HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 01/16/1996 CITY of � Z1'Jv�S
CITY T�` _'� 1L C PLANNING� 0,)►1t"MI'j.1 ` E E
AGENDA Jim White, Mayor
JANUARY 16, 199E
THE CITY 'COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE IS HOLDING:A tl,i. RjL'Cs FOR
JANtIARY ib, 1996 WHICH IS SCHEDF�ZED F'OF 4�:00 F f ANI) WILL S All I D fn�
T'HE COIIIVCIL CHAMBERS EAST;ROOM OF KENT CITY HALL AT 22 t v. I'OURT'KI
AVENUE.
Committee Members
Leona Orr, Chair
Jon Johnson
Tim Clark
AGENDA
1. Single Family Residential Cluster INFORMATION ITEM - 20 Minutes
and Zero Lot Line Development Zoning
Code and Subdivision Cede Amendments
#ZCA-95-2/SCA-95-1 - (L. Phillips)
2. Amendments to Kent's SEPA ordinance INFORMATION ITEM - 15 Minutes
- (J. Harris)
3. Implementation of School Impact Fee INFORMATION - 15 Minutes
Ordinance - (L. Orr)
Added Items:
ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY IN
ADVANCE FOR MORE INFORMATION. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE, CALL 1-800.635-9993
OR THE CITY OF KENT AT (206)854-6587. mp:c:pco116.agn
220 4th AVE SO /KENT WASHTNCTON 98032-5895/TPLPPHONE (206)859-3300/FAX#859-3334
f CITY OF
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390 Jim White, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
JANUARY 16, 1996
MEMO TO: LEONA ORR, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL PLANNING
COMMITTEE
FROM: LINDA PHILLIPS, PLANNER
SUBJECT: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES-CLUSTER AND
ZERO LOT LINE #ZCA-95-2 AND 4SCA-95-1 )
The purpose of this meeting is primarily to provide information regarding street standards in cluster and
small lot developments. As requested by the City Council Planning Committee, Planning,Fire,and Public
Works Department staff are analyzing the City of Kent residential street standards relative to the cluster
housing proposals and residential development in general. Staff from the departments toured small-lot,
detached, single-family developments in Bellevue, Kirkland, and King County. We have discussed
various means of reducing street widths to encourage affordability and to reduce impervious surface
coverage without compromising public safety. To comply with growth management mandates for new
development, a few communities in the region have attempted to resolve the counteractive influences
between City goals for affordable housing and reduced impervious surface coverage, and City goals for
insuring public safety. At the January 16 meeting, we will discuss some of the methods used, and relate
the methods to Kent's specific requirements regarding safety equipment and traffic situations.
A copy of the August 28, 1995 Planning Commission memo and chart contain the Planning Department
recommendations for revised Kent Zoning Code density and lot dimension provisions is attached to this
memo, together with two letters of recommendation for the principles of cluster housing, one from the
Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, and one from Scott Gessler of Real Estate
2000 Corporation. A copy of a report on new standards for residential streets in Portland, Oregon is also
attached for your information. It contains a summary of recommendations for street standards, based on
an analysis of other cities experience, and local needs.
LP/mp:a:ccpc l l6.mem
Attachments
cc: Jim Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Don Wickstrom, Public Works Director
Gary Gill, City Engineer
Ed White, Jr., Transportation Engr Supr
Mary Berg, Assistant Fire Chief
Larry Webb, Fire Marshal
220 4th AVE.SO.. /KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5995 I TELEPHONE (205)i59 33001 FAX 4 8>9-3334
CITY OF r�\Lr-47��
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(206) 859-3390
MEMORANDUM
August 28 , 1995
MEMO TO : Chairman Kent Morrill and Planning Commission Members
FROM: Linda Phillips, Planner
RE : Cluster and Zero Lot Line Development -
#ZCA-95-2 and #SCA-95-1
A major issue addressed in the Kent Planning Goals and
Comprehensive Plan is the provision of a variety of housing
opportunities to accommodate expected population growth within
Kent ' s growth boundary in the next two decades . City residents and
elected and appointed officials have expressed a preference for
meeting growth planning and housing goals with predominantly single
family housing, since approximately 68% of the existing housing in
Kent is multifamily housing. Two residential development patterns,
discussed in this memo, cluster and zero lot line development, have
been used in other jurisdictions to provide opportunities to meet
housing goals while maintaining the character of single family
neighborhoods . In addition, cluster development provides
opportunities to preserve open space for community greens and
recreation, natural resources, environmentally critical areas, and
historic preservation. Single family residential cluster
development is also used as an alternative to stacked or attached
residential units in multifamily residential zones .
The recommended staff additions and revisions to the Zoning Code
and Subdivision Code related to Cluster and Zero Lot Line
development in Single Family and Multifamily zones are attached to
this memo . In an attempt to facilitate Planning Commission and
public review of the recommended additions and revisions, the
recommendations are presented in approximate code format . This
format is intended for discussion only; not as the final legal
ordinance format and code language which would be eventually
drafted and reviewed by the City Attorney for the final adoption.
Other changes to the related codes may be necessary for the purpose
of cross referencing and integrating new or revised sections with
existing codes .
1
Cluster and Zero Lot Line Development
August 28 , 1995
As discussed in the August 14th Planning Commission workshop, staff
also requests consideration of the following issues :
1 . Revised street standards for streets located in cluster
developments . Staff recommendations, including minimum street
widths, subject to Public Works and Fire Department approval,
will be presented at the August 28th public hearing.
