The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 08/02/1999 (5) I July 28, 1999 THE AGENDA COVER SHEET FOR THE 8/02/99 PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING • TITLE OF ITEM: STV-99-4 32 AVE S STREET VACATION ACTION: Action Item To recommend that the request to vacate a portion of 32nd Avenue South as mentioned in Resolution 1542 and shown on the accompanying map, be denied based on the reviews of Public Works, Planning, Police, Fire and Parks Departments as well as Puget Sound Energy and King County METRO Transit Division. BACKUP MATERIAL: Staff Report from James P. Harris, Planning Director STV 99-4 Proposed Street Vacation Map • PRESENTER: James P. Harris, Planning Director TIME: 10 minutes STV=99=4 32 AVE S STREET VACATION ACTION ITEM To recommend that the request to vacate a portion of 32nd Avenue South as mentioned in Resolution 1542 and shown on the accompanying map, be denied based on the reviews of Public Works, Planning, Police, Fire and Parks Departments as well as Puget Sound Energy and King County METRO Transit Division. CITY Of ,Jim White, Mavor rryVfcTA Planning Department (2531 Sib-i454iPAN (2i3) 8i6-G454 James P. Harris. Planning Director PLANNING DEPARTMENT MENIORANDLNI July 6, 1999 MEMO TO: MAYOR JINI WHITE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON AN APPLICATION TO VACATE A PORTION OF 32n4 AVENUE SOUTH —STV-99-4 RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL • I. Name of Applicant Highline Water District P.O. Box 3867 Kent, WA 98032-3867 (206) 824-3867 II. Reason for Requesting Vacation The applicant states, "This request to vacate the 30 foot wide 32"d Ave. S. will eliminate a substandard width in an unimproved right-of-way, which is at the present.time a refuge for illegal action. The vacation will reunite properties with common ownership and provide for future improvements." III. Backe ound The north end of 32nd Avenue South, adjacent to the southbound on-ramp to I-5, was vacated by the City Council on September 15, 1998. ,0,'E.SO . / KENT. fit'1SHINGTON`is0;'SSv i TELEPHONF i • NIEvIO TO: i4layor Jim White and City Council Members SUBJECT: STV-99-4 Portion of 3?"' Avenue S. DATE: July G, 1999 PAGE: '- IV. Staff Recommendation After reviewing comments from the Following departments and agencies: Public Works Police Fire Parks Puget Sound Energy King County METRO Transit Division and conducting our own review, the Planning Department recommends that the request to vacate a portion of 32'" Avenue South as mentioned in Resolution 1542 and shown on the accompanying map, be Denied for the following reasons: 1. The parcels to the north of the end of the proposed vacation would lose access to this • public right-of-way even though they have access to 30' Avenue South. 2. If 32nd Avenue South is to be vacated it should be vacated for its entire length since vacating the south end effectively prevents any future access by properties to the north and thus is an ad hoc vacation of the entire street. JPlVmjp:P:\MIS STAFF RPTS\stv994rpt.doc Enclosures — cc: Fred S. Satterstrom, Planning Manager i Hi Ohc xinos — — o m. O O is 1 ❑ �� -- it O O NI • .. OO f ! HI /M l•J Qa :_-------=_: :-_- - --=- a ..... � < nCDa` z - ____-— o- — ; W o Q._ i; _ --- 1` LJ a - - - _ COD a --��• �.� ` `\\ ,(� ----------a—ram--c�. ��. _• .�� ,.ou.o.,,u....uonu.,r.,uu.� I � O000 �Sao \ ; - � _ _ - IH+ l O - \ Q31VDVA 31B 01 d3d 1' o 'S *HAV at\,Zc' 3O ixVd Hinos t7-66 AIS --NOII DVA 1331_NIS Q3SOdMld L l July 28, 1999 THE AGENDA COVER SHEET FOR THE 8/02/99 PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING • TITLE OF ITEM: ZCA-99-5 PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE ZONING DISTRICT (MR-T) ACTION: Action Item Recommend to the Full City Council to consider approval of the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation to approve staff s recommendation of ZCA-99-5 for a new Townhouse Zoning District (called MR-T) with five (5) additional changes as outlined on page 15 of the LUPB minutes. BACKUP MATERIAL: Staff Report from Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager Cover Memo dated 7/20/99 Staff Report dated 6/28/99 with attachments LU&PB minutes of 6/28/99 PRESENTER: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager TIME: 10 minutes • ZCA=99=5 PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE ZONING DISTRICT (MR=T) ACTION ITEM Recommend to the Full City Council to consider approval of the Land Use and Planning Board's recommendation to approve staffs recommendation of ZCA-99-5 for a new Townhouse Zoning District (called MR-T) with five (5) additional changes as outlined on page 15 of the LUPB minutes. CITY OF 0\1Ltt? MEMORANDUM Jim White, Mayor V-0wivrN To: COUNCILMEMBER TIM CLARK, CHAIR AND PLANNING & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEMBERS From: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER Re: PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE ZONING DISTRICT - #ZCA-99-5 At its regular meeting of July 20, 1999, the City Council referred the Land Use & Planning Board's recommendation to create a townhouse zoning district (MR-T) to the Planning & Public Works Committee. The Board had held a public hearing on this matter on June 28, 1999 after several workshops and a tour of existing condominium developments. The packet of information which was included in the Council's July 201h meeting agenda • is again included herewith. Staff will be available to discuss this matter and answer questions from the Committee. Cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director FSN/mp:P:adminitownhome.rec CITYOFV Jim White, Mavor hVVrCTA arming Department(253) 856-5454/Fax(253) 856-6454 James P. Hams, Planning Director MEMORANDUM July 20, 1999 TO: MAYOR JIM WHITE AND KENT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER RE: PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE (MR-T) ZONING DISTRICT #ZCA-99-5 RECOMMENDATION OF LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD On April 5, 1999, the City Council Planning and Public Works Committee voted to request the Land Use & Planning Board study and make recommendations to the City Council on zoning strategies which would encourage home ownership opportunities in Kent. This Committee vote stemmed from a series of meetings on the topic of"condominium zoning." On May 10 and June 14, 1999, the Land Use & Planning Board discussed and reviewed the condominium zoning issue at length. Several alternative strategies were evaluated at these • workshops including the creation of a special zoning district, revisions to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance, and other proposals. In addition, a tour of various condominium developments was conducted with the Planning Board on May 24, 1999, in order to gain a first- hand familiarity with this form of development. Based on the discussion of options and the tour of condominium projects, the Planning Board decided to move forward to public hearing on one of the options. This option was the creation of a special zoning district that would be restricted to townhouse-only condominium development, subject to specific development regulations which would determine the density and design of these developments. The Planning Board decided to revisit the PUD amendments at a later date. Recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Board: Following the public hearing on the matter on June 28, 1999, the Land Use & Planning Board voted to recommend that a new zoning district — called MR-T for Multifamily Residential/Townhouse — be created with the following definition, use and development standards: Add to Section 15.03.010 Establishment of Districts MR-T Multifamih Residential District— Townhouse It is the purpose of the MR-T district to provide suitable locations for low and medium density multifamily residential development where home ownership is encouraged consistent with the comprehensive plan. _'-U lih E o0.. .Jr+ rniJ 41).), TELEPHONE 93)850-520O #ZCA-99 �%IR-T ,n 1000 Add the following derinitlon of"townhouse" to Section 15.02 Multifamih Townhouse. A townhouse dwelling is a residential unit which is attached to other dwelling units along one or both sides and which occupies the building area from ground level to the roof with no