Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 03/18/1997 CITY OF j Jim White, Mayor James P.Harris,Planning Director CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES March 18, 1997 Planning Committee Members Present: City Attorney's Office Leona Orr, Chair Roger Lubovich Tim Clark Tom Brubaker Jon Johnson Other Planning Staff Mark Hinshaw Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Barbara Ivanov Bob Hutchinson, Building Official Rita Bailie Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Kathy Larson Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator Rachel Simpson Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary Carol Vass Joe Gagnetz # ZCA-96-5 MIXED USE ZONING - (K. O'Neill) Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill explained that this item is a continuation of the deliberations regarding the Land Use and Planning Board recommendation. He explained that the Committee previously discussed the Board's recommendation and ways to refine the recommendation. Mr. O'Neill stated that the first issue was that the zoning code does not clarify the definition of mixed use development in relation to how much of each use constitutes a mixed use development. He recommended requiring 20 percent of the gross floor area be a permitted commercial use and that the residential component of a mixed use development cannot be permitted or occupied prior to the commercial component. The second issued Mr. O'Neill addressed was that the zoning code currently allows for multifamily and residential in a mixed use development in the Community Commercial and Office zones with a conditional use permit. He explained that the continued allowance of mixed use development through the conditional use process would undermine the overlay concept. He recommended deleting the provisions that allow for mixed use development through the conditional use permit. The third issue was that greater clarity is needed in establishing the development standard bonuses proposed when developers provide specific amenities. The current recommendation establishes • bonuses for site coverage, building height, and parking standards when developments add specific 1 220 40 AVE.SO /KENT W ASHNGTON 98032-5995 1 TELEPHONE (206)859-3300/FAX#859-3334 4 City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 amenities. Mr. O'Neill suggested establishing a 25 percent threshold requirement of either use in order to qualify for a bonus. The fourth issued Mr. O'Neill discussed was that at the last meeting the Committee discussed amending the overlay area on East Hill to include the Lien property directly adjacent to a proposed overlay area. The property owner had contacted the Planning Department and requested the change to the overlay area. Mr. O'Neill recommends expanding the East Hill overlay area to include the property. The last issue is establishing a process to allow for future overlay amendments once mixed use zoning is adopted. Mr. O'Neill recommended working with the City Attorney's office to develop procedures and criteria for amending the mixed use overlay boundary similar to the M1- C rezone procedure. He explained that he is requesting that the Planning Committee recommend to the City Council to adopt the mixed use zoning development standards as recommended by the Land Use and Planning • Board with the five above mentioned amendments. Mr. Clark asked for further clarification of the overlay boundaries. He stated that he was also concerned with neighborhood compatibility which would require establishment of neighborhood identity as a part of the mixed use. Mr. O'Neill explained that essentially the Land Use and Planning Board is recommending these regulations for certain established overlay areas and those are the areas shown in the staff report. He stated that the Land Use and Planning Board recommended criteria to identify the overlay areas. The overlay boundaries are very specific that are being brought forward as part of the recommendation. Mr. Clark stated that he understands how they would be established. At this time he is concerned with the expansion of the overlay areas in the future. Mr. O'Neill explained that in order for the overlay area to be expanded in the future there would need to be a process similar to a rezone. Chair Leona Orr questioned whether property owners would be guaranteed an expansion of the overlay area just because their property was adjacent to the overlay area. Mr. O'Neill explained that being adjacent to an area may give them a better argument but it would be ultimately the Council's decision. Orr questioned whether there would be a public process to go through that would give the public an opportunity to address any concerns they may have. O'Neill stated that such a process would be established. 2 • City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 Committee member Tim Clark questioned whether it would be appropriate to require that mixed use development would be fiber optic compatible. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that type of issue deals more with the zoning requirements for the telecommunications moratorium and the overall telecommunications plan that is in the process. Satterstrom explained that it may be logical to develop that type of language into the zoning concerns there. Clark disagreed with Mr. Satterstrom statement. Clark explained that infrastructure costs could be reduced significantly by requiring that a mixed used development be fiber optic compatible. Clark expressed his concern with the types of commercial business that will be allowed as part of mixed use developments. He asked for clarification of the terms regarding mixed use developments being community compatible. Mr. O'Neill explained that the overlay areas are set up to allow mixed used development with already established commercial zones that have be specifically selected. The only commercial uses would be those uses that have previously been allowed in that specific commercial zone. O'Neill explained that the intent of the overlay is to have new development standards and a design review • process in place for new development so that the compatibility issue is addressed. The overlay areas were identified to try to avoid those impacts before they even happened. He explained that design review will mitigate some of those issues. Consultant Mark Hinshaw explained that the compatibility issues can be addressed during the design review,not through uses. He stated that as the residential use in the overlay area should be observed to allow for alteration of the permitted uses in the future if necessary. Mr. Hinshaw clarified that if someone wanted to expand the overlay area they could argue that since they are near the existing overlay area that it is worth considering. Mr. Hinshaw pointed out that the only areas eligible for a change request in the overlay areas are those areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan as mixed use. Areas not designated as mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment before an adjustment to the overlay boundaries could be considered. Chair Orr questioned whether the City could require the fiber optic capability on the outset. Assistant City Attorney Tom Brubaker stated that he would have to review this issue as to whether the City has the ability to require that. Mr. Clark explained that what he is suggesting is creating the conduit and that is already in the ground running toward the building without any fiber optic wiring until we have a provider of services. Mr. Brubaker again stated that he would like to do more research on whether or not the • City can make such a requirement. 3 A • City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 Chair Orr questioned whether Committee member Tim Clark would like to delay action until this issue is determined. Mr. Clark stated that he would like to move forward with this item and questioned if this item could be added at a later time. Mr. Brubaker stated that this item could be approved as staff recommends and an amendment could be made if needed when this item goes before the Council. Mr. Brubaker explained that this would give him sufficient time to research that issue. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom questioned whether this issue couldn't be looked at on a broader spectrum. He explained that generally planning works from general to specific and may be laying ground work for a general policy later. Mr. Clark stated that fiber optic has different requirements and is more difficult to put in. He explained that coax cables can be run above ground. However, the fiber optic cable has to be protected and should be run underground. Mr. Satterstrom explained that this issue seems like a development by development issue depending on the size of the development rather than a general zoning code condition. • Mr. Clark explained that he is recommending that the conduit be layed in the ground so that it would be in place when it comes time to make the connection. Chair Leona Orr discussed the definition of a mixed use development that was outlined in the staff report. She stated that she is more comfortable with 30% but would accept 25%not the 20%that the staff has recommended. Committee members Johnson and Clark concurred with Orr's recommendation. Committeemember Clark MOVED to recommend to the City Council the zoning code amendments in GC, CC, and O zoning districts related to mixed use development as recommended by the Land Use and Planning Board be adopted with the amendments as listed, and with consideration to the change from 20 percent to 25 percent. There was brief discussion about the fiber optics potential installation. Committeemember Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ANNEXATION POLICY - (F. Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom reviewed the proposed Annexation Policy and Action Plan and discussed the changes that were included in the agenda packet. Chair Leona Orr questioned the language regarding an annexation paying its own way. After discussion, the Committee recommended the following change to item#9 as follows: • 9. Annexations shall, to the extent practical, pay their own way.. 4 City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 Committee member Jon Johnson MOVED and Tim Clark SECONDED a motion to approve the annexation policy dated March 18, 1997 with the modification to #9. Motion carried. CHAMBERS TASK FORCE REPORT - SCHOOL IMPACT FEES - (B. Hutchinson) Building Official Bob Hutchinson explained that his concern with the Chambers Task Force Report is their