The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 03/18/1997 (3) CITY OF I �AIT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING ah � -9 AGENDA Jim White, Mayor MARCH 18, 1997 1 dXl 4 x t,`y anSKI aa' yt tii d x 1 r a t 2' s+ � r A 4�ti 78 99TC OU-N )�l �4T'4.QFI F:M' I1Y G 1BER 'ROOM' 3 CIT .k 4ZL; A 220', 4FIRTII A }E`.itAl ?� _ t Committee Members Leona Orr, Chair Jon Johnson Tim Clark AGENDA 1, Mixed Use Zoning/Zoning Code Amendment ACTION ITEM - 15 Minutes #ZCA-96-5 - (K. O'Neill) 2.? Annexation Policy- (F. Satterstrom) ACTION ITEM - 15 Minutes 3. Chambers Task Force Report INFORMATION - 15 Minutes - School Impart Fees - (B. Hutchinson) 4. Current Use Assessment � Propos � n veIN�FORMATI N ITEM-1�0y M inutes - (F. Satterstrom) 4 �o(lz�, i� lo � _5. Fence - Sur:unit Apartments between ACTION ITEM - 5 Minutes 108th Av S.E. & 236th/238th - (L. Orr/T. Clark) Added Items: ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY IN ADVANCE FOR MORE INFORMATION. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE, CALL 1-800-635-9993 OR THE CITY OF KENT AT (206)813-2068. mP;C:TSERS%D00 PC 031897.AGN 220 4th AVE.SO., I KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895 1 TELEPHONE (206)8 5 9-33 00 1 FAX#859-3334 CITY OF )0,,M Jy Jim White, Mayor March 18, 1997 MEMO TO: PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS; LEONA ORR, CHAIR, TIM CLARK AND JON JOHNSON FROM: JIM HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CURRENT USE ASSESSMENT APPLICATION Enclosed is a copy of a letter I recently received from Ted Sullivan, who is the Public Benefit Rating System program coordinator for King County's Current Use Assessment system. He discusses an application for Current Use Assessment and how the system works. Since three members of Kent's City Council can hold a public hearing separately or jointly with three King County members, I suggest that the public hearing be held separately and be conducted by the Planning Committee. Since the matter must be concluded by the end of June 1997, 1 also suggest that your hearing be held on your regularly scheduled Planning Committee meeting on April 15th. I feel that the hearing would take ten minutes and not more than 15 minutes. JPH/mp:a:current.1 cc: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager • 220 4th AVE.SO., I KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3300/FAX 8 859-3334 RECEIVED FEB v 6 1997 CountyKing CITY OF KENT Department of Natural Resources INNING DEPAFMAENT Water and Land Resources Division 506 Second Avenue,Suite 720 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone(206)296-1469 FAX(206)296-1473 February 4, 1997 Jim Harris,Planning Director City of Kent 220 -e Ave. S. Kent, WA 98032 Re: Public Benefit Rating System, Current Use Assessment. Application#E96CT035K Dear Mr. Harris: Enclosed is an application for current use assessment of a property within the City of Kent, received by King County Department of Natural Resources in 1996. As required by RCW . 84.34.037,I am sending you this application for an evaluation and recommendation from the City of Kent. For a property located within an incorporated area,an application for the King County Public Benefit Rating System program must be "acted upon [after a public hearing] by a granting authority composed of three members of the county legislative body and three members of the city legislative body in which.the land is located." This requirement can be achieved by separate hearings of the city council and members of the county council or by a joint hearing of both. Applications received by the annual deadline,December 31, must be acted upon by both granting authorities before June 30'of the following year. I am available to work with you on the review and approval process of these applications. If you have any questions please call me at 205-5170. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, ' /A Ted Sullivan PBRS Program Coordinator • Enclosures Oning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544 James P.Harris,Planning Director CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES March 18, 1997 Planning Committee Members Present: City Attorney's Office Leona Orr, Chair Roger Lubovich Tim Clark Tom Brubaker Jon Johnson Other Planning Staff Mark Hinshaw Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Barbara Ivanov Bob Hutchinson, Building Official Rita Bailie Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Kathy Larson Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator Rachel Simpson Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary Carol Vass Joe Gagnetz # ZCA-96-5 MIXED USE ZONING - (K. O'Neill) Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that this item is a continuation of the deliberations regarding the Land Use and Planning Board recommendation. He explained that the Committee previously discussed the Board's recommendation and ways to refine the recommendation. Mr. O'Neill stated that the first issue was