2 . Preparation of a public information manual which would contain
recommended design principles and conceptual designs for
residential cluster development . The _..manual should be
prepared by the Planning Department in coordination with the
Public Works, Parks, and Fire Departments .
3 . Provision of common recreation space within cluster
developments . Staff recommends that common playground space
be provided in cluster developments of more than four
residences, if more than 251 of the individual lots are less
than 7200 square feet in area. The size and nature of the
play area should be determined and approved by the City
through the conditional use or subdivision process .
LP/cw: PC828 .MEM
2
�)
For Discussion Purposes Only
CLUSTER ZONING CODE SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
8/28/95
RECOMMENDED NEW ZONING CODE SECTIONS AUTHORIZING CLUSTER SINGLE
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY ZONING
DISTRICTS :
(Underline indicates existing zoning code sections . The zoning
code does not contain existing cluster provisions, so the major
portion of this recommendation represents a new Zoning Code
section. )
The following sections are recommended to be added to the Kent
Zoning Code, Chapter 15 . 02 . Definitions , Chapter 15 . 04 . Single-
family residential districts, and Chapter 15 . 08 . General and
Supplementary Provisions :
Section 15 . 02 , Definitions
Sec . 15 . 02 . 071 Cluster Housing Development .
Cluster Housing is a residential site design which complies with
underlying zoning in respect to overall density, permits clustering
of residential lots on a portion of the property, or clustering of
more than one residence on a single property, provided that a
minimum area of land, usually in open space, is reserved for
permanent preservation or common use by homeowners within the
development . Detached housing may be clustered on the buildable
part of the tract in a number of ways such as housing on small and
large lots, and zero lot line site plan design.
Sec. 15 . 02 . 581 . Zero Lot Line Development
Zero lot line development is a method of site planning which allows
each single family detached house to be built directly adjacent to
one side lot line, subject to provisions of this title . As a
result , one larger, more usable side yard is created on the
opposite side .
Sec . 15 . 04 . 020 .G. Conditional uses .
1 . Conditional uses are as follows : General conditional
uses as listed in section 15 . 08 . 030 .
2 . Cluster development of more than 4 residences, with the
exception of cluster development in a proposed
subdivision for which a public hearing is required by
Title 12 , Chapter 12 . 04 , Subdivisions .
1
Fur Discussio» Purposes 0i&,,
CLUSTER ZONING CODE SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
8/28/95
Sec . 15 . 08 . 350 . Cluster Housing Development - Authorized,
The intent of cluster housing development is to provide an
alternative development pattern which will provide opportunities to
preserve open space, natural resource areas , envircnmentally
sensitive areas, and/or historic and archeological sites while
permitting development to occur at the densities designated on the
Comprehensive Plan Map.
Cluster housing development may be permitted in the following
single family zoning districts .
A-1 Agricultural
R-A Residential agricultural
R1-20 Single-family residential
R1-12 Single family residential
R1-9 . 6 Single-family residential
R1-7 . 2 Single family residential
R1-5 . 0 Single family residential
Single family cluster housing development may be permitted in the
following multifamily residential zoning districts subject to the
minimum lot size, maximum density, and development standards
specified in this chapter for cluster housing in the R1-5 . 0
district :
MR-D Duplex multifamily residential
MR-G Garden density multifamily residential
MR-M Medium density multifamily residential
MR-H High density multifamily residential
Sec . 15 . 08 . 360 . Same-Permitted uses .
Except as provided in this chapter, uses permitted in
cluster developments shall be as outlined in Section
15 . 04 . 020, Single family residential district . (note:
recommended cluster provisions, provided in this chapter,
include development of more than one single family
dwelling per lot where adequate land area is available -
underlying zoning specifies 1 dwelling per lot)
Sec . 15 . 08 . 370 . Same-Development Standards for cluster development
in single family zoning districts .
A. Minimum site area. Minimum site area shall be one (1)
acre .
B . Minimum lot size, maximum density, maximum site coverage,
2
DRAFT
For Discussion Puri)oses OnIV
CLUSTER ZONING CODE SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
8/28/95
impervious area coverage, density, minimum yard
requirements, and height may be found on the Chart in
section is. 08. 390 of this Chapter. Except as provided in
this chapter, the development standards of the underlying
zones shall apply. To provide appropriate development
standards for lots which may vary in size, the following
provisions apply:
1 . Individual lots in the R1-7 . 2 and R1-9 . 6 districts
which are less than 6500 square feet in area shall
be subject to the applicable provisions of the R1-
5 . 0 district .
2 . For lots of one acre or more in size the applicable
provisions of the RA district will apply.
3 . The maximum building coverage and impervious
surface coverage on lots smaller than 15 , 000 square
feet shall comply with the standards of the R. 1
zone with the nearest minimum lot size .
4 . Residences may be clustered on a single parcel at
the permitted density of the underlying zone .
Except for zero lot line development, separation
between residences must be 10 feet or as required
by the Kent building code and Fire Department
standards, whichever is greater.
C. Zero lot line provisions in cluster housing-Zero lot line
development may be permitted within cluster subdivisions
and developments subject to the provisions of Section
15 . 08 . 300 .
15 . 08 . 380 Same-Required Open Space
A. Open space, area and purpose.
1 . A minimum of twenty (20) percent of the gross land
area, exclusive of required landscape or storm
drainage areas, shall be permanently preserved in a
contiguous area in each cluster development for one
or more of the following purposes :
a. Preservation of environmental critical areas .
b. Preservation of natural resource areas such as
forests, farmlands, wildlife resource areas
and habitat .