recommendation to change the timing of the fee collection. He explained that he had written his concerns to the Chief of Staff Brent McFall in a memo. He stated that a copy of the memo was included in the agenda packet. Mr. Hutchinson reviewed his concerns. He explained that collecting the school impact fees at a later time could create procedural problems and possibly cost more to implement than the cost savings in terms of housing affordability. He recommended that the fee collection remain as it is now (collected at the time the building permit is issued). Committee member Jon Johnson stated that some of the builders that he has discussed this issue with • would rather pay all of the fees at one time. He stated that it would be best to leave the fee collection as it is now. Kathy Larson, Chair of the Chambers Task Force, explained that it was the intent of the task force to reduce construction costs of schools and carrying costs to the builder. Ms. Larson suggested forming a small working group from the Task Force Committee to work with City staff and walk through the actual process. She explained that it would be a great opportunity for the task force to get a better understanding of the process. Chair Leona Orr asked for the Finance Department to report whether the school impact fees could be collected at a later time. She commented that the builders that were on the task force were in favor of delaying the payment and indicated that the later the fees were paid the less impact there was on the cost of the house. Mr. Hutchinson explained the Building Code does not require a Certificate of Occupancy to be issued for single family or duplex dwellings and there is nothing administratively set up to flag a final inspection. He stated that there is no difficulty in collecting the school impact fees at this time because they simply don't issue a building permit until the fees are paid. Mr. Satterstrom explained at this time the City has a minimal amount of administrative costs because the school impact fees are charged at the time the building permit is issued. He stated that if there was a way to run a credit card imprint at the time they apply for a building permit and then charge • the card at a later day that would be okay. He explained that administratively the City could run 5 • City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 into problems when attempting to collect the fees if the current system is adjusted to collect fees just prior to occupancy. Committee member Jon Johnson commented that having a small working group look into these issues is an excellent idea that should be pursued. Chair Leona Orr stated that the Committee would defer this item until the task force group could come back and present their findings to the Committee. Orr requested that Ms. Larson get a group together and make arrangements to sit down with staff. CURRENT USE ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL - (F. Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom asked the Committee to hold a public hearing regarding the current use assessment proposal at the next regularly scheduled Planning Committee meeting (4/15/97). Committee member Tim Clark MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to hold the necessary public hearing. Motion carried. FENCE - SUMMIT APARTMENTS (located between 108th &236th/238th) - (T. Clark) Committee member Tim Clark explained that during a community meeting for the Park Orchard Annexation citizens voiced a concern with the amount of foot traffic on 108th. Clark commented that the apartment complex originally had a fence in place which discouraged such traffic. Clark explained that the Mayor and City Council members had assured the citizens that the City would take action to bring the foot traffic under control. They discussed creating no parking zones or limiting street parking by decal so only residents would be allowed to use the street for parking. Clark commented that now that nearly a year has lapsed residents are willing to forfeit all parking. Chair Leona Orr stated that there was a petition from citizens asking that the fence be restored. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that their is no code requirement that would give the City authority to force the apartments to reconstruct the fence. He explained that if the issue is parking on the street, he would recommend that this item be put on the Public Works Committee. Committee member Tim Clark MOVED and Johnson SECONDED a motion to direct the City Attorney's office to contact the owner of the apartment complex and ask them to reconstruct the fence and to inform the owner that if the fence is not replaced the City will have to consider other solutions that may include limiting or restricting on-street parking. 6 • City Council Planning Committee Minutes March 18, 1997 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:07 p.m. 7 THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS RECEIVED A COPY OF THE 3/18/97 PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES: Barbara Ivanov P. O. Box 128 Kent, WA 98035-0128 Rita Bailie 20607 101 st Ave. S.E. Kent, WA 98031 Fred High Kent School District 12033 SE 256th Street Kent, WA 98031 Rachel Simpson P. O. Box 128 Kent, WA 98-35-0128 Carol Vass 14610 SE 266th St. Kent, WA 98042 •