Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Public Works/Planning - 05/10/1999 'r March 10, 1999 FOR THE AGENDA COVER SHEET FOR THE 3/15/99 PUBLIC WORKS/PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING • TITLE OF ITEM l: PROPOSED INTERLOCAL ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN KENT AND RENTON ACTION: Proposed Motion: Recommend to the Full City Council to approve the Proposed Interlocal Annexation Agreement between Kent and Renton. BACKUP MATERIAL: March 15, 1999 "Memorandum to the Land Use and Planning Board" from James Harris, Planning Director "Proposed Interlocal Annexation Agreement between Kent and Renton" "Exhibit A - Renton/Kent Potential Annexation Area Boundary" PRESENTER: James P. Harris, Planning Director TIME: 10 minutes • TITLE OF ITEM 2: CONDOMINIUM ZONING ACTION Information Item Only BACKUP MATERIAL: Memorandum from Fred Satterstrom dated 3/15/99 Attachment A. — Condominium Zoning PRESENTER: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager TIME: 10 minutes If you should have any questions, please contact Pam Mottram at ext 3390. Thank you. 99031 Spwpc-cvrsht.doc CONDOMINIUM ZONING • INFORMATION ITEM ONLY CITY OF 0\ajJ.S�.J • Jim White, Mayor tNVICTA Planning Department (253) 859-3390/Fax (253) 850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director MEMORANDUM March 15, 1999 TO: TIM CLARK, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER RE: CONDOMINIUM ZONING The issue of"condominium zoning" was referred to the Planning and Public Works Committee • by the full City Council at its March 2, 1999 committee-of-the-whole meeting. At that meeting, potential policy options were discussed in general terms but, the Council felt the issue deserved more detailed discussion and referred the matter to committee. BACKGROUND' It should be mentioned at the outset that the issue of encouraging homeownership opportunities is encouraged in Kent's Comprehensive Plan. In fact, condominium-style housing (one of several forms of homeownership) is addressed in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Housing Goal H-4 states: `Expand home ownership opportunities for all income groups via land use regulations,financial strategies, and the removal of barriers to lending. " Policy H- 4.1 specifically addresses condominiums in terms of zoning: "Revise zoning and development standards to facilitate small lot sizes, manufactured housing on single family lots, townhouses, condominiums, clustering, and other options which increase the supply of affordable ownership opportunities. " As explained to the City Council at its March 2nd committee-of-the-whole meeting, the City's existing multifamily residential zones do not differentiate between rental or owner housing. Except for Planned Unit Developments (PUD) in SR (Single Family) zones, there is no requirement for condominium-type development in the zoning code. In addition, as stated by the City Attorney at the workshop, the law does not allow the City to adopt a blanket policy of permitting only condominiums in its multifamily zones. Nevertheless, under certain conditions, condominiums may be encouraged as an alternative type of housing through various zoning methods. These methods were discussed at the meeting but are worth repeating here. (A copy of the handout distributed at the workshop is attached herewith.) 2204ih AVENUE SOU111 i KENJ,WASHINGTON 98W2-5895 Planning and Public Works Committee Condominium Zoning Page 2 • Contract rezoning. Under this option, approval of a rezone request would be conditioned upon an agreement between the applicant and City. Among other things, the agreement might contain a statement that only condominiums could be constructed. Therefore, any development permit ultimately issued by the City would constrict development to condominiums only. Decisions of the Council would be on a case-by-case basis. ■ Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance. The existing PUD ordinance restricts condominium-type (attached) housing in the SR zone to sites which are more than 100 acres in size. An option would be to reduce this minimum site size to 10 or 5 or even a smaller threshold, resulting in more areas which could, given City Council approval of the PUD, be utilized for attached condominium style housing. ■ Townhouse Zoning District. This option would entail the development of a special zoning district (call it MR-T for Townhouse) which would permit one unit per lot but allow units to be attached along a common property line. A maximum density could also be specified. The City of Des Moines has such a zoning district with a maximum density of 12 units per acre. The T-zone would be available for applicants to request rezoning of suitable sites with criteria for rezoning set by ordinance. ■ Overlay (or "Incentive") Zoning. This option would allow additional density in existing multifamily zones for condominium developments. Densities for rental apartments would remain the same. As an"overlay," it would only be available for existing