C . To provide areas for passive and/or active
3
FRAFT
Vot, Discussion Purposes Only
CLUSTER ZONING CODE SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
8/28/95
recreation.
d. To provide a common green or open space
feature which provides a community focus .
e . Preservation of historical and archeological
resources .
2 . The open space parcel shall be recorded by the King
County Department of Records on the face of the
short plat or subdivision plat . Open space on
undivided parcels shall be recorded with a
protective open space easement agreement .
B . open Space, ownership and maintenance. Area preserved as
open space shall be owned and maintained as follows :
a. If the open space is under one (1) ownership, it
shall be maintained by the ownership.
b. If the open space is held in common ownership by
all the owners of the development, a homeowners
association shall be responsible for maintenance of
the common open space .
C . A maintenance agreement which runs with the land of
the residential lots within the cluster
subdivision, or with the land in one ownership
shall be recorded to insure perpetual maintenance
of the open areas , private streets, and utilities
within the development .
d. Under certain circumstances, ownership of the open
space may be assumed by the City as a park or
public open space .
Sec . 15 . 08 . 385 . Same . Application process .
With the exception of cluster developments of four lots or less, or
subdivisions which require a public hearing subject to Title 13 ,
Chapter 12 . 04 Subdivisions, application, review, and decision
procedures shall be determined by Section 15 . 09 . 030 . Conditional
use permit .
CLUZC. 3
4
CLUSTER ZONING CODE SECTION
8/14/95
15.08.390 Same, Densities and Dimensions Chart
PROPOSED DENSITIES AND DIMENSIONS
CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
AG/RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
ZOO A-1 RA R1-20 RI-12 R1-9.6 R]-7.2 R1-5.0
PERMITTED DENSITY IDU/A IDU/A 2DU/A 3DU/A 4.5DU/A 6DU/A SDU/A
NIININnJM LOT WIDTH
KING COUNTY 35 35 NA NA NA 30 30
KENT EXISTING I00 100 70 70 70 70 50
KENT PROPOSED 35 35 35 35 r 35 30 30
NHN.STREET SETBACK
KING COUNTY 30 30 NA NA NA 10 10
KENT EXISTING 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
KENT PROPOSED 20 20 10 10 ! 10 10 10
Average Average Average Average Average Average Average
NnN. INTERIOR
SETBACKS
KING COUNTY 10 10 NA NA NA 5 5
KENT EXISTING S-15 S-15 S-5 S-5 S-5 S-5 S-5
R-20 R-20 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8
KENT PROPOSED 10 1D S-5 S-5 S-5 5 5
R-8 R-8 R-3
MAMNI't
UINI HEIGHT
KING COUNTY 35 35 NA NA NA 35 35
KENT EXISTING 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
KENT PROPOSED 3S ! 35 35 3535 35 35
MAX. BLDG. COVERAGE
•KING COUNTY 15% 15% NA NA NA 50% 55%
• KENT EXISTING 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 307. 40%
*KENT PROPOSED 30% 30°k' 30%a 45, 45°b 50% 55 e
MAX. IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE
*KING COUNTY 209c 20% NA NA NA 70% 7575
KENT EXISTING NA NA NA NA I NA NA NA
'KENTPROPOSED 40% 40% 40% 50% 60% 7056 75%
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
KING COUNTY I NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
KENT EXISTING I 43,450 SF 43,450 SF 20,000 SF 12,000 SF 9,600 SF 7,200 SF 5,000 SF
KENT PROPOSED 120,000 SF 20,000 SF ` 11,000 SF 6,500 SF 5,500 SF: 4,200 SF 3,000 SF
c)r Disc;�;;sian ('tyrpja�,�s f��;iY
SUBDIVISION CODE-CLUSTER RECOMAIENDATIONS
8/28/95
RECOMMENDED NEW SUBDIVISION CODE SECTION TO AUTHORIZE CLUSTER
SUBDIVISIONS :
(The subdivision code does not currently contain cluster subdivision
provisions . Most of the following recommendations relate to new
Subdivision Code sections . Existing sections are indicated by
underlining. )
Sec . 12 . 04 . 050 . Definitions . . . . .
Cluster subdivision shall mean a residential subdivision which
complies with underlying zoning in respect to overall density, but
permits clustering of residences, provided that a minimum area of
land is reserved for permanent preservation or common use by
homeowners in the development . Detached housing may be clustered
on the buildable land subject to the provisions of Title 15 .
Sec . 12 . 04 . 486 . Cluster Subdivisions
A. Cluster subdivisions shall be permitted, subject to the provisions
of Title 15, Kent Zoning Code . Zoning Code provisions include
minimum lot size, and maximum density.
C. The following standards shall apply to cluster subdivision. In
addition the regulation of sections 12 . 04 . 430 , 12 . 04 . 440 , 12 . 04 . 470
and 12 . 04 .480 shall apply unless specifically excepted.
(regarding streets, curbs and sidewalks, installation of utilities ,
storm drainage, water system, and electrical hookups, the language of
12 . 04 . 485 . Zero lot line subdivisions could be used or included by
reference . If the Public Works Department agrees to specific street
standards for cluster developments, a new Section B . 1 . Streets, Curbs
and Sidewalks would be a drafted and added to the section)
Section 12 . 04 . 490 . Parks and open space requirements .
