Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 07/16/1991 (4) r I 'CITY OF Jw C1\, "WIT 1Lr!2 PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA JULY 16, 1991 ........... �THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING. FOR :JULY 16, I 4991. N.ls-S VIJ9ED. FOR CHE.. 445fM AND:R='.BE HELD IN THE C�UNCI� CIIA1Vl8ERS EAST:ROOM 0F.KEN7 ; T:..:1:22% .017 HALL AT FOURTH NUS .......... x:v .......... .. . ........... ........... Committee Members Jon Johnson, Chair Christi Houser Leona Orr AGENDA 1. Human Services Roundtable Update (L. Ball) INFORMATION 2. Soos Creek Community Plan Update (L. Anderson) ACTION ITEM (Continued from 7/2/91 meeting) 3. Zoning Code Amendment for Confidential Shelter ACTION ITEM ...........&-- 220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895 TELEPHONE (206)659-3390/FAX#859-3334 CITY OF CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 VIRTHO"M MEMORANDUM July 16, 1991 MEMO TO: CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE JON JOHNSON, CHAIR CHRISTI HOUSER LEONA ORR FROM: LIN BALL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT FOR CONFIDENTIAL SHELTERS It has recently come to the attention of Department staff that there is a need to look at our zoning code conditional use permit requirements for siting of Class I Group Homes. Specifically, we are referring to the siting of a confidential shelter where confidentiality is necessary for the safety and protection of the individuals occupying the shelter (persons who have been vicitimized by violence) . The concern with the conditional use permit requirement has been voiced by a local social service agency, Domestic Abuse Women's Network (DAWN) , which is planning to locate a confidential shelter in the City of Kent. They cannot purchase a site which would require going through the conditional use process, since the public hearing process would eliminate the protection of confidentiality. It is mandatory for the safety of the future residents of this site, women and their children, that the location of the shelter remain unknown to the general public. These types of shelters are planned so that they blend into the neighborhood and remain inconspicuous. For this reason, DAWN is looking for a large single family residence. Currently conditional use permit approval is required for this type of shelter in the following zones: GWC, Gateway Commercial; CM-1 & CM-2 , Commercial Manufacturing; and GC, General Commercial. It is also required in the MR-D, Duplex Multifamily; and MR-G, Garden Density Multifamily Districts if there are 11 or more occupants. DAWN plans to shelter up to 15 individuals in its safe shelter. By eliminating the conditional use permit requirement for shelters which require confidentiality for safety/life protection reasons, it would open up the siting options to areas more suitable for this type of use, such as the two multi-family zones. It should be noted here that the staff is not proposing to permit such facilities in single-family zones; only to remove the conditional use permit requirement in zones that currently specify it. City Council Planning Committee July 16, 1992 Requested Action Staff recommends that the Planning Committee direct this item to go to the Planning Commission to consider amending the Zoning Code to eliminate the conditional use permit requirement for Group Home- Class I confidential shelters. LB/mp:a:DAWNSHLT.CU cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director 2 CITY OF V�Wjfcvk CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE July 2, 1991 4 : 45 PM Committee Members Present Guests Jon Johnson, Chair Emile Ghantons Christie Houser Sami Aoun Leona Orr Planning Staff Lauri Anderson Margaret Porter Lois Ricketts Fred Satterstrom PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (Added Item--L. Orr) Councilmember Orr pointed out to the Committee the provision in the PUD ordinance that allows for multifamily housing to be built in single family zones with a Planned Unit Development permit. She did not feel that the City should encourage multifamily development in the little single family area that remains in the City. The PUD ordinance currently permits it. Councilmember Orr MOVED that the Council direct the Planning Commission to look at the section of the PUD ordinance which permits multifamily in single family zones and send their recommendation to Council on this issue. Councilmember Houser SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. SOOS CREEK RESOLUTION (L. Anderson Senior Planner Lauri Anderson presented the Mayor' s request for endorsement or nonendorsement of the Soos Creek Resolution which deals with the level of service for roads. The Soos Creek Plan as it is proposed suggests that growth be phased out on the East Hill, and that the phasing should be tied to road adequacy standards. King County is not going to consider rezoning or allowing potential zoning to actualize in the East Hill area until a certain level of service is achieved. The problem is that King County does not define that level of service. The County may feel it is important to tie the growth to something specific rather than the vague adequacy standard language that is stated in the plan. The Mayor is asking that the City of Kent request the King County Council to support the concept of the new east/west arterial, and that the KC Council support the concept of land use zoning in the Soos Creek Plan which precludes new urban development but which ties it until such time as the roads and arterials which serve such development are improved to service Level E. Lauri quoted from the resolution CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 2, 1991 "Whereas, the Soos Creek Plan states that vacant and partly developed properties shall only be considered for urban density development when the County has adopted revised Road Adequacy Standards, but those standards have not been identified. " This would relieve the fears of East Hill residents that if a road were to be approved, suddenly new urban development would be allowed even if the new road had not been modified to the appropriate level of service for development. This situation would not be the desire or intention of the City. Councilmember Orr MOVED that Planning Committee recommend the proposed resolution to the Council. Councilmember Houser SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. SOOS CREEK COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE (L. Anderson) According to the current plan for the next 6-10 years development would take place in Phase I areas and the cities. New growth belongs in the cities where urban services are already provided. The County would then be out of the service-provision business. New growth would be targeted to Renton, Kent and Auburn. Phase II area is not projected