multifamily zones. DISCUSSION' While contract rezoning is a legal method for rezoning property, it is not a good way to develop policy. In reality, it is the opposite of policy since the exact conditions will be different from site to site. It is subject to "deal-making" and puts the City Council and Land Use &Planning Board in an awkward situation. Recent experience with contract rezoning (there have been two contract rezones since 1994) has not been positive. While I have discussed PUD, townhouse, and overlay zoning separately, they are not mutually exclusive. That it is to say, adoption of one option does not preclude implementing the other. The PUD option — where the minimum site size for attaching units in SR zones if conditioned upon building condominiums—may be appropriate for certain areas of the City and under certain conditions. For instance, criteria could be specified by ordinance which would be considered by the Hearing Examiner and City Council before approving any PUD; these criteria might require a location with direct access to an arterial street, proximity to transit and commercial services, and the like. While not determining the exact locations where such PUD's would be permitted, the City would dictate the conditions under which these PUD's would be approved. The townhouse zoning district is another viable option. The City may determine the precise standards for the zoning district — i.e., density limits, platting requirements, buffer regulations, and so on — and rely on interested applicants to request such a zoning. Like the PUD option above, the City Council could define by ordinance the criteria under which it would consider rezoning land to the T-zone designation. Planning and Public Works Committee Condominium Zoning Page 3 The overlay zone option (where additional density is allowed for condominiums) offers only limited advantage in terms of inducing condominium development. This is because the densities already allowed in the City's MR (multifamily) zones are fairly high. Townhouse condominiums are generally low density propositions, in the range of 10 to 14 units per acre. Densities in excess of this generally yield "stacked unit" configurations, where residential units are built over one another. Therefore, perhaps only the MR-D (Duplex) zone - where the limit is 10 units per acre - would attract applications for a condominium density bonus. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: At the same time the City Council is considering the issue of expanding home ownership opportunities through condominium zoning, it should also address the issue of affordable housing. Goals in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourage a wide range of housing types and choices, including affordable housing available to low and moderate income households, (Goal H-6, Housing Element). It is possible for any of the above alternatives to incorporate inclusionary housing policies as a criteria or standard for rezoning and developing specific sites. FS:pm condol.doc Attachments cc: James P. Harris, Planning Director Matt Jackson, GIS Planner • • A-rTAc+t m ENT A . CONDOMINIUM ZONING Existing Zoning Policy: • Multifamily Residential Zoning Districts - MR-D(Duplex— 10 units per acre) - MR-G (Garden density— 16 units per acre) - MR-M(Medium density—23 units per acre) - MR-H(High density—40 units per acre) • Planned Unit Development(PUD) - Present ordinance allows attached units only on sites>100 acres - City Council approval required - Must be condominium units • Zero Lot Line Development - Zero lot line development permitted in certain SR and MR zones - Minimum site area in SR zones is 5 acres - Does not permit attached units(units may touch one side lot line only) • Other Provisions - Mixed Use zoning—MF permitted in GC, CC, and O with required commercial use - MF permitted in downtown(DC, DLM and DCE)with no density limits Potential Policy Options for"Condominium"Zoning: ❑ Contract rezoning This option would condition the rezoning of property on an agreement to fulfill certain conditions, one of which would be to develop only condominium units. ❑ Planned Unit Development(PUD)ordinance This option would expand the current allowance for PUD's in SR zones to sites less than 100 acres in size. In effect,this would allow the City Council to approve condominium type developments on smaller sites throughout the City. ❑ Townhouse Zoning District This option would entail the adoption of a special zoning district(T-Townhouse Zone) which would allow one unit per lot,but which would allow units to be attached along a common lot line. Would be available for applicants to request rezoning; approval on a case-by-case basis. ❑ Overlay(or"incentive")Zoning This option would allow additional density in existing multifamily zoning districts for condominium developments; densities for rental apartments would remain the same. This option would be available as an"overlay"in all MF zones. • PROPOSED INTERLOCAL ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN KENT AND RENTON • Proposed Motion: Recommend to the Full City Council to approve the Proposed Interlocal Annexation Agreement between Kent and Renton. CITY OF Jim White, Mayor t$V[CTA Planning Department (253) 859-3390/Fcar (253) 850-2544 James P. Harris, Planning Director MEMORANDUM March 15, 1999 TO: PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING COMMITTEE: TIM CLARK, CHAIR, TOM BROTHERTON AND RICO YINGLING FROM: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PROPOSED INTERLOCAL ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN KENT AND RENTON • On December 7, 1998, the Public Works and Planning Committee directed that Administration work with the Planning and Public Works Departments for a coordinated approach for the Kent, Renton Annexation Interlocal Agreement. There were questions concerning the eastern leg of the 192❑d/l96`"-corridor project and how deannexing an area adjacent to the Valley Freeway (SR 167) would affect Kent's ability to acquire a right-of-way for the corridor project in the future. Renton has since withdrawn its desire to annex the subject strip of land. Since this problem had been resolved, staff is ready to again present the proposed interlocal agreement for the Committees consideration. Section E of the attached interlocal agreement is deleted and Section F becomes new Section E. 2101th AVENCF SOL III / KEN F.WASHING fON 9801'__;895 +4-754-�7-700 FDITCH DELI SLICE/PLAN a=;� paw RECEIVED-" OCT 2 8 IS3SI CITY OF KEN i NN ING DEPARTMF"" AN AGREEMENT BETvVEEN THE CITIES OF RENTON AND KENT L. TING TO POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA DESIGNATION THIS IS AN AGREEMENT between the Cities of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington ("Renton"), and Kent, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington ("Kent"), hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Cities." RECITALS A. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110(2), the Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990, as amended, requires each City within the County to propose the location of an urban growth area, and B. The Countywide Planning Policies adopted and approved by Ordinance 10450 on July 6, 1992 by the County Council and amended by Ordinance 11446 on July 19, 1994 and ratified by Cities within the County, establishes rules for designating potential annexation areas for cities witlun the countywide urban growth boundary, and C. Countywide Planning Policy LU-31 states that in collaboration with adjacent counties and cities and King County, and in consultation with residential groups in affected areas, each City shall designate a Potential Annexation Area (PAA), and D. It is in the public interest that the jurisdictions cooperate to designate logical and achievable PA-k • boundaries, and NOW THEREFORE, the Cities hereby agree: 1 PURPOSE. The purpose of this agreement is to confirm the decision made bens-een the Cities for the identification of a common boundary for their respective P.AA boundaries. 2, DEFINITIONS. Potential Annexation Area (FAA): The unincorporated urban area adjacent to a city, within which urban growth shall be encouraged and phased, and which is expected to annex to the city. Annexation is expected to occur sometime during the next 20 years at which time the city will provide services and utilities. Potential .1 ine. .,tie Area : ..ether teF fee a r,t«`s r ufb,.„ Gfe Urban Growth Areas: Areas proposed by the cities and designated by the County within which urban growth shall be encouraged and phased and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature. Urban Growth Boundary: The boundary marking the limit between the urban growth areas and other areas such as rural and resource areas where urban growth is not permitted. The boundary • shall be designated by the County in consultation with the appropriate cities, under the requirements of the Growth Management Act, as amended. H1dMptslpin1de11NTERLOC.D0C QG;;QQ/ • 3. 4FFECTED PARTIES. The designation of PAAs in Exhibit "A" (map) attached hereto and by this reference made a part of this agreement are of interest to a variety of affected parties, including property owners, area residents, the general public, special service districts and the municipalities. 4, RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING LAWS AND STATUTES. This Agreement in no way modifies nor supersedes existing laws and statutes and is consistent with existing laws and statutes. hi meeting the commitments encompassed in this Agreement, all parties will comply with the requirements of the Annexation Statutes, Open Public Meetings Act, State Environmental Policy Act, Growth Management Act and Countywide Planning Policies for King County. 