A. Approval of all subdivisions located in either single-family
residential or multifamily residential zones as defined in title
15 zoning shall be continaent upon the subdivider' s dedication of
land or providina fees in lieu of dedication to the city, as
necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the
existing park and recreation service levels . This requirement
shall not apply to lots of forty-three thousand five hundred
(43 , 500) square feet or larger in size planned unit developments
or subdivisions of four (4) or less lots, or cluster subdivisions
which provide twenty (20) percent or more of the total land area
for recreational open space .
CLUSUB.REC
NOV-22-95 WED 17:23 HEARTLAND FAX NO. 206 467 1429 U21J?
Master Builders Assodatoion
of King and Snohomish Counties
2155- 112th Avenue N.E.,Suite l00 •Beiievue,washingion 98004-2W
(206)451.7920. 1.800-522-2209•FAX(206)646.5985 November�, 1995
Master Buileers ASSOCiatiOn is aMilated with the Nefivnoi ASSeeiOtion Of HOme 3uBders
r+�*•, IT 7-1
u a
The Honorable Jim White
The Mayor's Office
City of Kent
220 Fourth Ave S
Kent WA 98432
Dear Mayor White,
The Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties urces the C:.ity.Council to adopt the
proposed code char s'for cluster and zero ,lot line development, #ZCA-95-2"and 4SCA-95-1. We
believe the proposal is'a,p 1.ositive chanp over the current regulations and will prove to be a much better
working document£or your staff to administer.
Through the,adoption'of the Countywide Planning Policies'and the.King County Comprehensive Plan, it
is imperativz.that"our urban,areas be~thaw lands where growth is;encouraged aad facilitated by local
government. .Unincorporated Icing County well continue to accommodate less growth and will become a
more regignaI voice on matters other tlian liousin- and development. If we arc to meet the goals
established under Countywide Planning, cities, Ie'Kent will become major players in providing an
atmusplrcrc fur affordable housing. ,
The subject proposal.will make:better use of infrastructure dollars and allow higher density housing
along transportation corridors. It -will,also,provide-valuable open space that the public needs to increase
their quality of life. .
Regulatory reform is a stsnificant key to'reducing housing costs for future generations- After adopting
regulatory reform proposals such as the one betore.yqu,I only encourage you to morritar its effectiveness
and provide the City a-gauge to indeed tell if it's achieving its. goal. If not, prtLvide yourselves a
meclianism to make changes easily as you"gu along. A, cost effective process in.creating legislation as
well as a streamlined permit process are also key parts to what you are seeking'to do with any new
regulation.
Thank you for your consideration..
Sincerely,
Don Davis
Assistant Executive Director
cc: Daniel J. Swallow, Land Analyst/Project Manager, Heartland
To Whom It May Concern
The intent of this letter is to express the current
need for affordable housing in the Kent area. To accom-
modate the expected population growth within Kent' s grow-
th boundaries , for single family housing needs , it is our
opinion that cluster housing and zero lot line develop-
ment will give the opportunities needed to maintain the
character of our single family neighborhoods .
Sec. 15 .02 .071 Cluster Housing Development is desi-
gned to comply with underlying zoning permits clustering
of residential lots on a portion of the property, provid-
ed that a minimum area of land, or an open space, is re-
served for permanent preservation or common use by home-
owners with in the development.
Sec . 15 .02 .581 Zero Lot Line Development is design-
ed as a method of site planning which allows each single
family detached house to be built adjacent to one side
lot line, resulting in one larger , more usable side yard
on the opposite side.
I have been to the Planning Department ' s workshops
and meetings following the agenda regarding this matter
and have seen the well intentioned efforts of the Plann-
ing Commission questioned for reasons of concern not cle-
arly defined, leading to a slow down to this beneficial
plan for clustering and zero lot line development .
Considering what other jurisdictions have already
set into place regarding this matter and the benefits
providing opportunities to preserve open space for comm-
unity greens and recreation, natural resources in envir-
onmentally critical areas as well as giving the opport-
unities for affordable single family housing and the re-
venue produced, it is my opinion that the City of Kent
should carry on approving and adopting #SCA-95-1 and #
ZCA-95-2 , Sec. 15 .02 . 581 Zero Lot Llne Development and
Sec. 15 .02 .071 Cluster Housing Development.
Thank You,
RECEIVED )CXA�; 7 1�_" �
Scott Gessler
N 0 V 0 7 1995
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Real Estate 2000 Corporation • Established 1979 (206) 939-2100 Auburn • (206) 628-3000 Seattle
225 Auburn Way N • Aubum, WA 98002 (206) 581-2004 Tacoma • (206) 833-5105 F A X
CITY OF Earl}3lumenauer, Commissioner
-. Transportation Engineering
:. 1120 S.W. Fifth Avenue
3 I L.AI D� OT�=GON Room $02
POR
G:.
4 Portland,Oregon 97204.1971
OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION (503) 796.7004
REPORT ON
NEW STANDARDS
FOR
S
RESIDENTUL STREETS
IN
PORTLAND, OREGON
Terrence L. Bray, P.E.
Karen Carlson Rabiner, P.E.
Bureau of Transportation Engineering
October 18, 1991
INTRODUCTION
Over the past ninety years, it has been Portland's policy to provide maintenance
services on only those local streets built to city standards. Those standards were
developed to ensure that streets accepted for city maintenance meet necessary safety
and durability requirements.
Streets in new subdivisions and other raw land developments are built to city
standards at the expense of the developers, who then pass the cost along to new
home buyers. Construction of city streets in existing neighborhoods has been
accomplished through the city-managed Local Improvement District program, with the
costs being assessed upon the adjacent, benefitting properties. Of the approximately
1200 miles of local streets in Portland, virtually all were improved through these two
approaches.