dwelling units located above or below Add the following as principally permitted uses: • One single famijy dwelling per lot • One modular hclme per lot • Duplexes • Multifamily townhouse units • Mobile home pav*s (subject to footnote #13) • Group homes class I-A • Group homes cldiss I-B • Home day care ■ Day care center, • Crop and tree farming Add the following as accessory uses: ■ Rooming and boarding of not more than 3 persons • Accessory buildings and uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted use • Accessory dwelling units (subject to footnote #10) • Home occupations (subject to footnote #11) • Storage buildinj and storage of recreational vehicles (subject to footnote #16) • Offices incidental to a principally permitted use Add the following as condiltional uses: • Group homes classes 1-C, 11-A, 11-B, and 11-C • Drive-in churches , welfare facilities, retirement homes, convalescent homes and other welfare facilities whether public or private, and facilities for rehabilitation or correction • Transportation and transit facilities • Railway and bus depots, taxi stands • Utility and transportation facilities, electrical substations, pumping or regulating devices for the transmission of water, gas, steam petroleum, etc. • Public facilities jincluding firehouses, police stations, libraries and administrative offices ofgovernrhental agencies, primary and secondary schools, vocational schools and colleges • Open space uses'; including cemeteries, parks, playgrounds, golf courses and other recreational facilities, including buildings or structures associated therewith ■ Private clubs,fraternal lodges, etc. Add the following as special uses: • Churches (subjeci to footnote #4) ZCA-99-5 (MR-T Zoning) Memo July 20, 1999 Page 3 Add the following Development Standards to Section 15.04.170: Maximum density (units per acre) SF: 8.71 d"c MF: 16du/ac Minimum lot area SF: 4000 sq.ft. Duplex: 8000 sq.ft. MF: 8500 sq.ft.for first 2 units, then 2500 sq.ft. per additional unit Minimum lot width SF:. 40 ft. Duplex: 80 ft. MF. 80 ft. Maximum site coverage SF: 55% (subject to footnote #5) Duplex: 40% (subject to footnote #5) MF. 45% (subject to footnote #5) Minimum yard requirements SF: same as MR-G zone Duplex: same as MR-G zone MF: same as MR-G zone Height limitation SF: 2.5 stories/30 feet Duplex: 3 stories/30 feet -. MT 3 stories/30 feet . Maximum impervious surface SF: 75% (subject to footnote #19) Duplex: 70% (subject to footnote #19) MT- 70% (subject to footnote #19) Zero lot line development Provisions of 15.08.300, 310, 330 shall apply Signs Same as for MR-G zone Offstreet parking Same as for MR-G zone Landscaping Same as for MR-G zone Multifamily design review Yes. SEE, Section 15.09.047 Additional standards All multifamily townhouse developments in the MR-T :one shall be condominium only. A condominium plat shall be filed and recorded prior to in conjunction with the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project. #ZCA-99-5 (MR-T Zoning) Memo July 20, 1999 Page 4 Add the following rezoning,criterion to Section 15.09.050: 1. The proposed. rezone site is adjacent to or has convenient access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T development minimizes the disruption to Single family residential neighborhoods. FNiS1mw\P:\ADMINICONDOMEM.DOC enc: Staff Report Dated 6-28-49 LUPB Minutes Dated 6-2;8-99 cc: James P.Harris, Planning Director - CJTVOFZ,Q,LBLS Jim White, Mayor tDrVICTr Planning Department (253)856-5454/FAX(253) 856-6454 James P. Hams,Planning Director CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (253) 856-5454 STAFF REPORT JUNE 28, 1999 TO: RON HARMON, CHAIR AND LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER RE: PROPOSED TOWNHOUSE ZONING DISTRICT (MR-T) #ZCA-99-5 Background: • On April 5, 1999, the City Council Planning and Public Works Committee voted to request the Land Use and Planning Board study and make recommendations to the City Council on zoning strategies which would encourage home ownership opportunities in Kent. This Committee vote stemmed from a series of meetings on the topic of"condominium zoning." On Mav 10, 1999 and June 14, 1999, the Land Use and Planning Board (LU&PB) discussed and reviewed the condominium zoning issue at length. Several alternative strategies were discussed at these workshops including the creation of a special zoning district, revisions to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance, and other proposals. In addition, a tour of various condominium developments was conducted with the LU&PB on May 24, 1999 in order to gain a first-hand familiarity with this form of development. Based on the discussion of options and the tour of condominium projects, the LU&PB decided at their June 14, 1999 workshop to move forward to public hearing with one of the options. This option is the creation of a special zoning district that would be restricted to condominium-only multifamily development, subject to specific development regulations, which would determine the density, and certain aspects of the design of these developments. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan: The issue of encouraging horncownership opportunities is mentioned in the Kent Comprehensive Plan. In fact, condominium-style housing (one of several forms of homeownership) is addressed in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Housing Goal H-4 states: "Expand home '20.4th AVE. SO . ? F:ENT. N ASHISGTON UMO7_-58v;;TELEPHONE i251, HSn S'Un ZCA-99-5 Proposed Townhouse{Zoning District(biR-T) LUPB June 28, 1999 Page 2 ownership opportunities for;all income groups via land use regulations,financial strategies, and the removal of barriers to lending. " Policy H-4.1 specifically addresses condominiums in terms of zoning when it states: "Devise zoning and development standards to facilitate small lot sizes, manufactured housing on single family lots, townhouses, condominiums, clustering, and other options which increase the supply of affordable ownership opportunities. " Zoning Strategies for Encomragin; Home Ownership The City's existing multifamily residential zones do not differentiate between rental or owner housing. Except for PUD development in the SR (Single Family) zones, there is no requirement for condominium-type development in the zoning code, nor is there any zoning district which may be requested by an applicant for rezone which would limit developments to this project type. In addition, the City Attorney has advised the Planning Department that it is not lawful to simply adopt a zoning amendment which would require homeownership (i.e., condominiums) in all multifamily zoning districts. Nevertheless, under certain conditions, condominiums may be encouraged as an alternative to apartments through various zoning methods. These methods were first discussed with the (Council Planning and Public Works Committee in March and April and then the Land Use and Planning Board in May and June. Some of the primary alternatives included the following:_ ■ Contract rezoning. Under this option, approval of a rezone request would be conditioned upon ian agreement between the applicant and the City. Among other things, the agreement might contain a statement that only condominiums could be constructed. Therefore, any development permit ultimately issued by the City would constrict development to condominiums only. Decisions of the City Council would be made on a casell'by-case basis. ■ Planned Unit Development ordinance. The existing PUD ordinance restricts condominium-type;(attached) housing in the SR zones to sites that are more than 100 acres in size. An option would be to reduce this minimum site size to 10 or 5 or even a smaller thresholdb resulting in more areas which could, given City Council approval of the PUD, be utilized for attached condominium style housing. Townhouse Zoning District. This option would entail the creation of a special zoning district which would permit only condominium type developments and would require the recordi�tg of a condominium plat prior to issuance of a development permit. A maximum density would be specified which could be similar or different from other multifalmily zones. The T-zone would be available for applicants to request rezoning ofisuitable sites with