chairman Stoner stated that Commissioner Robert Badger would be receiving his Certificate of Appointment shortly. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Cullen MOVED that the FOR JUNE 26, 1984 minutes of June 26, 1984, meeting be approved as presented. Commis- sioner Rudy SECONDED the MOTION. MOTION unanimously approved. NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS: Chairman Stoner commented the Planning Commission with meet on October 9 and October 16 regarding the East Hill Community Commercial issue. October 23 will be the continuation date for the hearing on Solar Access. SOLAR ACCESS AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING AND Chairman Stoner opened the public SUBDIVISION CODES hearing on the solar access amend- ment to the zoning and subdivision codes. Ms. Stoner gave a brief summary of the procedures of the hearing. Mr. Harris stated the staff and a committee have been working on this matter for almost a year. The Northwest Power Council adopted a plan that talked about the adoption of model conservation standards and solar access. The plan stated that cities should adopt these regulations to meet the Northwest Power Council 's Plan. Bonneville Power Administration put out a request for proposals for cities to work -1- Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, lggq b on ordinances for model conservation standards and the solar access proandvreceivedTae City of Kent applied to grant to work on both of thPA ese(Bonneville Power Administration), hese requests. The item the Planning Commission tonight is the solar access portion. CMS before Conservation Management Services, out of Oregon is the consultant on solar access. In January, a Technical Advisory Committee was formed. They met about 10 times to review the technical aspects of solar access and formulated a series of ordinance amendments. These proposed amendments are: I . Solar Access Setbacks 2. Solar Design Standards , 3. Solar Access Permit and 4. a would series of amendments to the zoning code that worked�diligently solar onnthisto hmatter. CMS zoningcode worked closely with the The Technical Advisory Committee and provided the expertise and material that led to the proposalommittee s. Jerry Slick, head of the Technical Advisory Committee, stated he was an architect in the area. He commented on the diversity of the members of the committee; such as a real estate representative, an owner of a company called Structural Technologies; a representative from Puget Power and Light and a couple of builders. The goal of the committee was to come up with an ordinance that would be fair, could be enforced, and was efficient and effective. There also had to 5e standards that would allow some fluctuation. In addition the ordinance would have to be practical in order to have the support of the builders and the community. Carol Connell from CMS stated that Jack Elder, a member of the advisory committee, was in attendance as well as Pete Skowlund from the Washington State Energy Office. It is official levels that there is a need to become Policy eat national , state and local more future and lessen dependence on foreign oil andggainlcontrolcien over the the rising utility costs. This is the reason for this project on a community- wide basis. This can partially be accomplished by such things as solar access ordinances. Solar energy saves energy,needs and keeps money in the community. Itis available,�tfree energy and under our own control . , clean Ms. Connell gave some statement of facts regarding solar access. Sunlight strikes the south wall of residences during the winter and reduces heating costs; Kent residents have investments in passive and active solar systems and Puget Power and Light also has investments in solar hot water systems. The energy and economic savings generated by the investments can be substantially reduced or eliminated b market and attitude surveyY shade. shows that these A Popular. Solar energy is locallykind of systems are very Currently, Kent citizens have norightltol the rsunlight.ble anCurrent lCity ng development standards allow shade from buildings and trees to block solar access from neighboring properties. Solar access standards and procedures in the City's Code are often the best means to equitably provide solar access and provide future options for people to take advantage of using solar energy. -2- Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1984 Ms. Connell presented the Solar Access Setback ordinance. The setback ordinance relates to existing neighborhoods in Kent and is only dealing with buildings. This ordinance does not talk about trees or about new development. It is basically referring to an infill situation. She showed this type of situation on the display model . The plan will have a simple table where you take the slope of the land and the highest shade of the building and you will find out where the shade path is going to hit on the neighbor's property. So the building will be placed so that optimally the neighbor would not lose the benefit of the sun. The staff and the builder do not have to go out and find out what is on this lot; this is all down at the desk. The Solar Factor Table effectively creates a hypothetical solar fence and places the house on the lot at the back half of the shadow over the fence no higher than six feet which creates an automatic standard. Tom Rickhart asked who determines the slope of the land. Does the builder deter- mine the land when he brings in his plot plan. Ms. Connell responded it normally would be the builder's responsibility. Mr. Harris stated the City would have to have a contour map and scale the land out. However, if the builder did not agree with what the City showed to be the contour of the land, then the builder would have to prove differently. Ms. Connell stated there are slope maps available in the City. The information you need to determine