In Portland today, only about 80 miles of public rights of way used as neighborhood
streets remain unimproved. Many of the residents of these neighborhoods feel that
the city offers too few improvement options, that the street standards are excessive,
and that streets built to these standards are too costly. Added to those concerns is
growing public dissatisfaction with high traffic speeds and volumes on streets already
improved to city standards. Street drainage, erosion control and water pollution
issues have emerged in the Tualatin River Basin, and are a growing concern across
the city.
In 1988, a citizens committee was created to look at and search for solutions to the
problems associated with unimproved neighborhood streets. Through the committee,
the consulting firm of Cogan Sharpe Cogan was retained to "brainstorm" new
solutions to traditional neighborhood street problems. At the suggestion of CSC, the
committee recommended that the city:
1) codify the city's (previously unwritten) maintenance policy.
2) expand efforts to communicate the city's neighborhood improvement policies.
3) develop a contract streets" program to allow residents of existing neighborhoods
the option to construct non-city-maintained streets.
4) develop new standards for city-maintained residential streets.
In January, 1990; the Bureau of Transportation Engiineg9began
eg a rol
anesgram
development efforts for a contract streets program• In
February
ution
formalizing Portland's street maintenance policy was formally adopted by the city.
That same month, the city prepared and published a brochure describing available
city street improvement programs. In May, the city began development of new
standards for city-maintained residential streets.
This report summarizes the development of new residential street standards.
The standards were adopted by the Portland City Council on July 31, 1991.
2
DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS
In a report prepared by the consulting firm of Cogan Sharpe Cogan, it was
recommended that City staff "...begin the effort to establish a performance evaluation
approach to determine appropriate street improvement standards, while remaining
acceptable for maintenance.
Within the body of literature pertaining to the role of the neighborhood street and
impacts on the surrounding environment, the 1980 Bucks County, Pennsylvania
publication, Performance Streets, reflected a new and substantially different view of
the purposes of the various elements of residential street design. That document
states:
"Whether street standards were intuitively based or adapted from highway design,
what seemed to have been overlooked was that local residential streets are part and
parcel of the neighborhood they serve. people live on them. It would seem
desirable, therefore, not solely to move traffic safely and efficiently, but to see that
the needs of people for a residential neighborhood that is quiet, safe, pleasant,
convenient and sociable are met as well."
In 1990, the National Association of Home Builders, the Urban Land Institute, and
the American Society of Civil Engineers joined to publish another milestone in urban
street design, Residential Streets, which advocates:
• designing to minimize traffic volumes and speeds in residential areas
• properly scaled streets
• streets planned to avoid excessive stormwater runoff
• streets which can serve as meeting places and centers of community activity
The philosophies espoused in both documents are clearly shared by many Portlanders.
The challenge was to find a way to bring them to reality, in Portland, now. The
citizens committee's recommendation to develop performance standards was the
beginning.
The first task was to retain a consultant to research the existing standards of several
other communities for purposes of comparison, and then to propose new performance-
based standards. Once the consultant formulated the new performance standards,
Transportation could then evaluate and refine those standards, secure public comment,
and modify them as needed, before final City Council approval of implementation.
After Council approval of the new standards, the consultant would then prepare a
booklet, for distribution to neighborhood groups, explaining neighborhood street
improvement requirements, based on clear, rational performance criteria.
The City of Portland subsequently retained a consulting engineering firm to complete
the following tasks: h o elation
A. Contact at least five North American cities of similar topograp y, p p
and weather conditions to document their comparable local residential street design
and maintenance standards and to learn how they differ from those in Portland.
B. Develop new standards, based on performance criteria.
C. Prepare and submit to the City an "Interim Recommendations Report" which .
summarizes research efforts and describes suggested new performance standards.
D. Draft a "Performance Streets Standards" booklet. The format and style of the
booklet to be similar to the April 1980 publication Performance Streets from the
Bucks County, Pennsylvania Planning Commission.
3
On March 7, 1991, the consultant completed the required Interim Recommendations
Report. The report concluded, with respect to task A, that "...the Portland design
standards and requirements allow more flexibility and do not result in over-designed
facilities."
Below are the consultant's key suggestions, followed by Transportation's
recommendations.
1. Allow additional street width variations.
Response: Transportation concurs with this recommendation. The city's existing
neighborhood street standards are designed primarily as a traffic facility comprised
of two travel lanes, plus either two parking lanes, one parking lane, or no parking,
yielding widths of 32, 28, or 20 feet, respectively. Transportation proposes (a)
reducing the current 32-foot standard to 26 feet, and (b) reducing the current 28-
foot standard to 20 feet.
The problems of Nigh speeds and through, non-neighborhood traffic have been the
source of continuing complaints from throughout the community. Streets designed
to existing standards accommodate or encourage higher travel speeds. Dy virtue
of the appearance of the 28 or 32-foot streets as wide, inviting thoroughfares, they
may also be used as a short-cut by non-neighborhood traffic. In addition to being
considered costly to construct, the existing standards produce excessive stormwater
runoff, require wide rights of way, are wasteful of natural resources, and demand
clearing of many trees and other vegetation.