that the zoning code does not clarify the definition of mixed use development in relation to how much of each use constitutes a mixed use development. He recommended requiring 20 percent of the gross floor area be a permitted commercial use and that the residential component of a mixed use development cannot be permitted or occupied prior to the commercial component. The second issued Mr. O'Neill addressed was that the zoning code currently allows for multifamily and residential in a mixed use development in the Community Commercial and Office zones with a conditional use permit. He explained that the continued allowance of mixed use development through the conditional use process would undermine the overlay concept. He recommended deleting the provisions that allow for mixed use development through the conditional use permit. The third issue was that greater clarity is needed in establishing the development standard bonuses proposed when developers provide specific amenities. The current recommendation establishes bonuses for site coverage, building height, and parking standards when developments add specific amenities. Mr. O'Neill suggested establishing a 25 percent threshold requirement of either use in order to qualify for a bonus. 1 • City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 The fourth issueed Mr. O'Neill discussed was that at the last meeting the Committee discussed amending the overlay area on East Hill to include the Lien property directly adjacent to a proposed overlay area. The property owner had contacted the Planning Department and requested the change to the overlay area. Mr. O'Neill recommends expanding the East Hill overlay area to include the property. The last issue is establishing a process to allow for future overlay amendments once mixed use zoning is adopted. Mr. O'Neill recommended working with the City Attorney's office to develop procedures and criteria for amending the mixed use overlay boundary similar to the M1- C rezone procedure. He explained that he is requesting that the Planning Committee recommend to the City Council to adopt the mixed use zoning development standards as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board with the five above mentioned amendments. Mr. Clark asked for further clarification of the overlay boundaries. He stated that he was also concerned with neighborhood compatibility which would require establishment of neighborhood identity as a part of the mixed use. • Mr. O'Neill explained that essentially the Land Use and Planning Board is recommending these regulations for certain established overlay areas and those are the areas shown in the staff report. He stated that the Land Use and Planning Board recommended criteria to identify the overlay areas. The overlay boundaries are very specific that are being brought forward as part of the recommendation. Mr. Clark stated that he understands how they would be established. At this time he is concerned with the expansion of the overlay areas in the future. Mr. O'Neill explained that in order for the overlay area to be expanded in the future there would need to be a process similar to a rezone. Chair Leona Orr questioned whether property owners would be guaranteed an expansion of the overlay area just because their property was adjacent to the overlay area. Mr. O'Neill explained that being adjacent to an area may give them a better argument but it would be ultimately the Council's decision. Orr questioned whether there would be a public process to go through that would give the public an opportunity to address any concerns they may have. O'Neill stated that such a process would be established. Committee member Tim Clark questioned whether it would be appropriate to require that mixed use development would be fiber optic compatible. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that type of issue deals more with the zoning requirements for the telecommunications moratorium and 2 . City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 the overall telecommunications plan that is in the process. Satterstrom explained that it may be logical to develop that type of language into the zoning concerns there. Clark disagreed with Mr. Satterstrom statement. Clark explained that infrastructure costs could be reduced significantly by requiring that a mixed used development be fiber optic compatible. Clark expressed his concern with the types of commercial business that will be allowed as part of mixed use developments. He asked for clarification of the terms regarding mixed use developments being community compatible. Mr. O'Neill explained that the overlay areas are set up to allow mixed used development with already established commercial zones that have be specifically selected. The only commercial uses would be those uses that have previously been allowed in that specific commercial zone. O'Neill explained that the intent of the overlay is to have new development standards and a design review process