HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 10/18/1999 OCTOBER 291999
THE AGENDA COVER SHEET FOR THE 10/18/99
PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
• TITLE OF ITEM: SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN MULTIFAMILY ZONES
ACTION: Information Item Only
BACKUP MATERIAL: Memorandum dated 10/5/99 from Planning/Public Works Committee
PRESENTER: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager
TIME: 5 minutes
•
U:I USERDATA Public Works-PlanningCommittee1991018pwpc-cvrshl.doc
•
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN
MULTIFAMILY ZONES
•
INFORMATION ITEM ONLY
•
CITY OF Jcl\�JD
1
;9
Jim White, Mayor
tNVICTA
Planning Department (253) 8 5 6-5 45 41FAX(253) 856-6454
James P. Harris, Planning Director
October 12, 1999
TO: TIM CLARK, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING &
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER
RE: SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN MULTIFAMILY ZONES
Councilman Tom Brotherton has expressed a concern about the single-family residential
density in multifamily zones. This concern was outlined in the attached memo to the
Planning Department dated 10-5-99.
• Kent's multifamily zoning districts (MR-D, MR-G, MR-M, MR-H, and MR-T) allow
multifamily residential development in varying densities, as well as single family
residential development. The highest density single family zone has always been used to
determine the density and design of such developments in multifamily zones. Since the
SR-8 zone permits the highest density of all SR zones, this is the zone, which is
referenced in all MR zones for such development. It is not a "mistake" as suggested in
the Committee's memo, but a deliberate decision on behalf of the City to establish
guidelines for the development of single family residences in multifamily zones.
Having said this, there is still the policy question of what density of single family
residences should be permitted in MR zones. While the SR-8 zone allows a minimum lot
size of 4000 sq. ft., the maximum density permitted is 8.71 units per acre. Using some
simple math, this means that the average lot size for a single unit is approximately 5000
square feet. Were there no maximum density specified and only a 4000 sq. ft. minimum
lot size requirement, it may be possible to have in excess of 10 units per acre.
Staff will be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have regarding single
family development in multifamily zones at the Committee's next meeting on October
18, 1999.
FNSIpmIP:IADMIMZoning.sfd.doc
cc: James P.Harris,Planning Director
220 4[h AVE.SO., /KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200
1Y 4
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 5, 1999 RECEIVED
TO: Jim Harris, Planning Department OCT , 5 1999CITY Uk K''NI
PLANNING DEPARTMEN r
FROM: Planning/Public Works Committee
RE: Lot Size of Single Family Residence in Multi Family Zone
In the October 4th Planning/Public Works Committee Meeting, Committee Member Tom Brotherton
questioned why if someone chooses to build single family houses in an area that's zoned multi-family
with relatively high density, they're constrained to a larger minimum lot size than if they were to
build the houses in a single family zoned area. He would like to understand why once an area is
zoned for a certain density with multi family, that density is artificially lowered simply because
someone is building single family residences. Mr. Brotherton thought perhaps a mistake had been
• made. The highest single family density should apply which is normally a lot size minimum of 4000
square feet, but for a single family house in a multi family zoned area the limit is 5000 square feet.
Council President Leona Orr(Chair of the Committee and filling in for Tim Clark) asked that Tom's
concern be sent to the Planning Department, and requested that it be brought back to the next
Committee meeting on October 18th
A
Item 2
Public Works/Planning Committee
10/18/99
SCATBd Advisory Interlocal
Agreement = Amendment
Recommended Motion:
1 move that the Public Works/Planning Committee
recommend to the Council authorization for the Mayor to
sign a revised Interlocal Agreement pertaining to the South
County Transportation Board.
PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE
i1. SUBJECT: South King County Area Transportation Board(SCATBd)Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) —Interlocal Agreement Amendment—Motion
2. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Councilmember Tim Clark, who is a member of the
SCATBd, recently met with the SCATBd, and among the items discussed on the
agenda were minor amendments to the existing Interlocal Agreement among the
various SCATBd cities. These amendments, which are typed into the draft
Agreement that is part of this packet, essentially relate to the rights and obligations
of voting, as opposed to non-voting, members. Mr. Clark will be on hand to discuss
this matter and to answer questions.
3. MOTION: To authorize the Mayor to sign a revised Interlocal Agreement
pertaining to the South County Transportation Board.
•
Attachment 2
1 SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD (SCATBd)
• 2 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAQ
3
4 RECOMMENDATION for meeting of September 21, 1999
5
6 Approve the attached SCATBd Agreement and forward it to each city for adoption and
7 signature.
8
9 BACKGROUND:
10
11 The SCATBd was formed in 1992 by the adoption of an establishing motion by each
12 participating jurisdiction. Since that time, new cities have formed and SCATBd has
13 acquired additional responsibilities.
14
15 SCATBd has expressed interest in providing an opportunity for new cities to formally
16 join SCATBd and for updating information contained in the original establishing motion
17 by developing an Agreement to be signed by all participating parties.
18
19 The attached SCATBd Agreement recommends several changes from the previous
20 establishing motion, in addition to housekeeping changes.
21
22 The revised SCATBd Agreement:
23 1. Identifies those topics for which SCATBd is currently responsible for providing policy
24 direction for the subarea to King County:
25 ■ Allocation of new transit service subsidy
26 • Development of the six year transit development plan
27 • Implementation of transit service priorities
28 ■ Recommendations for TEA-21 regional project identification and Countywide
29 project selection
30 2. Indicates that SCATBd may consider other transportation issues as well
31 3. Acknowledges that other transportation agencies may use these boards as tools for
32 sharing information and gathering input
33 4. Recognizes that Sound Transit specifically requires consideration of SCATBd
34 approval of changes to the Sound Move Plan as one of six criteria in making a
35 determination about changes
36 5. Adds the cities of Covington and Maple Valley as new members
37 6. Provides for the addition of additional members as SCATBd determines
38
39 Staff support would continue to be provided by the King County Department of
4o Transportation through 2002.
41
42 No financial requirement is imposed, although provisions are included for financial
43 contributions in the future if SCATBd determines to exercise them. (This basic language
44 also was included in the original establishing motion.)
45
1
Attachment 3
1 DRAFT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
2 For the
3 SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD
4
5 Parties to Agreement:
6
7 City of Algona Pierce Transit
8 City of Auburn Port of Seattle
9 City of Black Diamond Puget Sound Regional Council
10 City of Burien Sound Transit
11 City of Covington Transportation Improvement Board
12 City of Des Moines Washington State Department of
13 City of Enumclaw Transportation, Office of
14 City of Federal Way Urban Mobility
15 King County
16 City of Kent
17 City of Maple Valley
18 City of Milton
19 City of Normandy Park
20 City of Pacific
21 City of Renton
22 City of SeaTac
• 23 City of Tukwila
24
25 Transmitted to participating members on
26
27
28 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and among the CITY OF ALGONA,
29 hereafter called"Algona"; the CITY OF AUBURN, hereafter called "Auburn"; the CITY
30 OF BLACK DIAMOND, hereafter called "Black Diamond"; the CITY OF BURIEN,
31 hereafter called`Burien"; the CITY OF COVINGTON, hereafter called"Covington"; the
32 CITY OF.DES MOINES, hereafter called"Des Moines"; the CITY OF ENUMCLAW,
33 hereafter called"Enumclaw"; the CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, hereafter called "Federal
34 Way"; KING COUNTY, a legal subdivision of the State of Washington, hereafter called
35 "King County"; the CITY OF KENT, hereafter called "Kent"; the CITY OF MAPLE
36 VALLEY, hereafter called "Maple Valley"; the CITY OF MILTON, hereafter called
37 "Milton"; the CITY OF NORMANDY PARK, hereafter called "Normandy Park'; the
38 CITY OF PACIFIC, hereafter called "Pacific"; the CITY OF RENTON, hereafter called
39 "Renton"; the CITY OF SEATAC, hereafter called "SeaTac"; the CITY OF TUKWILA,
40 hereafter called"Tukwila"; the PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL, hereafter
41 called the "PSRC"; the CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL TRANSIT
42 AUTHORITY, hereafter called "Sound Transit"; the TRANSPORTATION
43 IMPROVEMENT BOARD, hereafter called"TIB"; the PORT OF SEATTLE, hereafter
44 called the"Port of Seattle"; PIERCE TRANSIT, hereafter called "Pierce Transit"; the
09/13/99 1
1 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereafter called
2 "WSDOT".