An approach which reduces all of these problems, and one advocated in the
publication Residential Streets, is building narrower streets with only a single
travel lane. These "queueing streets", intended for two-way traffic, are comprised
of a single traffic lane and a parking lane on one or both sides. When two
vehicles meet on a queueing street, one of the vehicles must yield by pulling over
into a vacant segment of the adjacent parking lane. (Of interest is the fact that
many of the city's older local streets range from 18 to 28 feet wide and, as such,
are queueing streets.)
Acceptable operation of a queueing street occurs only where there are occasional
breaks in the curbside parking approximately forty feet in length to permit the
yielding vehicle to pull over. These breaks are ordinarily available where ample
off-street parking for residents is available, and where on-street parking by
residents or guests is only occasional. Breaks in parking are also provided by
individual driveways, combinations of driveways, and intersections. These
conditions are commonly satisfied in areas Comprehensive Plan zoned Single -
Dwelling residential, R5 (5000 sq.ft. per dwelling unit) through RF (2 acres per
dwelling unit). In more densely-zoned areas, queueing streets may be
inappropriate because of inadequate off-street parking capacity, or because of
differing emergency response requirements.
The city currently requires all streets in new subdivisions to be built to
accommodate on-street parking. The city requires through streets to be 32 feet
wide, which permits two travel lanes plus on-street parking on both sides of the
street. For either cul-de-sacs, or streets serving 80 or fewer dwellings, or one-
way streets, the required dimension is 28 feet, which. permits two travel lanes and
a parking lane on one side only. It is proposed that through streets be built with
4
a single travel lane with parking on one or both sides, for widths of 20 or 26 feet,
respectively. It is also recommended that the decision to provide a street with
two-side versus one-side parking be at the discretion of the developer of the
subdivision or of the property owners funding construction of the street.
The proposal to reduce the widths of through streets differs from that for cul-de-
sacs, where it is proposed that the 20 and 26-foot widths be Permitted to be further
reduced to 18 and 24 feet, respectively. The two foot reduction, termed the "cul-
de-sac compromise", would be constructed only if requested by those funding the
street improvement. Although the additional two foot reduction in travel lane
width reduces impervious surfaces and saves natural resources, it also further
reduces the ease of operation between adjacent parked and moving vehicles,
Because a cul-de-sac serves only those who are directly accessed by it, the two foot
reduction may be a desirable element for those residing on the street.
Because the site of a fire emergency can be accessed from either direction on a
through street, the Portland lore Bureau has endorsed the proposed reduced street
widths for through streets, but cul-de-sac streets present a problem for fire fighting
operations. Hydrants are normally located at the intersection, and the first fire
apparatus responding to an emergency pauses to connect its hoses to that hydrant.
The truck then moves up the street, with the hose being drawn out from the rear,
"snaking" out over the lane. If the street is narrow enough for only a single travel
lane, such as with a queueing street, the second apparatus would have to drive
over the charged hoses, risldng greater damage or injury. Instead, on "short" cul-
de-sacs, the second vehicle will park at the intersection and needed equipment can
be carried to the scene by the firefighters.
On longer cul-de-sac streets, fire fighting capabilities may be seriously compromised
if all equipment must be hand-carried to the emergency scene from the second or
third apparatus. In addition, long, tightly curved, narrow cul-de-sacs with on-
street parking may be physically inaccessible to Are apparatus. For that reason,
except with the Fire Bureau Chiefs approval of measures designed to facilitate fine
protection capabilities, it is proposed that newly-platted cul-de-sacs greater than
300 feet in length be built as a "fire Iane", with two unobstructed travel lanes and,
if needed, additional parking lanes.
It is proposed that curbs be required, except where unsuitable or inappropriate,
on all through streets. Curbs are used on city streets to a) facilitate sidewalk
construction, b) confine vehicles to the roadway, c) control on-street parking, d)
protect adjacent landscaping, e) channel street drainage, and f) accommodate roof
drains. Circumstances under which curbs may be omitted may include, for
example, where roadside drainage swales are necessary for water quality control
purposes, or .where city-adopted neighborhood plans provide the framework and
rationale for uncurbed "lane" treatments.
2. Allow right of way widths to coincide with street widths.
Response: Transportation concurs with this recommendation, and proposes
reducing the right of way widths required for queueing streets in Comprehensive
Plan Single Dwelling residential zones R72 R10, R20 and RF. Retain sufficient
right of way width in zone R5 to accommodate the potential of sidewalk/planting
strip construction on both sides of the street.
5
Dedication of rights of way greatly in excess of those needed to accommodate
specific street widths is costly and unreasonable. Proposed right of way widths
are shown on page 8. These reduced widths permit greater utilization of privately-
developable land, while maintaining sufficient space for utility installations and
sidewalks.
S. Allow reduced dead-end street turnaround sizes.
Response: Transportation concurs with this recommendation, and proposes
adoption of a reduced diameter of 70 feet for all newly-platted dead-end streets.
The current standard diameter of all dead-end street turnarounds is 90 feet, and
was originally developed to allow the largest fire apparatus to turn around without
requg a backing manuever. According to Residential Streets, "vehicle types
irin ,
that rarely use the street should not be a determining factor in the design. When
weighed against the disadvantages of an extensive paved area - poor aesthetics,
higher maintenance and installation costs, increased stormwater runoff, and the
significant limits that large dimensional requirements place on sound land planning
- the minor inconvenience experienced by some drivers in reversing direction is not
an important consideration." Bucks County's Performance Streets states "Cul-
de-sac turnarounds should be designed no larger than necessary to permit free
turning of the largest service vehicles regularly servicing the neighborhood."