solar setback is the slope and the height of the building. The solar fence creates a standard for determining the shadow. However, if the lot is too small or the topography so irregular that it would make the placement of the house difficult, if not impossible, for the builder to meet the solar access stan- dard of protecting the south wall of the neighboring house, then the builder is to try to protect the south roof. If that is impossible because of the con- figuration of the site then the standards do not have to be met and the builder would be exempt from the process. The calculation of the solar factor is on the table included in the ordinance. In order to figure out the solar factor all that is needed is the north/south lot dimension and the slope of the land which tells you what your solar factor would be. After the solar factor is arrived at, you can determine whether you have to provide access to the south wall or the south roof or if you are exempt. There is also an equation that could be used that would arrive at the solar factor which is included in the ordinance. The last page of the ordinance includes the definitions. Ms. Stoner asked which setback would prevail , the solar setback or the zoning setback if they are in disagreement. Ms. Connell stated the zoning setback prevails unless the City decides differently. The statement regarding the prevailing zoning setback needs to be added to the solar ordinance. The ordinance has a minimum guarantee that no matter what, on any lot, a builder can place a two-story or a 24-foot high house so buildings are not regulated to a point where they have to be single story. -3- h Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1984 Commissioner Anderson commented that on Table 1 on Slope Percent the .05 should be five percent as opposed to .05 percent. This could be corrected by using whole percentage numbers and not decimals. Ms. Connell commented that the date of January 21 , Twelve Noon has been chosen by the committee to give more flexibility on a site. The second ordinance, Solar Access Design Standards, was presented. This would be an amendment to the subdivision and PUD codes and deals with both buildings and trees in new develop- ment only. The design standard requires a builder to provide solar access to 4 every lot having a solar factor of 85 or more, if feasible. However, if a builder is unable to comply because the subdivision is required to line up with outside streets; or the builder would have to reduce density; or if the land slopes north, the builder would have to try to provide access to the south roof on every lot. Again, if unable to comply with the preceding re- quirements then the lots would be exempt. The solar access factor table set out ! in the previous ordinance would be used to determine solar factor requirements in this ordinance. In the future all lots that have solar access would be so designated on the face of the plat. In this manner, any person who buys a lot would know what kind of access would be available. There are two parts; one providing the solar access and secondly, protecting the solar access over time. A solar envelope is created over each lot, based on the January 21 at 12:00 pm angle of the sun. It basically places a envelope over each lot that will have the same effect of allowing at least a 24 foot high building on the lot, allowing the planting of trees and other accessory items but protecting, over time, the penetration of that angle. This protection would go with the title of the land so that it becomes a legal part of the title. Ms. Stoner asked about the exemption provisions on page 3, No. C, Solar Access Design Standards-Effect of Envelope. Does the language mean that any existing vegetation already on the other lots at the time of building will be exempt. Ms. Connell responded affirmatively as long as minimum standards are met. Also, the City has a Tree Ordinance which the solar access ordinance needs to be consistent with. If you want to protect a grove of trees and it shades some lots then the existing shade would cause those lots to be exempt. There was some dis- cussion about whether the trees or vegetation would have to be trimmed if it shaded a lot. I Mr. Badger asked if a tree grows taller and penetrates a solar envelope, would that tree have to be pruned so it won' t grow any taller than it was at the time the solar envelope was created. Ms. Connell stated that those were exempt because they are existing and during the subdivision process it was shown that the trees would remain. If the trees were shading the lot in the beginning, they would also be shading the lots in the future. -4- 1 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1984 Mr. Badger asked if the trees planted were quite small and the subdivision request included the solar envelope, would those trees, as they grew taller, have to be trimmed as they started to penetrate the solar envelope. Mr. Harris commented that there will be lots that will be shaded where trees won't be chopped down just because they shade a lot. Further discussion followed on the growth of trees planted prior to a solar envelope being created. It was decided that the ordinance should separate the vegetation and the buildings. Also, that the vegetation already planted should be exempt. Mr. Don Miller, 25324 38th Avenue S. , has a solar home and expressed concern about trees blocking his solar access. A summary was made of the Solar Design Standard Ordinance in that it provides protection over time by creating a solar envelope over each lot; protects neighboring lots from vegetation; and the building and enforcement procedures. The last section Definitions was discussed briefly. Mr. Badger asked if the multifamily residence units are guaranteed solar access or does the ordinance restrict the number of residences. Ms. Connell commented it is the same standard whether single or multifamily