5. RESPONSIBILITIES. A. The Cities acknowledge the P AA boundary and each respective Cities' PAA illustrated in Exhibit"A". B. The Cities will only annex territory within their designated PA.As. C. Kent acknowledges that Renton has legitimate concerns regarding the need to protect the • aquifer that serves its Springbrook Springs water utility and agrees to enter into discussions within sixty(60) days of the signing of this agreement that will lead to an agreement between the Cities to protect the Renton Springbrook Springs Aquifer recharge area that extends to approximately SE 206th Place on the south and 108th Avenue SE on the east. Mechanisms to be considered, include, but are not necessarily limited to, land use regulations (type and intensity), recharge area set asides, and public education. The agreement between the Cities shall be executed within 18 months of the signing of this agreement. D. Kent also acknowledges that Renton has recently acquired the Cleveland property south of the Springbrook Trout Farm, off Talbot Road South as a fixture public park and Renton acknowledges that Kent has recently acquired property south of S 200th Street for a neighborhood park. Since service areas for these two parks will likely overlap, both Cities agree to enter into discussions regarding the possible interface of these two recreation facilities. E. ' aFft H\dMpu\plmde\INTcRLOC.DOC/ +4_754S_O?Z 3 REHTOt,l CEu SVCS/PLgH 050 PO4 __CT == -F- Renton acknowledges that Kent has identified the 196th Street Corridor project between East Valley Highway and SR-515 as one of its concurrency projects which the City of Kent believes should be built by 2010. Since most of this project will occur within Renton's PAA with the potential of impacting the Springbrook Springs watershed as well as the new park site on the former Cleveland property the Cities agree to enter into joint discussions with each other and King County regarding the potential development alignment, financing, and scheduling of the 196th Street Corridor project between the East Valley Highway and 108th Avenue SE (SR-515). Representatives from both Cities' parks and public works departments should be represented in these discussions. 6. AMENDMENTS. A. If either of the Cities desires to modify their respective PAA such that it would affect that of the other City, it shall contact the other party to this Agreement to begin discussions regarding PAA boundary amendments. The Cities agree to participate in such discussions when called. Either Party is authorized to call a meeting upon 30 days written notice. B. The proposed amendments shall be supported by written evidence of a significant clianee in one of the criteria listed in paragraph 6(D), below. The Cities shall concur that the substantial change warrants an amendment to the original designated common PAA boundary between the Cities, as shown in Exhibit "A", attached. • C. A public process shall be conducted regarding an amendment to the common P AA boundary between the Cities. In determining whether PAA boundary amendments to the original designated common P.A.A. boundary between the Cities should be made the Cities shall be juided, but not limited, by their findings with respect to the criteria in 6.D. below. D. Criteria for Amendment to Potential Annexation Areas • Recognition of resident community identification. • Financial and technical ability to provide municipal services • Creation of logical service areas (vehicular accessibility and utility construction). • Recognition of physical boundaries. Bodies of water Topographical features Watersheds Freeways • Protection of criticaliresource areas significant to a particular jurisdiction. Protection of critical areas Opportunities for urban separators • Logical boundaries. EIimination of unincorporated islands No overlapping potential annexation areas • E The proposed amended PAA agreement shall be submitted to the respective cities' legislative authorities for approval. H'div`,pU�pin\dzdN TER LOC.DOC% *42543M 'BOO BEI�TOI I DE!) SVC /FLAI I ,:C _— ' _ -- • 7. DURATION AND TERMINATION. This Agreement is effective upon signature of both Cities and shall continue in effect from year to year unless terminated by a six month written notice by one City Council to the other. 8. SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Any provision of this Agreement which is declared invalid or illegal shall in no way affect or invalidate any other provision hereof and such other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. A. Renton shall indemnify and hold harmless Kent and its officers, agents and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses and damages of any nature whatsoever, by reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of Renton, its officers, agents and employees, or any of them, in the performance of this Agreement. In the event that any such suit based upon such a claim, action, loss or damage is brought against Kent, Renton shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided, that Kent reserves the right to participate in such suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved. If final judgment be rendered against Kent and its officers, agents and employees, or any of them, or jointly against Renton and Kent and their • respective officers, agents and