in place for new development so that the compatibility issue is addressed. The overlay areas were identified to try to avoid those impacts before they even happened. He explained that design review will mitigate some of those issues. Consultant Mark Hinshaw explained that the compatibility issues can be addressed during the design • review,not through uses. He stated that as the residential use in the overlay area should be observed to allow for alteration of the permitted uses in the future if necessary. Mr. Hinshaw clarified that if someone wanted to expand the overlay area they could argue that since they are near the existing overlay area that it is worth considering. Mr. Hinshaw pointed out that the only areas eligible for a change request in the overlay areas are those areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan as mixed use. Areas not designated as mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment before an adjustment to the overlay boundaries could be considered. Chair Orr questioned whether the City could require the fiber optic capability on the outset. Assistant City Attorney Tom Brubaker stated that he would have to review this issue as to whether the City has the ability to require that. Mr. Clark explained that what he is suggesting is creating the conduit and that is already in the ground running toward the building without any fiber optic wiring until we have a provider of services. Mr. Brubaker again stated that he would like to do more research on whether or not the City can make such a requirement. Chair Orr questioned whether Committee member Tim Clark would like to delay action until this issue is determined. Mr. Clark stated that he would like to move forward with this item and • questioned if this item could be added at a later time. Mr. Brubaker stated that this item could be 3 City Council Planning Committee Minutes • March 18, 1997 approved as staff recommends and an amendment could be made if needed when this item goes before the Council. Mr. Brubaker explained that this would give him sufficient time to research that issue. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom questioned whether this issue couldn't be looked at on a broader spectrum. He explained that generally planning works from general to specific and may be laying ground work for a general policy later. Mr. Clark stated that fiber optic has different requirements and is more difficult to put in. He explained that coax cables can be run above ground. However, the fiber optic cable has to be protected and should be run underground. Mr. Satterstrom explained that this issue seems like a development by development issue depending on the size of the development rather than a general zoning code condition. Mr. Clark explained that he is recommending that the conduit be layed in the ground so that it would be in place when it comes time to make the connection. Chair Leona Orr discussed the definition of a mixed use development that was outlined in the staff report. She stated that she is more comfortable with 30%but would accept 25%not the 20%that the staff has recommended. Committee members Johnson and Clark concurred with Orr's . recommendation. Committeemember Clark MOVED to recommend to the City Council the zoning code amendments in GC, CC, and O zoning districts related to mixed use development as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board be adopted with the amendments as listed, and with consideration to the change from 20 percent to 25 percent. There was breif discussion about the fiber optics potential installation. Committeemember Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ANNEXATION POLICY - (F. Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom reviewed the proposed Annexation Policy and Action Plan and discussed the changes that were included in the agenda packet. Chair Leona Orr questioned the language regarding an annexation paying its own way. After discussion, the Committee recommended the following change to item#9 as follows: 9. Annexations shall, to the extent practical, pay their own way- Committee member Jon Johnson MOVED and Tim Clark SECONDED a motion to approve the annexation policy dated March 18, 1997 with the modification to #9. Motion carried. • 4 City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 CHAMBERS TASK FORCE REPORT - SCHOOL IMPACT FEES - (B. Hutchinson) Building Official Bob Hutchinson explained that his concern with the Chambers Task Force Report is their recommendation to change the timing of the fee collection. He explained that he had written his concerns to the Chief of Staff Brent McFall in a memo. He stated that a copy of the memo was included in the agenda packet. Mr. Hutchinson reviewed his concerns. He explained that collecting the school impact fees at a later time could create prodedural problems and possibly cost more to implement than the cost savings in terms of housing affordability. He recommended that the fee