4. Allow mountable curbs to be used in turnaround areas.
Response: Transportation concurs with this recommendation.
Once homes are built on the property adjacent to a cul-de-sac, the majority of the
curb line within the cul-de-sac is occupied by driveways. Permitting mountable
curb to be constructed at the time of initial construction of the cul-de-sac
preclude the need to tear out and replace the curbing with driveway approaches.
Mountable curbs are not permitted elsewhere because they a) permit and may
encourage easy vehicular access to the front yard area of a residence, in conflict
with city planning regulations, and b) permit easy vehicular access to the sidewalk
area, which can cause sidewalk damage for which the property owner is liable.
S. Reduce minimal required separated sidewalk width to four feet.
Response: Transportation concurs with this recommendation, but only in
comprehensive plan Single Dwelling zones R7, R10, R20 and RF.
The current minimum required width of a sidewalk in a residential area is five
feet. Where a sidewalk is built adjacent to the curb without an intervening
planting strip, pedestrians are forced to share the sidewalk with utility poles,
signs, mail boxes, etc. A five-foot width is needed to provide space for pedestrian
use around those obstacles. Where a sidewalk is built separate from the curb,
the sidewalk is not similarly obstructed, and a four-foot width is sufficient for low
volume pedestrian useage found in low density areas R7 through RF.
6
• RECOMMENDED STANDAR.DS:(Adopted by Portland City Council July 31, 1991)
A. In Comprehensive Plan Single Dwelling zone R5 (only):
1. Through street:
a. Park two sides
(1) R/W = 50'; street width = 26'
b. Park one side
(1) PaW = 40'; street width = 20,
2. Newly-platted dead-end street less than or equal to 300 feet in length:
a. Park 2 sides
(1) R/W = 40'; Street width = 26' (or 24')
b. Park one side
(1) R/W = 35'; Street width = 20' (or 18')
M Newly-platted dead-end street more than 300 feet in length:
a. Park 1 side
(1) R/W = 40'; Street width = 28'
b. No parking
(1) R/W = 35; Street width = 20'
4. Minimum sidewalk width = 5 feet.
5. Curb return radius = 30 feet.
B. In Comprehensive Plan Single Dwelling zones R7, R10, R20, RP:
1. Through street width:
a. Park two sides
(1) R/W = 40'; street width = 26'
b. Park one side
(1) R/W = 35'; street width = 20'
2. Newly-platted dead-end street less than or equal to 300 feet in length:
c. Park 2 sides
(1) Ii/W = 40'; Street width = 26' (or 24')
b, Park one side
(1) R/W = 35'; Street width = 20' (or 18')
*3. Newly-platted dead-end street more than 300 feet in length:
d. Park 1 side
(1) RM = 40; Street width = 28'
b. No parking
(1) R/W = 35'; Street width = 20'
4. Sidewalk widths:
a. In combination with curb 5 feet
b. Separated from curb 4 feet
5. Curb return radius = 30 feet.
* Unless queueing street approved by Chief of Bureau of Fire.
C. TURNAROUND DIAMETER R/W Dia. = 80 feet. Paved Dia. = 70 feet.
7
BASIC ISSUES
PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE
Additional density expected because of"urban status in region" open space becomes a
more important quality of life and natural resource issue
AFFORDABILITY
Sixty percent of Kent's current pop. is under 35 - need starter housing other than
multifamily
Median income in Kent was 20, 407 in 1980----by 1990 had risen to 32,341, an increase
of 58% but housing prices rose 100% during the same period
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
With the number of households in Kent projected to increase by 19,815 by 2010,
construction of houses and other residences will create a corresponding increase in
impervious surface which will impact water quality in aquifers streams and the Green
River
FIRE AND TRAFFIC SAFETY
Need to consider operating and safety requirements of fire equipment and firefighters,
specific to Kent
Need to consider movement of traffic and visability
SPECIFIC ISSUES DISCUSSED
1. street widths - What is the minimum width for safe access by emergency
vehicles?
Do narrow streets serve as traffic calming or provide unsafe
maneuvering space for vehicles?
2. parking - Will parking restrictions work, such as one side of the street
and both sides of corners marked no parking? Enforcement
has been difficult.
Should guest parking be provided in a common lot?
The reduced single family front setback requirements
contain a clause which requires that the driveway in front of
a garage or carport stay at 20' to provide offsite parking.
What additional provisions would reduce on-street parking?
3. curbs - What type of curbs should be allowed in cluster
developments if streets are allowed to be constructed
narrower than the present 32'9 Roll curbs allow emergency
vehicles to use the sidewalk for maneuvering space, but are
considered inviting for sidewalk parking.
4. sidewalks - With narrowed streets, sidewalks, constructed at the time of
development, become more essential. Should sidewalks on
one or both sides of the street be an absolute requirement?