3
4 WHEREAS, South King (County has a history of multi jurisdictional transportation
5 planning dating back to the late 1970's including the Green River Valley Transportation
6 Action Plan (GRVTAP), which was a multijurisdictional effort coordinated by the Puget
7 Sound Council of Governments (now Puget Sound Regional Council) and involving King
8 County, the Washington $tate Department of Transportation, (WSDOT) and the cities of
9 Auburn, Kent, Renton and Tukwila; and
10
l i WHEREAS, each of the jurisdictions in the South King County area has experienced
12 significant population growth and economic development in the last decade, and project
13 continued growth and development in the future; and
14
15 WHEREAS, the cities of Auburn, Kent, Renton, and Tukwila have changed in
16 geographic area since the late 1970's; and
17
18 WHEREAS, the cities of Algona,Des Moines, Enumclaw, Milton, Normandy Park and
19 Pacific did not participate in the GRVTAP because they were outside the study area, but
20 are clearly impacted by trjaffic congestion problems in the South County area; and
21
22 WHEREAS, the cities ofBurien, Federal Way, and SeaTac did not exist during most of
23 the transportation planning history in South King County; and •
24
25 WHEREAS, King Country, Metro, WSDOT, and the cities of Auburn, Des Moines, Kent,
26 Renton, Tukwila, and Se�Tac have demonstrated, through the South County Area
27 Transportation Benefit District Steering Committee and program development effort, the
. 28 benefits that can be achieved by regional coordination; and
29
30 WHEREAS, the enormous cost of many of the needed transportation improvements and
31 their importance to South King County as a whole demonstrate the need for a cooperative
32 approach to the planning; financing and construction of these improvements; and
33
34 WHEREAS, many of the transportation problems which were identified in GRVTAP still
35 exist and new transportation management issues have emerged include the Commute Trip
36 Reduction Act of 1990, the transportation planning and financing requirements of the
37 Growth Management Act of 1990, and the regional high capacity transportation plan for
38 Sound Move; and
39
40 WHEREAS, King County, WSDOT and the South King County cities of Auburn,Des
41 Moines, Kent, Renton,Tukwila, SeaTac, Burien, Federal Way, Algona,Pacific, Milton,
42 Normandy Park,Enumclaw, and Black Diamond in 1992 recognized that a cooperative
43 approach to the transportation problems would facilitate application of the South King
44 County jurisdictions for funding from the State of Washington and the United States, and
45 in recognition of this, fou'med the South County Area Transportation Board to serve as a
09/13/99 2
1 central forum for solving transportation issues affecting the South County area
2 jurisdictions; and
0 3
a WHEREAS, the new cities of Maple Valley and Covington have recently been formed
5 and have been participating in SCATBd discussions.
6 .