criteria for rezoning set by ordinance. • Overlay (or `Inceptive") Zoning. This option would allow additional density in existing multifamily zones for condominium developments. Densities for rental apartments would remain the same. As an overlay, it would only be available for existing multifamil} zones. Z�A-99-5 Proposed Townhouse Zoning District(MR-T) LUPB June 28, 1999 Page 3 Discussion and Evaluation of Alternatives: The above options were discussed at length by the LU&PB and, with the exception of the T- zone, were found to be unsuitable. While contract rezoning may be a legal method for rezoning and conditioning development, it was found not to be a good way to develop policy. In reality, it is the opposite of consistent and predictable policy since the specific conditions will be different from one site to another. It is subject to "deal-making" and puts the City Council and LU&PB in an awkward position. In addition, recent experience with contract rezoning has not been positive. The overlay zone option (where additional density is allowed for condominiums but not rental apartments) offers only limited advantage in terms of inducing homeownership opportunities. This is because the densities already allowed in the City's MR (multifamily) zones are fairly high. Townhouse condominiums are generally low-density projects, usually in the range of 10- 14 units per acre. Densities in excess of this generally yield "stacked unit" configurations, where residential units are built over one another. Therefore, perhaps only the MR-D (Duplex) zone— where the density limit is 10 units per acre — would attract applications for a condominium density bonus. The Planned Unit Development option was considered by the LU&PB and was determined to need additional study before moving forward to public hearing. As proposed by staff in preliminary discussions, the PUD revisions would be restricted to only the SR-6 and SR-8 zones, the minimum site size would be 2 acres and the maximum site size would be 10 acres. Also, Sspecial criteria would be specified for approval of such PUD's, including factors relating to proximity to transit and services, adjacency to arterial streets, and open space. However, following discussions with the LU&PB, it was felt this option needed further study before moving to public hearing. The creation of a special zoning district which would restrict multifamily development to condominium-only was felt to be a viable option for increasing the opportunities for homeownership in Kent, and at their June 14, 1999 workshop, the LU&PB moved this alternative along to public hearing for June 28, 1999. As proposed by staff, this new zoning district would require multifamily development to be condominium-only subject to development standards which would allow a two-story configuration (no stacked units), a density maximum of 12 ;:nits per acre, multifamily design review, and other requirements. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the LU&PB recommend to the City Council to add the following to Kent Zoning Code, Section 15.03.010 Establishment and designation of districts: MR-T Multifamily Residential District-Townhouse It is the purpose of the MR-T district to provide suitable locations for low to medium density multifamily residential development where homeownership is encouraged Oconsisient with the comprehensive plan. ZCA-99-5 Proposed Townhouse Zoning District(NIR-T) LUPB June 28, 1999 Page 4 The following definition of"townhouse" development is proposed to be added to Section 15.02 of the Kent Zoning Code: Multifamily Townhouse. ';A townhouse dwelling is a residential dwelling unit which is attached to other dwelling] units along one or both sides and which occupies the building area from ground level to toe roof with no dwelling units located above or below. The following uses are proposed as principally permitted, accessory, special and conditional uses in the MR-T zone, Section 1$.04 of the Kent Zoning Code (SEE, Attachment A): Principally permitted uses:! • One single famil f dwelling per lot • One modular home per lot ■ Duplexes ■ Multifamily Townhouse units • Mobile home parks (subject to footnote #13) • Group homes class 1-A • Group homes class i-B • Home day care • Day care center • Crop and tree farming { Accessory uses: • Rooming and boalyding of not more than 3 persons ■ Accessory buildings and uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted use • Accessory dwellinjg units (subject to footnote #10) • Home occupation$' (subject to footnote #11) • Storage buildings land storage of recreational vehicles (subject to footnote #16) • Offices incidental to a principally permitted use Conditional uses: • Group homes classes 1-C, 11-A, 11-13, and 11-C • Drive-in churches} welfare facilities, retirement homes, convalescent homes and other welfare facilities whether public or private, and facilities for rehabilitation or correction • Transportation and transit facilities • Railway and bus d9pots, taxi stands • Utility and transportation facilities, electrical substations, pumping or regulating devices for the transmission of water, gas, steam, petroleum, etc. • Public facilities. Firehouses, police stations, libraries, and administrative offices of governmental 0gencies, primary and secondary schools, vocational schools and colleges • Open space uses including cemeteries, parks, playglt�rounds, golf courses and other recreational facilities, including buildings or structures associated therewith • Private clubs, fraternal lodges, etc. "UPB Juno -o, iyyr Page 5 Special uses: ■ Churches (subject to footnote #4) The following Development standards are proposed for the MR-T zone, to be added to Section 15.04.170 of the Kent Zoning Code (SEE, Attachment B): Maximum density (units per acre) SF: 8.71 dus/ac MF: 12.0 dus/ac Minimum lot area SF: 4000 sq. ft. Duplex: 8000 sq. ft. MF: 8500 for first 2 units, then 3500 sq. ft. per each additional unit Minimum lot width SF: 40 ft. Duplex: 80 ft. MF: 80 ft. Maximum site coverage SF: 55% (subject to footnote#5) Duplex: 40 % (subject to footnote#5) MF: 45% (subject to footnote#5) Minimum yard requirements SF: Same as MR-G Duplex: Same as MR-G . MF: Same as MR-G Height Limitation SF: 2.5 stories/30 feet Duplex: 2 stories/30 feet MF: 2 stories/30 feet Maximum impervious surface SF: 75% (subject to footnote #19) Duplex: 70% (subject to footnote#19) MF: 70% (subject to footnote#19) Zero Lot Line Provisions of 15.08.300, 310, 330 shall Apply Signs Same as for MR-G zone Offstreet parking Same as for MR-G zone Landscaping Same as for MR-G zone Multifamily Design Review Yes. See Section 15.09.047. Additional standards All multifamily townhouse developments in the MR-T zone shall be condominium only. A condominium plat shall be filed and recorded prior to approval of development permit by the Cite. ZCA-99-5 Proposed Townhouse;Zoning District(MR-T) LUPB June 28, 1999 Page 6 The LU&PB may also wish Ito consider additional rezone criteria, which would provide guidance and direction in the decisijon-making process for rezone applications. Rezone criteria are specified in Section 15.09.050 of the Kent Zoning Code (SEE, Attachment Q. These criteria seek to ensure that rezonesi are consistent with the comprehensive plan, are compatible with surrounding development, dlo not unduly burden the street system, and do not cause adverse impacts to the public. The L.V&PB could add criteria to ensure that rezones to MR-T achieve the original intent of creating opportunities for attached homeownership opportunities. Staff suggests the following criteria based bn the discussions with Board and Council members regarding this option: 1. The proposed rezone site is adjacent to or has direct access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T development does not travel through single family residential neighborhoods. Z. The proposed rezone site is conveniently located near transit stops and commercial services. FS.pm PA4dminitownhome.doc • Enclosures: Attachment A,B!