collection remain as it is now (collected at the time the building permit is issued). Committee member Jon Johnson stated that some of the builders that he has discussed this issue with would rather pay all of the fees at one time. He stated that it would be best to leave the fee collection as it is now. Kathy Larson, Chair of the Chambers Task Force, explained that it was the intent of the task force to reduce construction costs of schools and carrying costs to the builder. Ms. Larson suggested forming a small working group from the Task Force Committee to work with City staff and walk • through the actual process. She explained that it would be a great opportunity for the taskforce to get a better understanding of the process. Chair Leona Orr asked for the Finance Department to report whether the school impact fees could be collected at a later time. She commented that the builders that were on the task force were in favor of delaying the payment and indicated that the later the fees were paid the less impact there was on the cost of the house. Mr. Hutchinson explained that the Building Code does not require a Certificate of Occupancy to be issued for single family or duplex dwellings and there is nothing administratively set up to flag a final inspection. He stated that there is no difficulty in collecting the school impact fees at this time because they simply don't issue a building permit until the fees are paid. Mr. Satterstrom explained that at this time the City has a minimal amount of administrative costs because the school impact fees are charged at the time the building permit is issued. He stated that if there was a way to run a credit card imprint at the time they apply for a building permit and then charge the card at a later day that would be okay. He explained that administratively the City could run into problems when attempting to collect the fees if the current system is adjusted. Committee member Jon Johnson commented that having a small working group look into these issues is an excellent idea that should be pursued. Chair Leona Orr stated that the Committee would • defer this item until the taskforce group could come back and present their findings to the 5 GREEN RIVER CDRRIOOR FUN .e.t,WAB�Von • GRBEN RIVER CORRIDOR SPECIAL INTEREST DISTRICT BOUNDARY , L� rl . .1 .a 1 f � t .��•�•---•- 4 ��- � � it 4 it Ib / V • �� ill �� ' •"' SUBJECT,AREA CE s�- .— _,- ---�n-- - "-� M4S�1r. �-��•� i f I i w it T T.\� ir—•� �:. �- 1 ._ S. 2.71 5 T. t ` •` I r ; r M� p IL Lu LU 40 uj Y ��' yY \ � :ail IIII III III 1 Ili i, Y` � \ o 0 IIII Wom Him a _ y a II I .,,i i �J t -"' - c�rlar 1a rrc�ac�--�af 4-c /Ug _ SaC-/J Iva 5S9- 7/�2- 7 -- ;PZ�y �S)2,4t. TAuA&D6e C-121,-+-- l-�y�. T�i 813-sc; f-2 — -- - - ---------------- CITY OF L"L( 1S CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jim White, Mayor MEMORANDUM March 18, 1997 TO: LEONA ORR, CHAIR, AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: KEVIN O'NEILL, SENIOR PLANNER SUBJECT: #ZCA-96-5 - MIXED USE ZONING On March 18, you will be continuing your deliberations on the recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board regarding the proposed zoning code amendments for mixed use development (#ZCA-96-5). On February 4, our consultant Mark Hinshaw and I presented the Land Use Board's recommendation, and then on February 18 we answered questions about the proposed mixed use zoning. At that meeting, several issues were discussed, including some potential amendments to the Board's recommendation. This memo outlines these issues, and presents the Planning Department's recommended actions. 1. Clarify definition of "mixed use development" As part of the Board's recommendation, multi-family residential uses are only allowed in the proposed mixed use overlay on East Hill as part of a mixed use development. Currently, the zoning code defines a mixed use development as two or more permitted uses being developed on the same site. The Planning Committee expressed concern about establishing a minimum threshold for commercial development, to ensure that stand-alone multi-family development with a token amount of commercial development does not occur. Planning Department staff and Mark Hinshaw discussed using a threshold of 20 or 25 percent for commercial development. The Committee also expressed concern about the phasing of a mixed use project to ensure that the multi-family portion of a project was not completed and occupied prior to the commercial component. Recommendation: Revise the definition of "mixed use development" to require that at least 20 percent of the gross floor area be a permitted commercial use. Also, require that the residential component of a mixed use development cannot be permitted or occupied prior to the commercial component. ` 220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT W ASHINGTON 98032-5895 1 TELEPHONE (206)859-3300/FAX#859-3334 Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning March 18, 1997 Page 2 2. Existing provision for allowing mixed use development in the CC and O zoning districts As we discussed, the zoning code currently allows multi-family residential uses in conjunction with a mixed use development project in the Community Commercial and Office zones with a conditional use permit. This is inconsistent with the Board's recommendation that mixed use development be allowed only within the proposed mixed use overlay. The CC and O zoning districts currently encompass a much larger area on East Hill than does the proposed mixed use overlay. Recommendation: Delete the provisions which allow multi-family residential uses in the CC and O zones as part of a mixed use development (Sections 15.04.100(D)(2) and 15.04.150(C)(1), respectively). 