7 NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the
8 parties hereto agree as follows:
9
10 1.0 Purpose of Agreement
11
12 The purpose of the Agreement is to identify the voting and non-voting members of the
13 South County Area Transportation Board (SCATBd), and provide for the continuation of
la the SCATBd as the South County forum for information sharing, consensus building and
15 coordinating to resolve transportation issues
16
17 2.0 Role of SCATBd
18
19 The SCATBd is the forum established for the South County subarea of King County at
20 which elected officials may provide input into the following decisions, and such other
21 transportation-related issues as the members determine:
22 a) development of the King County Metro six year transit development plan
23 b) implementation of transit service priorities
1024 c) recommendations for TEA-21 regional project identification and Countywide project
25 selection
26 d) modifications to service implementation in the Sound Move Plan and Phase H
27 planning efforts
28
29 The other two subareas have similar form: the Eastside Transportation Partnership and
30 the SeaShore Transportation Forum.
09/13/99 3
1 3.0 Voting and Non-Voting Members
2
3 3.1 The members of SCATBd and their voting rights shall be as follows:
4
MEMBERS NUMBER OF VOTING
REPRESENTATIVES
Algona 1 Yes
Auburn 1 Yes
Black Diamond 1 Yes
Burien 1 Yes
Covington 1 Yes
Des Moines 1 Yes
Enumclaw 1 Yes
Federal Way 1 Yes
King County 2 Yes
Kent i Yes
Maple Valley 1 Yes
Milton 1 Yes
Normandy Park 1 Yes
Pacific 1 Yes
Renton 1 Yes
SeaTac 1 Yes
Tukwila 1 Yes
Port of Seattle 1 No
Puget Sound Regional CoIuncil 1 No
Sound Transit 1 No
Pierce Transit 1 No
-Transportation Im rovemient Board 1 No
-Washington State De arttnent of Transportation 1 No
5
6 3.2 Existing or new cities legally formed under the laws of incorporation of the State of
7 Washington may petition SCATBd for membership. The number of SCATBd
8 representatives and the status of new members shall be determined by a simple majority
9 of voting representatives present at a meeting of the SCATBd at which a quorum is
10 present.
11
12 3.3 Private sector groups that represent the South County may be added as nonvoting
13 members in SCATBd as determined by a simple majority of voting representatives
14 present at a meeting of the SCATBd at which a quorum is present.
09/13/99 4
1 4.0 SCATBd
2
3 4.1 Each member city shall be entitled to one position on the Board. King County shall
4 be entitled to two positions. The Port of Seattle,PSRC,TIB,Pierce Transit, Sound
5 Transit and WSDOT shall be entitled to one position each. Each member should appoint
6 one representative and one alternate to the Board,each for one year terms. For the
7 County and cities, the representative should be an elected official; the alternate may be an
8 elected official or high level staff member as best serves both the jurisdiction and the
9 Board.
10
11 4.2 The Board will be responsible for overall program direction, approving Technical
12 Advisory Committee recommendations, and on-going communication with the governing
13 body of each member jurisdiction.
14
15 4.3 A quorum of Board membership, that being at least fifty percent of the number of voting
16 members plus one, shall be required to conduct business. At least fifty percent of the
17 number of voting Board members, plus one affirmative vote, is required to take action.
18 The Board shall establish its own bylaws and rules of procedure, and may modify these as
19 appropriate. Such bylaws and rules shall be consistent with the provisions of the
20 Agreement, and modifications to such bylaws and rules will not alter this Agreement.
21
22 4.4 The Chair and Vice-Chair shall be elected by a major ity f the voting representatives
tin
23 on the SCATBd, and each shall be a representative of a memb` r city.or county. The
24 Chair and Vice Chair shall serve a term of one year from January 1 through December.
25
26 4.5 The Chair and Vice Chair shall conduct the SCATBd activities within adopted
27 procedures and guidelines. They are responsible for setting meeting agendas,ensuring
28 fair opportunity for discussion, signing correspondence, and speaking on behalf of
29 SCATBd.
30
31 4.6 With a simple majority, the SCATBd can adopt resolutions in support of member
32 jurisdictions or regional activities, authorize studies, approve correspondence or request
33 information.