&C cc: James P. Harris,Manning Director i Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 5 Mr. O'Neill stated that a section could be added to the view regulations to include the use of a view pole in a case where a variance is requested. Mr. O'Neill suggested a phrase be added to the view regulations that say,"that if someone requested a variance part of the process would be to erect view poles on the property." Mr..Harmon suggested that if a house is constructed in an area with view regulations that a pole be placed on the property during the permit process. He stated erecting a pole on the property would allow impacted parties to determine if view from their properties would be obstructed Mr. Harmon stated that terminology should be added to the view regulations to address erecting and marling a view pole when any development takes place on view regulated property. Mr. O'Neill stated that a developer is complying with the code when he abides by the maximum height threshold established by Planning staff and if view poles were erected and neighbors objected to the height, they would not have much recourse. Mr. O'Neill stated that if a builder or property owner were to request a variance to exceed their height limitations, it would be fair to erect view poles at that time to allow neighbors to address their concerns. Mr.Dowell stated that in Section 15.08.060(A)2 he would like`finished grade"be reworded to read "..as measured from original or natural grade... Mr. O'Neill advised changing the terminology to "natural or futished grade, which ever is lower". He stated that under certain circur stances builders are sensitive to up slope property views by grading lower or building daylight basements. Steve Dowell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to accept staffs recommendation of ZCA-99-6 View Regulations with the following amendments: To amend Section 15.08.060(A) of the Zoning Code as recommended by Staff with an addition to Item 2, Page 5 by changing 'finished grade" to read `from natural or finished grade which ever is lower". To add additional languages to the code to allow erecting a marked view pole if a variance is required. Motion carried unanimously. ZCA-"-5 Condominium ZoninLy Strategies Mr. Sattermom stated that a tour of condominium developments in the East Hill area of Kent took place with the Land Use and Planning Board in May where they looked at a variety of densities and condominium designs. Mr. Satterstrom stated that prior to staffs submittal of their recommendations, several alternatives were looked at by the Board and City Council in encouraging homeownership in multifamily developments. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 6 Mr. Satterstrom stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicates that staff needs to look into the concept of proposing some regulatory mechanisms for encouraging condominium housing in Kent. Mr. Satterstrom stated that this concept is traced to Housing Goal HA policy of the Comprehensive Plan which states "...revue zoning and development standards to facilitate small lot sues, manufactured housing on single family lots, townhouses, condominiums, clustering and other options which increase the supply of affordable ownership opportunities." Mr. Satterstrom referred to Page 2 of his staff report in identifying the following four options that the Board and City Council evaluated in their search to encourage condominium housing in Kent. • Contract Rezoning • Planned Unit Development ordinance • Townhouse Zoning District • Overlay(or"Incentive's Zoning. Mr. Satterstrom stated that even though Contract Rezoning is legal, it is poor policy and considered the antithesis of zoning. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the PUD ordinance was looked at by the Board and tabled in order to acquire further information. He stated that the Overlay or Incentive zoning option was viewed to have limited application and not a viable option. • Mr. Satterstrom stated that after careful review of the four options, staff is recommend ing the creation of a separate zoning district called the MR-T(Multifamily Residential-Townhouse)zoning district. He stated that staff proposes that the Board recommend to the City Council that the MR-T district be added to the City's zoning district with a purpose statement that says "that it is the purpose of the MR-T district to provide suitable locations for low to medium density multifamily residential development where home ownership is encouraged consistent with the comprehensive plan." Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff is proposing the addition of a multifamily townhouse definition that says "a townhouse dwelling is a residential dwelling unit which is attached to other dwelling units along one or both sides and which occupies the building area from ground level to the roof with no dwelling units located above or below" Mr. Satterstrom spoke at length from Page 4 of the staff report in stating that the proposed "Principally permitted Uses"; "Accessory Uses" and "Conditional Uses" for the MR-T zone will remain predominately the same as in the MR-G zone. Mr. Satterstrom referred to Page 5 of the staff report in speaking at length on development standards. He stated that the maximum density for single family would be 8.71 dwelling units per acre, the same as MR-G. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the multiple family density would be 12.0 dwelling units Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 7 per acre. He reiterated the!proposed development standards as indicated on Page 5 of the staff report. Mr. Satterstrom stated that at additional standard is added stating that "All Multifamily townhouse developments in the MR-T zbne shall be condominium only. A condominium plat shall be filed and recorded prior to approval of a development permit by the City." Mr. Satterstrom pointed outthe five criteria relating to property rezoning as indicated on page six of the report. He stated that to ensure that rezones to the MR-T are consistent with the intent for which this zone was created I staff is suggesting, for the Board's edification, the addition of the two following criteria in respect Ito MR-T zones. "The proposed rezone site is adjacent to or has direct access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T development does not travel through single family residential neighborhoods" and "Me proposed rezone site is conveniently located near transit stops and commercial. services." Mr. Satterstrom submitted al letter for the record-from Jack Lynch and Associates as Exhibit 1, suggesting that the density pier acre be"a range"rather than a"specific number"of units per acre. Mr. Satterstrom responded t6 Te rry erry Zimmerman's request to reiterate the City's approval process for this recommendation. He!stated that if the Board recommends approval to implement the MR-T zone,this item would then besent on to the Full City Council, with initial review by its Planning and Public Works Committee. Mr. Satterstrom stated that when this recommendation goes before the Council, it will be voted on and an ordinance would be generated. Terry Zimmerman asked Mr[ Satterstrom at what point further comment would be received. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the' Council recognizes people who want to speak at the Public Works/Planning Committee and at the Full Council meeting. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the Land Use and Planning Board public hearing is where public comment is most likely to influence the Council in reaching a decisiotn. In response to Ron Harmon, Mr. Satterstrom stated that Green Meadow Townhomes were the fast stop on the workshop tour of bondominums and that the density on the buildable portion of the site was 10 units per acre as the preponderance of the site is wetlands. Tent'Zimmerman MOVED grid Steve Dowell SECONDED to open the public hearing. Motion carried. Robert Howe, 5446 Hyada !Blvd NE, Tacoma, WA stated that he is a member of a couple of limited liability companies thlat are engaged in developing property in the City of Kent. He stated that if the intent of the City is io provide a viable program that will result in townhouse development, staff needs to assure that thel restrictions and guidelines enforced are not so restrictive that this recommendation becomes unworkable. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 8 Mr. Howe voiced concern over staff s recommendation that a townhome site needs to be located adjacent to or have direct access to an arterial street. He stated that developers should be given opportunity to address viable egress and access alternatives to a proposed site. Mr. Howe questioned if MR-T zoning was restricted to the current MR-G zone or could this zoning apply to SR-6 or SR-8. He stated that the development process is time consuming and would like to see a method implemented to decrease the length of time for the rezoning process, perhaps by deleting the comprehensive plan amendment process. Bill Dinsdale, 13700 SE 266", Kent,WA stated that providing affordable housing is crucial. He stated that the proposed zoning does not provide for more affordable housing for people. Mr. Dinsdale stated that to decrease cost, densities must increase to more than 12 units per acre. Mr. Dinsdale stated that by restricting egress and ingress for townhome developments next to an arterial,property that can take advantage of the MR-T is limited. He stated that there are numerous developable properties not located directly on arterials. Mr. Satterstrom in clarifying an issue stated that staff is not proposing that existing MR-G zoned property is going to be affected by this proposal at all. He stated that what is proposed is the creation • of another zoning district to give landowners and developers the option of rezoning land to a higher density. Mr. Satterstrom cited the example that if property were zoned MR-D, 10 units per acre, the MR-T zone would represent an increase in density. MR-T is an option that the Council would be given to encourage homeownership in the situations that are intended in the purpose statement and in the criteria. Charles Burridge, 27001 114t° Avenue SE, Kent, WA stated that he is involved in several developments in the City of Kent. He stated that he is considering developing several pieces of property in Kent with multifamily and a townhouse project. Mr. Burridge stated that some of the properties have mitigation problems with wetlands where the MR-T would allow townhouse units to be developed surrounding these wetlands. Mr. Burridge stated that requiring locating the condominium sites next to arterial roads would be prohibitive and if allowing for only one entrance would be restrictive. He suggested that staff might look at the feasibility of two or three entryways for a development. Hugh Lieper, 815 Reiten Road, Kent, WA stated that he is a commercial real estate consultant. Mr. Lieper stated that he believes the City has been attempting to accomplish a distinct separation between the concept of condominium and apartment zoning with the creation of the MR-T zone. •Mr. Lieper read and submitted a proposal for a new condominium-zoning district for the record as Exhibit 2. Mr. Lieper defined this new category as Condominium Townhouse Type Zoning(CTTZ) Land Use and Planning Bo4Lrd Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 9 which included allowing for one unit of living space in a two or three story configuration on a maximum of sixteen units per acre. Mr. Lieper stated that a dert�ity of 12 units per acre is not affective when working on developing a piece of property and that lie favored three story units in order to include construction of garages underneath the townhomes. He felt the 30-foot height restriction limits the workability to construct adequate townhomes. Mr. Lieper stated that the lalst item in additional standards says that "a condominium plat shall be filed and recorded prior to the approval of a development permit". He stated that with a condominium you can not record a total plat until construction is complete and the property has been surveyed. Mr. Lieper further stated that an actual survey of each unit and each part of that piece of property has to be recorded and that becomes part of the total conditions that must be met to satisfy the statutes of the state. Paul Morford, Post Office t1ox 6345,Kent,WA voiced his disappointment in the proposed MR-T zone as it does not lend itself to the creation of affordable housing in Kent. He referred to a development in the City of Dles Moines where detached units are currently under construction on 25- C foot lots with 15-foot wide units and 5 foot setbacks. Mr. Morford stated that the lots were platted in the 1920's. • Mr. Morford stated that the units are expensive but more affordable than a typical single family residence and encouraged stuff to look at plans, which he submitted to the Board. Mr. Morford submitted an architectural version of the Marin Grove Community floor plans for the record as Exhibit#3. Mr. Morford stated that in the 1920'the City of Kent based development on small lots, located close to commercial,frail and waters and suggested changing minimum lot widths to 25 feet. Mr. Morford referenced Section 15.08 of the Kent Zoning Code on Nonconforming Lots of Record in saying that an ordinance Was passed in the 1950's that stipulated if a property owner owned two lots side by side, the lots had to be combined in order to develop them. He stated that he believes by removing the nonconforming lot, a home could be built on one lot and a townhouse on the adjoining lot. Mr. Morford stated that the o$iginal intent of rezoning was to discourage multifamily and encourage condominiums or home ownership and that he feels that the MR-T zone should allow for a higher density to decrease the cost per unit. Mr. Morford suggested redefining the MR-T zone to Townhouse District only so as not to limit zoning to multifamily but ratter encourage small townhouse developments. He stated that the staff report refers to the '"T district as providing suitable locations for low to medium density multifamily". Mr. Morford $uggested striking that statement out and add "it is purposely marked T district to provide suitable locations for residential development where home ownership is encouraged." Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 • Page 10 Mr. Morford quoted the staff report's definition of a multifamily townhouse dwelling on page four of the report and suggested rephrasing the definition from ". a townhouse dwelling is a residential dwelling unit,which is, attached..."to a townhouse dwelling is a residential dwelling unit which may or may not be is-attached..." in order to develop unattached units on small lots. Mr. Morford spoke at length on his concerns regarding density limitations within the multifamily residential zoning district. Mr. Morford stated that he would like staff to receive input from Jerry Snyder of Snyder Homes who built two planned unit developments in the County which have since been annexed to the City and although they are close to an arterial, access is not from an arterial. Mr. Morford stated that he feels it to be nebulous that this zoning require a townhome development to be located near transit stops and commercial services as well as to require access from an arterial. Mr.Jerry Prowdy,27608 114*Avenue Southeast,Kent,WA stated that he believes the new MR- T zoning does not provide enough concessions to encourage multifamily developers to build condominiums. Mr.Prowdy stated that he favor;the proposed zoning as it more adequately applies to single family zones with steep slopes or partial wetlands where townhomes could be clustered on lots. • W. Prowdy stated that he did not favor developers going having to go through the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning process as it is lengthy and would discourage developers from constructing townhomes. Mr. Prowdy questioned if the rezone process could be streamlined and stated that even though the lot sizes and units per acre were conservative, none the less, he is in favor of moving this recommendation on for approval. Mr. Satterstrom stated if a property owner has existing MR-G zoning which allows 16 units per acre, condominiums can be developed in that zone at 16 units per acre and in MR-M zoning, condominiums or apartments can be developed at 23 units per acre. The MR-T zoning does not propose to change that. Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff believes that the MR-T zoning constitutes a form of multifamily zone because the density of 12 units per acre is more than would be permitted in any of the City's single family zones. He stated that generally you would not find 12 units per acre in a detached configuration. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the intent of the MR-T zone is to treat it as a multifamily zoning. He stated that the unique feature of the MR-T zone requires that development in that district must provide affordable owner occupied condominiums. Land Use and Planning Bajard Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 1 I • Mr. Satterstrom stated that he would beseech the Board to not remove the distinction of a multifamily zoning districq from the MR-T zone, even though single family could be constructed within this zone. Mr. Satterstrom reiterated the criteria for siting of condominium development. He stated that the MR-T zoning would be applied to property through the rezoning process and if the conditions of the rezone renUin consistent with the comprehensive plan, than there would be no need to apply for a comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Satterstrom stated that direct access to arterial streets is a criteria not a requirement. He stated that the crucial factor in evgluating a proposed rezoned site is to allow the Hearing Examiner and City Council to see that traffic patterns accessing these sites do not generally run through single family areas adversely affe0ting these neighborhoods. Steve Dowell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Communication ensued at length between Mr. Dowell and Mr. Satterstrom concerning changes to the PUD ordinance and if as result,the changes would require a comprehensive plan amendment in September,which Mr. Satterstrom replied in the negative. Mr. Harmon stated that this' condominium zoning ordinance has been brought about from the last • comprehensive and zoning change requests that were held in October and November of 1998 pertaining to two properties, one on Pacific Highway South and one on East Hill. Mr. Harmon stated that the!Board looked at the requests and were informed by the applicants that if a townhouse ordinance was implemented, that the applicants voice interest in constructing a townhome development. lair. Harmon stated that the rezone requests moved forward to the City Council, the Council looked at them and decided to table the requests because they did not want to deny the applicants the opportunity to build. Mr. Harmon stated that the!Board was given direction from the Council Committee members to proceed with establishing a townhouse condominium zoning ordinance, in order to allow the Pacific Highway and East Hill projocts to proceed. Mr. Satterstrom stated that if a MR-T zoning district is created, the Council has the option to bring the two amendments that ware tabled back for consideration. The Council has the option to approve them as proposed, deny then or apply a new zoning district like the MR-T. Board member Terry Zimmerman stated that she agrees with a number of the speakers that 12 units per acre are not sufficient dgnsities to provide affordable housing. She stated her concurrence with several speakers that a density of 16 units per acre would be appropriate. I Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 • Page 12 Ms. Zimmerman stated that she agrees with Mr. Lieper in that staff needs to consider allowing three story height limitations where garages could be built underneath. She stated that Kent has quite a bit of sloped property that could accommodate a three story high condominium. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she disagrees with the stipulation that condominium sites are required to be located adjacent to or provide direct access to the site from an arterial. She voiced her concern that this condition is generated by City Council concerns that residential neighborhoods will not disapprove of multifamily projects being accessed on their residential streets. Ms.Zimmerman stated that she would recommend that the access issue needs to be addressed fturther either by public process or through Mr. Harris's administrative ability. She stated that a lot of developable property is not directly located on arterial streets. Ms. Zimmerman voiced her opposition to the rezone criteria 92 regarding locating the proposed rezone site near transit stops and commercial services. She stated that this theory is not feasible, as it seems that transit and commercial follow development and not the other way around. Sharon Woodford stated that the MR-T zoning does not seems to apply to MR-G or above, as there is no benefit for higher density. Ms. Woodford questioned if implementing an additional MR-T zone would address incentives for higher density multifamily to encourage them to develop townhouses. Ms. Woodford stated with an additional zoning,you could have a townhouse ordinance for single family residents and one for the higher density multifamily with differing regulations. Ms. Woodford suggested rephrasing the rezone criteria#1 on Page six of the staff report to read"that the proposed rezoned site is adjacent to or has close access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T development does not disrupt single family residential neighborhoods" Ms. Woodford spoke in favor of the concept of allowing for two or three entrances into a development as long as it was not disruptive. Mr. Dowell stated that citizens, staff and members of the board provided a lot of good information. He questioned if the Board was really ready to move forward with a decision. Mr. Dowell voiced concern that he hoped the Board would not base their decision on the benefit of two pieces of property close to Des Moines as it would not be a fair or justifiable reason. Mr. Dowell stated that he would recommend tabling this issue for further evaluation with staff based on testimony given. He stated that he feels more time is needed to refine a plan that would better address affordable housing. Ron Harmon stated that he had a couple issues, one of which were the additional standards in reference to filing of the condominium plats. Mr. Harmon asked Mr. Satterstrom to address this issue. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes N June 28, 1999 Page 13 Mr. Satterstrom stated that filling of the condominium plat could be a limitation that may have to be changed. He stated that the ICity wants to make sure that the condominium plat is indeed filed and that the city is not creating townhouse rental units. Mr. Satterstrom stated that if in conferring with the City Attorney's office Oe filing of the condominium plat proves to be a limitation, staff may propose that filing occur prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, at which point the project would be built. Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff would favor language where the City completes the final sign off of the condominium plat at the time the certificate of occupany is issued. Mr. Satterstrom in addressirig the Board's density concerns stated that if 12 units per acre are too limiting in its application, tiere is nothing to prevent the Board from recommending a secondary type of district. He caution¢d the Board that staff feels this district is fine the way it is written. Mr. Harmon voiced concemi that a higher density zoning district may be approved by the Board but be denied by the Council as the public seems opposed to more multifamily apartment complexes and structures of that size. W. 9.armon stated that he supports staffs recommendation for 12 units per acre in the MR-T zone. Mr.Harmon stated that a traffic mitigation study is currently in progress regarding the issues of who • is going to pay for the nelw traffic corridors. Mr. Harmon questioned the possibility that if developers were allowed to provide access to their condominium sites through existing residential neighborhoods in lieu of boing restricted to arterials streets, this could cut cost substantially for developers in not having to spay for road way improvements. Mr. Harmon voiced concettn that traffic should not be allowed to travel through single family neighborhoods and propos$ wording that would indicate this. Mr. Harmon felt that placing a development near transit strips could prove difficult but indicated that locating a development near commercial services was imperative. Mr. Satterstrom proposed rephrasing the additional rezone