use. However, not every unit will be able to have solar access; it just provides for south wall or south roof protection. Mr. Harris commented the underlying density of the property will be protected. In other words, if, in order to provide solar access, the density would be lowered, the property would be exempt from providing solar access. Ms. Connell further commented that the owner of the multifamily property would go through the same process of determining solar access as required for single family housing. However, there will be some units within the complex that would be exempt from solar access. It would mainly be the complete building that would meet the solar access standards and not particularly each individual unit. A question was raised about single family homes that have a solar access permit next to a multifamily zoned land. Would the mulitfamily complex have to reduce the amount of density in order to protect the solar access of the neighboring property or would they get an exemption. Further, would there be any protection to a neighboring house and its solar access. If the house was across the street from the proposed complex, the street would be wide enough to protect the house. However, if the house was right next door and the complex could not be built without intruding into the solar envelope unless the density was lowered, then the house would lose its solar access. The only protection the ordinance provides is a reasonable access to the sun. The underlying density of a property is pro- tected. The last ordinance, Solar Access Permit, was discussed. This permit is for pro- tection from neighboring trees only and it is a voluntary request by a homeowner. This ordinance effects different trees in different ways. All existing trees are exempt from this ordinance. If a person plants a tree after the permit has been granted, and the tree grows and blocks the solar access, then the owner of the tree would pay for it being trimmed. If the tree is already on the property but lower than the solar envelope and it grows and blocks the solar access, then the person whose solar access is being blocked pays for the tree to be trimmed back to below the solar envelope. -5- Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1984 Some discussion followed on the trimming of trees . The person who wants to preserve the solar access envelope can apply for a solar permit that will protect him against future encroachment of existing trees and trees that might be planted in the future. Further discussion ensued regarding the trimming of trees. Ms. Connell stated there were three factors involved: 1 ) Only new plantings of trees will be affected, 2) the solar envelope can be changed and 3) deciduous trees would have a different standard than coniferous trees. Mr. Harris commented that a matrix could be done showing the different trees and standards. Commissioner Anderson felt the solar access permit can only be applied for if you have a solar device. Ms. Connell stated it doesn't have to be a solar device--it could just be a south wall or south roof; however, the person applying for the permit has to meet the criteria set out in the permit. Ms . Stoner asked that the ordinance state more clearly that a solar device is not necessary--that anyone with a south roof, south wall or window can apply for this permit. Ms. Stoner asked for an explanation on the minimum height and if it was a workable height. There was discussion regarding the need for people that already own property who need to be protected from those that will be building in the future. The person that builds last shouldn't necessarily be able to do whatever he wants on the property without some consideration of the neighboring lots. Ms. Stoner asked for an explanation on the minimum height limitation. Mr. Slick talked about the minimum height requirement and how 24 feet was derived. This height allows a variety of design and still will allow solar access to neighboring lots. Presently 25 to 26 feet is the average height of a two-story house; how- ever most homes are only 24 feet in height. There followed a short discussion on the height of houses. Mr. Rickhart wanted to know how much money this was going to cost the City in staff time or any other costs the City might incur by enforcing this. Ms. Connell stated that it would cost about $5 to $10 in time because it would take about 30 minutes to determine solar access depending on the complexity of the lot and the house. The solar access permit cost is all on the person re- questing the permit and the City has a fairly high fee to go out and see if all the documentation is accurate and to enforce the permit. The subdivision design -6- Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1984 fee has not been decided yet. Mr. Rickhart felt these fees would increase the cost of housing. Ms. Connell felt the builder should check on the design stan- dards before designing a house. There is a predevelopment meeting where the City staff and the builder meet down and address a subdivision. At that time requirements for developing solar access on a lot could be addressed. Commissioner Lambert commented that a solar access home would increase the saleability of a home. Mr. Rickhart disagreed, stating that most people are concerned about the cost. Mr. Skowlund stated that energy conservation standards are going to be required in 1986 and this type of ordinance setting out solar access to homes will cut down the cost of putting in other expensive conservation methods. There are some energy conservation loans available. Mr. Miller urged that these ordinances be passed. Commissioner Cullen MOVED that this hearing be continued to Tuesday, October 23, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Foslin SECONDED the MOTION. MOTION unanimously approved. The hearing was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, amen P. Harris, ecretary i -7-