34
35 5.0 Committees
36
37 5.1 The Board may establish such committees as are necessary to carry out its purpose
38 including but not limited to a Technical Advisory Committee as described below.
39
40 5.2 Each member jurisdiction or agency shall appoint an appropriate department director
41 or division manager to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The City of Seattle,
42 Pierce County, the City of Tacoma, and Pierce Transit may appoint similar level staff to
43 the TAC. Other jurisdictions, agencies, or groups maybe added as determined by the
44 Board. The TAC-shall provide technical assistance as requested by the Board and shall
45 advise the Board of emergent transportation issues for the Board's consideration. To the
09/13/99 5
I extent possible, existing;technical or other work groups with which South County
2 jurisdictions are participating should be used. South County area staff could, if necessary,
3 form a subarea caucus for the purpose of assisting in bringing issues to the Technical
4 Advisory Committee or the Board.
5
6 6.0 Lead Agency
7
8 King County shall provide general administrative and program support for the SCATBd
9 and will be the Lead Agency for the purposes of coordination and receipt of any funds or
10 contract administration.IKing County assumes wage and benefits cost of its staff
11 performing Lead Agency responsibilities.
12
13 7.0 Member Agency Staff Support
14
15 Each member jurisdiction and agency is expected to contribute such staff as is necessary
16 to accomplish the workprogram adopted by the SCATBd.
17
18 8.0 Work Program
19
20 The SCATBd may undertake activities consistent with its purposes and shall prepare an
21 annual work program for the following year and progress report on the year just
22 completed for submittal to its members.
23
24 9.0 Cost Sharing Gui4elines:
25
26 At such time that member jurisdictions and agencies agree that a specific undertaking of
27 the Board requires financial support, these guidelines shall generally apply:
28
29 (1) Annual Review of Financing: The Board shall determine by June 30 of each
30 year whether a financial contribution will be requested of the Board jurisdictions and
31 agencies.
32
33 (2) Member Jurisdictions: Costs shall be shared among member jurisdictions other
34 than King County by a method as determined by action of the Board. Unless agreed
35 to otherwise, KingCounty's share shall be limited to the costs of providing staff
36 support.
37
38 (3) Member Agendies: The member agencies shall not be expected to make a direct
39 funding contribution. -However, in-kind contributions may be necessary as
40 determined by an action of the Board.
41
42 (4) Modification to Agreement Required: A modification to this interlocal
43 agreement specifying cost-sharing, purpose, scope of work and other details is
44 required to obligate a member jurisdiction to funding participation.
09/13/99 6
1
2 10.0 Withdrawal of a Party from this Agreement
M34 Each party, for its convenience and without cause or for any reason whatsoever, may
5 withdraw from participation in this Agreement by providing written notice, sent certified
6 mail, return receipt required, to all of the other parties at least thirty (30) days in advance
7 of the effective date of the withdrawal. A withdrawing party shall not be entitled to a
8 refund of any payments to SCATBd but shall make any contributions required to be paid
9 to other parties under this Agreement for costs which had been obligated prior to the
10 effective date of the withdrawal. In the event a party withdraws, the remaining parties
11 shall amend this Agreement as necessary to reflect changes in the named parties and cost
12 and revenue allocations. In the event of withdrawal by a party, this Agreement shall
13 terminate as to that party but shall continue in effect with respect to the remaining parties.
14 However, the termination of this Agreement with respect to one or more parties shall not
15 affect any of the parties' rights or obligations, including any rights or obligations of a
16 withdrawing party, that are expressly intended to survive termination.
17
18 Each party's funding to perform its obligations under the Agreement, beyond the current
19 appropriation year, is conditional upon appropriation by the party's governing body of
20 sufficient funds to support said obligations. Should such an appropriation not be
21 approved for a future year, a party may exercise its right to withdraw as provided herein, or to
22 remain a non-voting member.