criteria #1 to say "That the proposed rezone site is adjacent to or has convenient access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T development minimizes the disruption to single family residential neighborhoods." Mr. Harmon acknowledged!Mr. Dowell's concern in reference to his desire that the Board should accumulate more information but stated that he felt the Board needs to move on this issue as quickly as possible. Steve Dowell MOVED to table this issue which died for lack of a second. i Ron Harmon said that he agrees with the motion as stated with the exception that he would like to see the density remain at 12units per acre and changed his view from a two story high limitation to Land Use and Planning Board Minutes J June 28, 1999 Page 14 three story height limitation to provide for a garage underneath. The cut through limitation is acceptable. He felt that locating a development close to transit should be stricken from the motion, and after reconsideration stated that the rezone criteria "...near commercial services' should additionally be stricken from the motion. Sharon Woodford stated that she disagrees with retaining"...near commercial services" as that leaves a lot to interpretation. She stated that "near" could be defined as three blocks or three miles and would be hard to defend. Ms. Zimmerman spoke at length about studying this issue further. She stated that the Board has previously had the option to bring forward revisions for the PUD. Ms. Zimmerman stated that the Board choice not to address the PUD issues but rather to bring the condominium issue before the Board in order to revisit the PUD issue and study this issue in more depth. Ms. Zimmerman stated that she would like to address smaller lot sizes as well as infill into the downtown area with single family residents developed on smaller lots. _ Ms. Zimmerman stated that she would like the Board to make it their task over the next year to develop affordable housing concepts. Mr. Dowell stated that if the PUD ordinance were brought back for further study, he would vote in favor of implementing the MR-T zoning district. • Sharon Woodford stated that she favors sixteen units per acre but believes that it would not pass at _ City Council at this time, therefore, she will concur with what ever the Board chooses. Sharon Woodford stated that she supports the option for allowing three story condominiums development. She stated that with all the hills in Kent, three-story construction could be accomplished without the development appearing too tall. Ms. Woodford concurred with Mr. Leiper in noting that the location for such zoning shall be completely compatible and in harmony with the surrounding areas citing that if you are in a single story, single family residential area, it would not seem appropriate to build a three story townhouse. Terry Zimmerman stated that she does not support 12 units per acre,but concurred with three story heights. She stated that we have an obligation to pass on to Council the response that we have obtained from the community through the course of the public hearing and she did not hear anyone speak in favor of 12 units per acre. Ron Harmon stated that he would like to see a recommendation proposed tonight that could be passed on to the City Council and approved. He stated that the Board members are appointed and not elected officials. He stated that Planning staff is the Board's ears and eyes and emphasized that Planning staff has as much knowledge in reference to moving this recommendation forward as the developers setting in the audience. Mr. Harmon suggested that the Board look fervently at staff s recommendation. i Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 28, 1999 Page 15 Fred Satterstrom asked for the Board to clarify if their motion is in favor of the 12 units per acre density and includes the new;height limits of three stores restricted solely to townhouse as defined. Ms. Zimmerman concurred: Mr. Satterstrom stated that irk terms of changing the language change pertaining to the filing of the Condominium plat and issua#rce of the certificate of occupancy; Mr. Satterstrom asked if staff could have some latitude with coordinating the timing issue. Terry Zimmerman MOVED And Sharon Woodford SECONDED to accept staffs recommendation of ZCA-99-5 Condominium Zoning Strategies with the additional changes as noted: • That the maximum density units per acre be changed from 12 units per acre to 16 units per acre. • That the height limitations be extended to three stories. • That the underlined lan&age be added to the rezone criteria#1 to read as: "the proposed rezone site is adjacent to or haslL*reet convenient access to an arterial street to ensure that the traffic accessing the MR-T devlopment does nef wavei Areuominimizes the disruption to single family residential neighborhoods. " ( • That the rezone criteria 012 stating"Me proposed rezone site is conveniently located near transit stops and commercial services"be struck from the recommendations. • • That for legal purposes 'the following addition be made that filing of the condominium plat should occur prior to or concurrently with the issuance of the occupancy permit. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:20 pm. ectfally Submitted, C)Secretary es P. Ham i ATTACHMENT /A Sec. 15.04.020. Residential Land Uses. Zoning Districts KeY ps _npaI y Permitted Uses A o S IUses a 5 • 'c C�fid)t) nal Uses 32 s • A•ACeessory Uses a Q s o o • � � ¢ � W J 1L iV 1L w Y O • C t IZ O s < < N O c7 Tr d C) U W w. N C.7 S S rJ J fl U One smgl►Iundy awaiting per lot I P P P P P P P I P I P I P I P I I I P I P I I 1�1)1�1)iW1►IH111 One duple per lot I P I ! I I I I ! one modular am"N w lot P I P PIP P P P P P P P Ouaaaes ! I P PIP I ! I I I I mumhnwy dwreelhgs I I P R1 C(>) I 131 R1 I IU) Murhooly dwollings for senior dUmv I I I I I I I rta P P I I Pf3)I PfA I Yowls home odd mam tactured homes I P I ! ! I ! Mobs@ hoar Pars I p P P P P (13) (131 I(131 (13) Group horn class FA P / P P P P P I P P—11 P P P P P P P C C C C P ! G harass Class LB P P P P P P P P C C C C P ! ors class I-C I I I C C P P P P P P C C C C P Group boomclass GA I c c C C I C c C C C C C C C FT- I Group homes on%11-B I I C CICIC I CICICIC C CICCICI ! ! I Grout/homes trios pC I I I C C C C I I C I C I C I C C CIC C C I ! -ETC Group hoes class lu I I I I I I I I I I l e l e l e l e C I e I e m I I I I I ! RoWidladnessory uses for existing P(6)I I I I I I I I I I I P16)I P(6)I Jim I P(6)I I P(6)I P(F)(P(6)I P(S)I/(6)I P(6)I P(6)I P(6)I P(6)I p(6) dwdMgs Transitional housing I I I ! I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I IPmlpm! I I ! Guest couges and houses IA(6)IA(6) A(e)! I I I I I I i I I i I I I I I I IM)I I I I I Rom oing and hoarding of not non than I I A I A ( A I A I A A I A I A I A I I ( I thine. persons II Farm worear accommodations I(T)IAj9)IIA I I I I I I I I I I i I I �_ I I I I�)I Accessory dies and buildings I A I A I A A i A A I A A I A I A I A I A I I A I A A I A I A A A A I A A A I A I A I A Customary amen iaram to a perevued (tsl use Accessory eweding ways A A A A A A A A A A 1(IQ)1 (10l I no) (+� pot I not I(1o1I 110)I no)I I tlgt I I I I( I«i(°►i I I I Acwasary IMnq Quarters I I I I I I I(A ( A I A I A A) AIA I A A)I(A) r A 1 A A 14) (tp (it) (11) (il (11) (1a) (14) (1a t1 n (ta)I nallne (1a1 Moms ocdtrpauons A A A A A I A A All A A A j11jI I(11) It1) (11) (11)I(111I(11)I111 (tt)I(11)I(11)I I I I I I I I I Svrce buildings I I I I ! I I A w Storsge thiddings and ttorsge It A A I A I I I I rerfeadenaf vehldes 106)1 11A 16) (A 16)I(16)I(A 16)1(A I A(16)I(A 16)I(A 16)11 A16) 1A16) A I I I I I I I ( I I t ChureAes; welfare 130hues: C C C C e C C C C C C C C C C I C C C I c I e C I C C i C e chumlles. reuremant homes. I I I I I I I(u) I! I I Convalescent homes and other welfare laafities whether ornately or ppbdUy i r operated, fa Wibef ter rtnabddadon of I I I I I ! I r i CdrteRlon,etc Sec- 15.04.060. Transportation,Public and Utilities Land Uses. Zoning Olstr= kincipatiy Pennitiad Uses 3`s special Uses A C!Conditional Uses m A e Accessory Uses n Cr s 0 s W s n _ N e 4 3CLIF jw SI (Wt,�,� V < < N N Go Ca NaN Ti 2 t� C G U U O O 9 (� CononwcW posing lab or stn+m m I I I I C C TnMspnmdon GM transit tadndes C C C C C C C C C I