5. connecting - Dead end streets and cul-de-sacs are a common
development pattern. Should loop streets and connecting
streets be a prerequisite for narrower street standards?
streets
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
AGENDA
JANUARY 16, 1996
THE' CITY COUNCIL PLAAWING COMMITTEE is HOLDING A MEMNG FOR
TANUARY 16, i9'96 WHICH IS SCHE➢ULED FOR 4.00 P. WILL BE HELD IN:
KNCITHM HALLAT 20 S. FURT�tTHE;COUNCIL G C '
_ -
AIMNUE.,
Committee Members
Leona Orr, Chair
Jon Johnson
Tim Clark
AGENDA
1. Single Family Residential Cluster INFORMATION ITEM - 20 Minutes
and Zero Lot Line Development Zoning
Code and Subdivision Code Amendments
#ZCA-95-2/SCA-95-1 - (L. Phillips)
2. Amendments to Kent's SEPA ordinance INFORMATION ITEM - 15 Minutes
- (J. Harris)
3. Implementation of School Impact Fee INFORMATION - 15 Minutes
Ordinance - (L. Orr)
Added Items:
ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY IN
ADVANCE FOR MORE INFORMATION. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE, CALL 1-800-635-9993
OR THE CITY OF KENT AT (206)854-6587. mp:c:pco116.agn
.e..re .....+,+.,n,.w•. rMe.a.-,:,:. .rv.w/....:s-.' .. ....,.-.:mrr. OtTM!wMY'<wRe
'4'%4Yi�W'L''y+k'N$lzM'.ia:ifiV A'MsA4sa.nZNTiY`s.yMnt y e"_.3 4 y.. - . �
Single-family Ilousii�ilits 41
Bedrooms Student Generation Impact Fee
1 0.000 $0.00
2 .262 $1,142. 0
3 0.623 $2,716.26 f
4 or more 0.843 $3,676.41
Condominium Ilousing Units
Bedrooms Student Generation Impact Fee
1 or studio 0.057 $269.80
2 0.145 $686.34
3 0.220 $1,041.34
4 or more 0.409 $1,935.94
1 t'.
_ — it ix y v, s�•^
1
ii � .
Single-family Ilousii�nits
Bedrooms Student Generation Impact Fee
1 0.000 $0.00
2 .262 $1,142. 0
3 0.623 $2,716.26 {
4 or more 0.843 $3,675.41 I`
Condominium Mousing Units
Bedrooms Student Generation Impact Fee }
1 or studio 0,057 $269.80
2 0.145 $686.34
3 0.220 $1,041.34
4 or more 0.409 $1,935.94
f
.r
.SY is
§ 11.03.510 KENT CITY CODE
g. Enhance the quality of renewable re- 1. Mobile home parks, chapter 12.05.
sources and approach the maximum at- m. Valley studies (as adopted in resolu-
tainable recycling of depletable resourc- tion numbers 920, 921, 922, 923, and
es. 924).
2. The city recognizes that each person has a n. Noise control, chapter 8.05.
fundamental and inalienable right to a o. State building code, together with the
healthful environment and that each per- local implementing ordinances,title 14.
son has a responsibility to contribute to the
preservation and enhancement of the envi- p. State fire code, together with the local
ronment.. • . -_ --- -- implementing ordinances, title 13.
3. The city adopts by reference the policies in q• Zoning, title 15.
the following city codes,ordinances,and res- r. Recreational vehicle park code, chap-
olutions: ter 12.06.
a. The citywide comprehensive plan (res- s. Water shortage emergency regulations,
olution number 817), and its specific chapter 7.13.
components, including but not limited t. Comprehensive park and recreation
to the east hill plan (resolution num- system plan, chapter 6.10.
ber 972), the west hill plan (resolution
u. Public improvements,chapters 6.02 and
number 1016), the city central busi-
ness district plan (resolution number 6.03.
764) and the valley floor comprehen- v. Storm drainage utility, chapter 7.05.
sive plan(resolution numbers 873 and w. Storm drainage policies (resolution
924), as amended. numbers 920 and 937).
b. Shoreline master program (resolution x. Six-year transportation improvement
number 907). plan (resolution number 1020).
c. The surface water and drainage code, y. Comprehensive sewerage plan(resolu-
chapter 7.07. tion number 915).
d. Electrical or communications facilities, z. Fire master plan (ordinance number
underground requirements, chapter 2511).
7.10. (Code 1986, § 12.12A.510; Ord. No. 2818, § 2, 11-
e. Transportation master plan(resolution 1-88)
number 1014) and Green River Valley
transportation action plan (resolution Sec. 11.03.520. Appeals.
number 1127) as may hereafter be A. Administrative appeals.
amended.
1. Procedural appeals. The city establishes the
f. Wastewater facilities master plan, following administrative appeal procedures
chapter 7.09. under RCW 43.21C.075 and WAC 197-11-
g. Comprehensive water plan (ordinance 680:
numbers 2369 and 2329). a. Any agency or person may appeal the
h. Construction standards for public city's procedural compliance with WAC
works, sections 6.02.010 and 6.02.020. ch. 197-11 for issuance of the following:
i. Street use permit requirements, chap- (1) Afinal determination of nonsignif-
ter 6.07. icance:Appeal of the DNS must be
j. made to the hearing examiner
Flood hazard protection,chapter 14.07.
within ten(10)days of the date the
k. Subdivisions, chapter 12.04. determination of nonsignificance is
Errata 824
CITY OF �Q� 1 J
Planning Committee
Sign In Roster
Subject: Date �b
Wish to Mailing Print Name Address with Zip
/UO ✓ �' O�JCr�i� o KS'O � 1201S" I /
KRI^sT�iJ L,h+.�GL13( CITY OF Iten7T'
pw,DEPT.
- YE-S ✓ ��� HIGL{ /K 5C- 4mc- DISI 12a33 5� 2SCo �
No ✓ 3��ba�r� C` Ewr,r, t�r�.� � t
5-e" +lf W q�re y
P N►v
&.Y' ct o53
e
CITY OF "L122��
Planning Committee
Sign In Roster
Subject: i���n w, Date l h& &
Wish to Mailing
Speak? List? Print Name Address with Zip
Q r✓
Al