23 .11.0 Duration
• 24
25 This Agreement shall take effect upon being duly adopted by the governing bodies of all
26 parties and executed by the authorized representatives of all parties. This Agreement
27 shall remain in effect until December 31, 2002, unless terminated earlier or extended in
28 accordance with Section 17.0.
29
30 12.0 Termination
31
32 All parties to this Agreement must agree to terminate this Agreement in order for such
33 termination to be effective. If all parties desire to terminate this Agreement, they shall
34 execute a Statement of Termination. Upon termination, no party shall be required to
35 make any additional contributions. Any remaining funds shall be refunded to the parties
36 to this Agreement according to Section 14.0.
37
38 13.0 Real and Personal Property
39
40 The acquisition of real property is not anticipated under this Agreement. Any personal
41 property acquired pursuant to this Agreement shall be held by the Lead Agency. In the
42 event this Agreement expires or is terminated in accordance with Section 12.0, any
43 personal property other than cash shall remain with the Lead Agency.
7
09/13/99
i
1 14.0 Return of Funds
2
3 At such time as this Agreement expires or is terminated in accordance with Section 12.0,
4 any unexpended and uncommitted funds shall be distributed proportionately to those.
5 parties to this Agreement at the time of termination based on each party's percentage
6 share of the original contribution.
7
8 15.0 Filing
9
l0 This Agreement shall bei,filed with the King County Department of Records and
11 Elections.
12
13 16.0 Legal Relations
14
15 16.1 The parties shall comply with all applicable.state and federal laws and regulations.
16
17 16.2 This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and gives no right to
18 any other party. No joint venture or partnership is formed as a result of this Agreement.
19 No employees or agents''of one party or any of its contractors or subcontractors shall be
20 deemed, or represent themselves to be, employees of any other party.
21
22 16.3 Each party shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other party and all of its
23 officials, employees; principals and agents from all claims, demands, suits, actions, and
24 liability of any kind whatsoever which arise out of, are connected with, or are incident to
25 any negligent acts of tho first party, its contractor, and/or employees, agents, and
26 representatives in perfoRming the first party's obligations under this Agreement. The
27 parties agree that their obligations under this paragraph extend to claims made against one
28 party by the other party's own employees. For this purpose, the parties, by mutual
29 negotiation, hereby waiA e, as respects the other party only, any immunity that would
30 otherwise be available against such claims under the industrial insurance provisions of
31 RCW Title 51. In the event either party incurs attorney's fees, costs or other legal
32 expenses to enforce they provisions of this section, against the other party, all such fees,
33 costs and expenses shall be recoverable by the prevailing party.
34
35 16.4 The provisions of this Section shall survive and remain applicable to each of the
36 parties notwithstanding any termination or expiration of this Agreement and
37 notwithstanding a party's withdrawal from this Agreement.
38
39 17.0 Entirety and Modifications
40
41 17.1 This Agreement emerges and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and
42 agreements between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof and constitutes the
43 entire agreement between the parties.
44
09/13/99 8
t
1 17.2 This Agreement may be modified or extended only by written instrument signed by
2 all parties hereto.
18.0 Counterparts
5
6 The signature pages of this Agreement may be executed in any numberbf counterparts,
7 each of which shall be an original.
09/13/99 9
1
2 Signature Page
3
4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,they Parties have caused this Agreement to be signed and delivered by its duly
5 authorized officer or representative as of the date set forth below its signature.