C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C %t) C Rat"and taw dwaM td ataads C I C . Utmlysed eanspensum fames: C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C I C C Beadml WASMana,pmwwq or ngWMWdesI, farNatraarnfasknof WSW,gas,stun.pedaism eti: Puble tadmtea.FlMowes.palm C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P C C C C C C C C C C C stadens,mwMs and adma iesseve omoa of go wwnaw agMdn.Ply sad semedary ed+oab,wmtlaW edfoals NW wleges. weary same and bWh&Ms A A I A I A I A A A A A A A A I I A A A A A A A A A I A I A I A A AM eimiy sDPnfwet m a tondEad 1 �� i Sec 15.04.090. Service Land Uses. Zoning Olsbieri K nncipally Permitted Uses ecial Uses ZWond'Nonal Uses s A a Accessory Uses m v w ¢ G LAj � a - A 9 2 ta: w 3 ' i3 '_a .b 1 �rg3t 3j : w s sC. �. U� p pt Q N W N Us H Q f.2 (U,� {Wt,,,)a < < to to ti y H H Z U C C U U CJ O G7 Finance,insurance.mal"tin*same I I I I I ( I I P r( P P P I P P P P I P(Z)I PM Penonal meanness:Iasedrr.dry Waring: I I ( I I I P P 11 P P I P I C (1 (1 PO pm bubar,salons:snot npalr,laundered" Marmaries I I I I I I r P P C 1 Ipm Hems day tars I P I P I P I P P P PIP I P I P I. P I P P P P P I P P P I P P P ► I P P P I P I P Dsy cart enter I c I C ( C I C C I C I C C I P I P I P I P P P P P I P I P P P P I P P I P P P P P BBusinen services.duplicating and blue Is I I I I ( �(11 P P P P P P P PIA P(]) nntldp,tissel a encles and agents" Building maisteaaao and Pat contisl I I I I I P P P P P PW ca door Stdega*AbdMg truck Mort' I I P P A A A A A P eOMprAm add essuscsx+songs lards as allowed by Oesddpmmt Standards t 21 S 1S01210) t and leasing aeavka for can. I i I P P I P I p P P(2) trutkm.traSon.furniture and tddle Am repair slid washing services IIII IIII III i PIP p l p `�' (Intluding body wort) Reoau ec seres:WatCt.TV;electrical; I I I I I I I ( I I I I P (1 P I P P I I P I P I P(Z) I P(2) daaomt;upndawy I Prafessmnd servtca:Medical:cm= ( I I I I I I I I I ( I I I I p I P i I p P I P I I P I P P(2)and other flea"on related servtees Heavy Eeumment and Truck Repair I I I I I i l l l l l I l l l p i p l p cI P I Bcontract commucison u Service It P i)IP wg eansoucow P 9:panm9 I I I I I I I I I I I IP I P �(tr �(ti)�fiT�I I P P(Jl and landsca " art nutsi=dancing:harbor and baurye I I I I I I I I I I I P ( P P P I P I P P Pm l I PP) i alurmes ISI•)I Is(4)I Slit)ISIa)IS1nIs(A)Isla)IS(n1Sa)Is(d)I I s(A)I sal I Isar s(a)ISm sm I sw)I sa) I AAAr stradre and l refasronal oRless- I I I I I I I I I I I I P (121 P I P I C P P ( P P P Pm PP) 9efteralMunicipal uses and buildings I IIII I I I I I I I IP(12 P(11 I P ( p IP(12 P(t2 (1 (t] t r r Parr 1 rn Research.de.doptwtt and teswq I I I I I I I I I I I I P P 1 Pq1I Planned weeladm.m Retail Sala, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I cmAccessory uses and buildingsI A A Ap) A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A astamarty appurtenant to a PWMM d I I I ( I ( ( ( ( I(ta) (is (19)I(19) (1S)I(14) (12) VieSouding lends and breeding II ` I I ` I utabUsnmmts 7Vnary crtca and vatennary nasprtals I I C I I I I I I I I IP(S)1 I Imi Pp)I (s)e<P er aacvbva otTlces whlCn P al a prsdonartant Industrial evsntlon. I I =nau t l aPrint paid p esaary to NP I I I I I I I I A I A I A i Rnau C'.CI a Dnnctaat DemutiM use Sec. 15.04.110. Cultural, Entertainment and Recreation Land Uses. Zoning Districts Key P s Principally Permitted Uses A S a Special Uses d S C 2 Conditional Uses sat w A=Accessory Uses 8 w y �i. U c vy C id 9 cc ` W J 2 or32 S 2 w 4 N Q� OI Q1 Q C C `qp Y o N N Q d O w a tL h H tq N t47 Z Qj C V V w Y o m 0 < < T w eo C t7 2 d rj U Ll Lu n G7 O C J C7 Podormeg and 011Nrs1 am uses,such I I I I I I P(3) P P I P P I P I P I (P(t) as art galkAn and SWORDS Um c and monument Seri I I I I P P I I I Pubic anon"(indoor):BOOMfecltMn: P P P P P") PO Pm ►(1) monas:ndh wWer and aNbldon help, bowing 8".on plryarg(adtgles. C1a) skiing Mks,om stand,dubs:aMkdc dubs: tons" comas:theaters tesduding school facMdes) Pebae anrn"(outdsorr Fwgrounds P P and smYMnatd Parts:tannk COORM Ahkdc khw modann got go-can tads,an tlroatrr etc - aPece ssc eenretSrin.parks. C C C Q C C C I C C I C C C C C P(q PM Pil C PM C C C e C geg taursa and otlra C C C Cr reauft fetdltln,kdusRog hold rigs er SDocanss asooemod oervaith. Effelo»rocr*m^D @ran I I I I I I I A A I A A Porno dubs,fratemal lodges,etc I e l e l C I e i e l e l e e e e e e l e C c I C C C I m c l C C C C e e Recrssbonal vohido Okras I I l I I I I I I I I I I C I I P I I I I I IAC wry use AndtwikingS AI IA . IA IA A AIAIAIA A AIA11tA AI AI AIAIAIAIA AIAIA(gI cuu ma"■opunepant to a O"Mmed RKmvooW buddmgs m MNP I I I ( I I I I A I I I I�I I I I I .f _ Go S0 5+ ZONING § 15.u9.050 i face g and zoning map amendments may be plywood beneric notice board, to heard by the planning commission and be issued by the city planning depart- city council. ment, and as follows: The applicant - shall apply to the city for issuance of 2. Amendments to the text of this title the notice board, and shall deposit may be initiated by resolution of inten- with the city planning department the tion by the planning commission. amount of sixty dollars ($60.00). The 3. Official zoning map amendments (re- applicant shall be responsible for place- zones),including the application of the ment of the notice boards in one (1) "C" suffix, may be initiated by applica- conspicuous place on or adjacent to the tion of one(1)or more owners,or their property which is the subject of the agents, of the property affected by the application at least fourteen (14) days proposed amendment, which shall be prior to the date of the public hearing. made on a form prescribed by the plan- Planning department staff shall post ning department and filed with the laminated notice sheets and vinyl in- planning department. The application formation packets on the board no later shall be submitted at least forty-five than ten(10)days prior to the hearing. (45) days prior to the next regularly Upon return of the notice board in good scheduled public hearing date,and shall condition to the planning department be heard by the hearing examiner by the applicant, forty-five dollars within one hundred (100) days of the ($45.00) of the initial notice board de- date of the application; provided, how- posit shall be refunded to the appli- ever,that this period may be extended cant. • in any case for which an environmen- C. Standards and criteria for granting a re y tal impact statement is required. quest for rezone. The following standards B. Public hearing. The hearing examiner shall and criteria shall be used by the hearing hold at least one (1) public hearing on any examiner and city council to evaluate a request for rezone. Such an amendment proposed amendment,and shall give notice shall only be granted if the city council thereof in at least one(1)publication in the determines that the request is consistent local newspaper at least ten (10)days prior with these standards and criteria. to the public hearing. 1. The proposed rezone is consistent with 1. Notice shall be given to all property the comprehensive plan. owners within at least two hundred The proposed rezone and subsequent (200)feet and,when determined by the 2 development of the site would e a planning director, a greater distance com- patible with development in the vicin- from the exterior boundaries of the property which is the subject of the ity, 3 The roposed rezone will nor 1.1nd�11V application. Such notice is to be sent e r ten (10) days prior to the public hear- burden the transportation system in ing. The failure of any property owner the vicinity of the property with signif- to receive the notice of hearing will not icant adverse impacts which cannot be invalidate the proceedings. mitigated. 2 Public notices shall be posted in one(1) 4. Circumstances have changed substan- tially place on or adjacent to the tially since the establishment of the property which is the subject of the current zoning district to warrant the application at least ten (10) days prior proposed rezone. to the date of the public hearing. Pub- 5. The proposed rezone will not adversely lic notice shall be accomplished through affect the health, safety and general use of a four (4) foot by four (4) foot welfare of the citizens of the city. tiupp No 1Y 1288.i