3. Clarify bonuses for proposed development standards As recommended by the Land Use Board, developers within the mixed use overlay would be provided with bonuses above the minimum development standards for providing certain amenities. For example, developers of commercial uses would qualify for greater building site coverage and height by developing in a mixed use configuration (including residential uses). Also, developers of residential development within the mixed use overlay would qualify for decreased off-street parking standards if commercial development was included. The Committee expressed some concerns that these bonuses could be abused by a developer providing a token amount of a commercial or residential use in order to take advantage of a bonus. Recommendation: For site coverage and building height, add a provision that in order to qualify for increased coverage and/or height, at least 25 percent of the floor area would need to be residential use. Similarly, for off-street parking, add a provision that in order to qualify for reduced parking standards for residential development, at least 25 percent of the floor area would need to be in commercial use. 4. Expanding the overlay on East Hill A property owner at 10611 SE Kent-Kangley Road has requested that their property be included in the boundaries of the proposed mixed use overlay. This parcel of property is directly adjacent to the west of one of the proposed overlay areas. Therefore, expanding the overlay boundary to include this parcel could be accomplished fairly easily. Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning March 18, 1997 Page 3 Recommendation: Expand proposed overlay boundary to include this parcel. 5. Process for amending the mixed use overlay in the future It is possible that in the future property owners may wish to have their property included within the proposed overlay boundary. It is important that there be a process in place to allow for this to occur, while at the same time providing for opportunities for public comment. Recommendation: Planning Department staff should work with the City Attorney's office to develop procedures and criteria for amending the mixed use overlay boundary. It is anticipated that a rezone-like process would be necessary, similar to that of the M1-C Zone where the C-suffix is added to a parcel through a rezone application process outlined in the Kent Zoning Code. Staff Recommendation Planning Department staff recommends that the Planning Committee take the following actions on the ed use zoning amendments (ZCA-96-5): /j Recommend to the City Council that the zoning code amendments in the GC, CC and O zoning districts relating to mixed use development as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board be adopted, with the following amendments: Icj 0 1. Revise the definition of "mixed use development" to require that at least percent of the gross floor area be a permitted commercial use, and require that the residential component of a mixed use development cannot be permitted or occupied prior to the commercial component. 2. Delete the provisions which allow multi-family residential uses in the CC and O zones as part of a mixed use development (Sections 15.04.100(D)(2) and 15.04.150(C)(1), respectively). 3. For site coverage and building height, add a provision that is order to qualify for increased coverage and/or height, at least 25 percent of the floor area would need to be residential use. Similarly, for off-street parking, add a provision that in order to qualify for reduced parking standards for residential development, at least 25 percent of the floor area would need to be in commercial use. r Subject: #ZCA-96-5 Mixed Use Zoning March 18, 1997 i Page 4 4. Expand proposed overlay boundary to include the parcel at 10611 Kent-Kangiey Road. 5. Planning Department staff should work with the City Attorney's office to develop procedures and criteria for amending the mixed use overlay boundary. Planning Department staff will be prepared to discuss these recommendations at your meeting on March 18. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please call me at 850-4799. KON/mp/a:mupclure.sum cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Mark Hinshaw