to see new growth for the life of the plan, with the exclusion of permits that have been approved up to this date. Approximately 12 , 000 to 14, 000 housing units have already been approved for development. Vacant land and partly developed land (for example, a single house on large acreage) would not be developed for six to ten years. Phase I and II lands are tied to a series of conditions. Land cannot be developed until the Road Adequacy Standards are met, or impact fees have been established, or when the 277th corridor is through the EIS process and is partially funded. The County has tied the new growth to a series of conditions which is hoped will achieve transportation concurrency. Low density urban separators are low density strips of land between the cities which separate large urban areas into more distinct pieces. The County has retained the urban/rural line from the last version of the plan which runs along Big Soos Creek which is where our planning area ends. This area is eventually expected to be urban with primarily single family development ranging from an overall average density of 7-8 dwelling units per acre, single family from 5-8 dwelling units per acre, and multifamily and commercial in areas which have been targeted for multifamily and commercial at certain nodes. The zoning map gives a picture of the standards that would be applied. Ms. Anderson felt that the phasing concept had not addressed the issue of development that has already been approved. Areas targeted for GR-5, which is Growth Reserve (1 unit per 5 acres) , consists of small pieces of land adjacent to Kent's 2 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 21 1991 boundaries. These are areas that are not completely developed and where the County hopes to utilize the phasing concept. This is not downzoning, but if development has already been approved by King County, the zoning decision holds. The Growth Management Act states that the cities in conjunction with the County need to find an urban growth area. A line needs to be drawn, and beyond that line should be rural, low density use. Within the line urban growth should occur. Kent is not ready to draw that line. Kent's land capacity analysis has not been completed. The Planning Department feels that this should be more of a county-wide effort, because if one city wants all the growth, no other city could have it. If a city did not want any growth, that would mean that another city, presumably, must take it. Staff thinks that this issue should be decided by King County as a whole. The Regional Technical Forum is working to come up with those lines. The County has proposed a tentative line which may be amended by this Forum. They have drawn the Urban/Rural Line at Big Soos Creek, which follows our planning area. It presumed that the City of Kent would annex and service out to this Urban/Rural Line (Kent's Urban Growth area) . The County does not want to see annexation unless the County and the City enter into an intergovernmental agreement that discusses how that transfer will take place. One of the County' s criteria for annexation is to assume that the annexing city will zone to an urban density, 7-8 dwelling units per acre, which will accommodate transit. If Kent wishes to annex, it should expect urban density in the newly annexed area. The primary assumption is that the cities should be where primary growth will occur. Those cities will someday provide the services, and the County is tending to say it will go back to being a rural provider. In the meantime the County will try to limit the new growth through phasing until adequate transportation can be achieved. Councilmember Orr asked if 7-8 units per acre would be the overall density expectation, and that nodes of multifamily in the area would be counted to meet this density requirement. She felt the people in the County would fear being annexed if the quotas would be required for each parcel rather than an overall quota for the area. Ms. Anderson felt that the requirement would be overall density and would be stated in the interlocal agreement with the County. Mr. Satterstrom commented that the Soos Creek Interlocal agreement has never been signed. The County expects 116th Avenue SE, a collector street, to be developed into a minor arterial with three lanes. Residential densities in the Phase I area, north part of East Hill, should support transit which would require a higher density. The County's 3 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES JULY 21 1991 Public Works Department is currently doing a feasibility study on 277th and expects this to be completed in early 1992 . This corridor has been discussed beyond the 6-10 year horizon (Phase II) . Zoning in the 277th corridor would only be changed when the Road Adequacy Standards or mitigation payment system was in place, or if the 277th corridor had been through the EIS process and partially funded. When the corridor study has been completed, Phase II would be considered for urban growth. The County would consider the result of the corridor study when deciding the density recommendation which would provide the basis for the transportation analysis and the rezoning of the Phase II land. The County has not determined the Road Adequacy Standard requirements. King County expects that 248th will be improved from 116th eastward. It was pointed out that 248th dead ends at Meridian Valley Country Club. King County expects 124th and 132nd to become higher capacity streets. In the draft environmental impact statement one of the traffic mitigation suggestions is to construct the corridor. Ms. Anderson felt the County would be in an awkward position with regard to the corridor plan, because their environmental research states that in order to initiate any of the alternatives in the book, the corridors must be completed. Ms. Anderson summarized by stating that it is presumed in the plan that growth will occur in the cities. Her concerns revolved around annexations and the intergovernmental agreement. She felt that King County would not allow Kent to annex additional areas until the City signs the agreement. The environmental standards of the City need to be equal to or greater than the County' s standards. Kent does not have the sensitive area regulations that exist in King County. She expressed concern about the density issue. She felt the current phasing plan was better than the former proposals. She added that Covington is so far removed from Kent that it could not be absorbed by Kent. Encouragement seems to have been given to Covington to incorporate. Chairman Johnson MOVED that this issue be brought to the July 16 Planning Committee meeting for additional consideration and recommendation to Council. Councilmember Orr SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. PC0702 .Min 4