6
CITY OF ALGONA CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY OF RENTON
By By By
Date Date Date
CITY OF AUBURN KING COUNTY CITY OF SEATAC
By By By
Date Date Date
CITY OF BLACK DIAMORB CITY OF KENT CITY OF TUKWILA
By By By
Date Date Date
CITY OF BURIEN CITY OF MAPLE VALLEY PUGET SOUND REGIONAL
COUNCIL
By By By
Date Date Date
CITY OF COVINGTON CITY OF MILTON SOUND TRANSIT ,
By By By
Date Date Date
CITY OF DES MOINES CITY OF NORMANDY PARK WASHINGTON STATE
DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
By By
Date Date By
Date
CITY OF ENUMCLAW CITY OF PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT BOARD
By By BY
Date Date Date
PORT OF SEATTLE PIERCE TRANSIT
BY By
Date Date
7
09/14/99 10
Item 3
Public Works/Planning Committee
10Ha/99
Water Rates
Information Only
i
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
October 1.9, 1999
TO: Public Works/Planning Committee
FROM: Don WickstromA6)
RE: Water Rates
This issue is before the Committee at the request of Tim Clark. I will be in
attendance at the Committee meeting to answer any questions regarding water rates
within the City of Kent.
i
{
Item 4
Public Works/Planning Committee
4o/18/99
i
Traffic Congestion
Information Only
•
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
October 19, 1999
TO: Public Works/Planning Committee
FROM: Don Wicicstrom(
RE: Traffic Congestion
This issue is before the Committee to discuss the nature of the traffic congestion
problem and possible solutions. John Bond, Public Works Traffic Specialist, is
preparing a flow chart map depicting the heavy traffic areas and will be in attendance
to assist in answering your questions.
Item 5
Public Works/Planning Committee
10/18/99
Single Family Development
in Multi Family Zones
Information Only
CITY OF dwc\ J 2j2IT
Jim White, Mayor
r1PVICTA
Planning Department (253) 856-54541FAX(253) 856-6454
James P. Harris, Planning Director
October 12, 1999
TO: TIM CLARK, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING &
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER
RE: SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN MULTIFAMILY ZONES
Councilman Tom Brotherton has expressed a concern about the single-family residential
density in multifamily zones. This concern was outlined in the attached memo to the
Planning Department dated 10-5-99.
Kent's multifamily zoning districts (MR-D, MR-G, MR-M, MR-H, and MR-T) allow
multifamily residential development in varying densities, as well as single family
residential development. The highest density single family zone has always been used to
determine the density and design of such developments in multifamily zones. Since the
SR-8 zone permits the highest density of all SR zones, this is the zone, which is
referenced in all MR zones for such development. It is not a "mistake" as suggested in
the Committee's memo, but a deliberate decision on behalf of the City to establish
guidelines for the development of single family residences in multifamily zones.
Having said this, there is still the policy question of what density of single family
residences should be permitted in MR zones. While the SR-8 zone allows a minimum lot
size of 4000 sq. ft., the maximum density permitted is 8.71 units per acre. Using some
simple math, this means that the average lot size for a single unit is approximately 5000
square feet. Were there no maximum density specified and only a 4000 sq. ft. minimum
lot size requirement, it may be possible to have in excess of 10 units per acre.
Staff will be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have regarding single
family development in multifamily zones at the Committee's next meeting on October
18, 1999.
FATpmIP:UDM1MZoning.sfd.doe
cc: James P.Harris,Planning Director
220 41h AVE.SO.. /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 5, 1999
TO: Jim Harris, Planning Department
FROM: Planning/Public Works Committee
RE: Lot Size of Single Family Residence in Multi Family Zone
In the October 4"' Planning/Public Works Committee Meeting, Committee Member Tom Brotherton
questioned why if someone chooses to build single family houses in an area that's zoned multi-family
with relatively high density, they're constrained to a larger minimum lot size than if they were to
build the houses in a single family zoned area. He would like to understand why once an area is
zoned for a certain density with multi family, that density is artificially lowered simply because
someone is building single family residences. Mr. Brotherton thought perhaps a mistake had been
made. The highest single family density should apply which is normally a lot size minimum of 4000
square feet, but for a single family house in a multi family zoned area the limit is 5000 square feet.
Council President Leona Orr(Chair of the Committee and filling in for Tim Clark) asked that Tom's
concern be sent to the Planning Department, and requested that it be brought back to the next
Committee meeting on October 18`n