employees, or any of them, Renton shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney's fees. B. In executing this Agreement, Kent does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way release Renton from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or affect of Renton City ordinances, rules or regulations. If any cause, clairn, suit, action or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the enforceability and/or validity of any such Renton City ordinance, rule or regulation is at issue, Renton shall defend the same at its sole expense and if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against Kent, Renton shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney's fees. C. Kent shall indemnify and hold harmless Renton and its officers, agents and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses and damages of any nature whatsoever, by reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of Kent, its officers, agents and employees, or any of them, in the performance of this Agreement. In the event that any such suit based upon such a claim, action, loss or damage is brought against Renton, Kent shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided, that Renton reserves the right to participate in such suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved. If final judgment be rendered against Renton and its officers, agents and employees, or any of them, or jointly against Renton and Kent and their respective officers, agents and employees, or any of them, Kent shall satisfy the same, • including all chargeable costs and attorney's fees. H,\div\pts\p1n1,dc\1 TERLOC,DOC/ �� J r +a��43©?'Q9 FDUT',D J hl DEU Cr�/PLAhI 2 PO 7 _C 7 D. In executing this Agreement, Renton does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way release Kent from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or affect of Kent City ordinances, rules or regulations. If any cause, claim, suit, action or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the enforceability and/or validity of any such Kent City ordinance, rule or regulation is at issue, Kent shall defend the same at its sole expense and if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against Renton, Kent shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and attorney's fees. 10. ADMINISTRATION. This Agreement shall be administered by: A. The Mayor of Kent or the Mayor's designee, and B. The Mayor of Renton or the Mayor's designee. CITY" OF RENTON CITY OF KENT • Jesse Tanner Jim WT.ite Mayor Mayor Date Date Attest: Marilyn J. Petersen City Clerk Date • ���h �ts�o�r.do`INTgRLOC.DOC/ r AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF RENTON AND KENT RELATING TO POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREA DESIGNATION THIS IS AN AGREEMENT between the Cities of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington ("Renton"), and Kent, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington ("Kent") hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Cities." RECITALS A. Pursuant to RCW 36.70A.110(2), the Washington State Growth Management Act of 1990, as amended, requires each City within the County to propose the location of an urban growth area, and B The Countywide Planning Policies adopted and approved by Ordinance 10450 on July 6, 1992 by the County Council and amended by Ordinance 11446 on July 19, 1994 and ratified by Cities within the County, establishes rules for designating potential annexation areas for cities within the countywide urban growth boundary, and C. Countywide Planning Policy LU-31 states that in collaboration with adjacent counties and cities and King County, and in consultation with residential groups in affected areas, each City s"all designate a Potential Annexation Area (PAA), and D. It is in the public interest that the jurisdictions cooperate to designate logical and achievable PAA . boundaries, and NOW THEREFORE, the Cities hereby agree: I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this agreement is to confirm the decision made between the Cities for the identification of a common boundary for their respective PAA boundaries. 2 DEFINITIONS. Potential Annexation Area (PA.4): The unincorporated urban area adjacent to a city, within which urban growth shall be encouraged and phased, and which is expected to annex to the city. Annexation is expected to occur sometime during the next 20 years at which time the city will provide services and utilities. Urban Growth Areas: Areas proposed by the cities and designated by the County within which urban growth shall be encouraged and phased and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature. Urban Growth Boundary: The boundary marking the limit between the urban growth areas and other areas such as rural and resource areas where urban growth is not permitted. The boundary shall be designated by the County in consultation with the appropriate cities, under the • requirements of the Growth Management Act, as amended. H 1div\ptslpJnWegNTER LOC.DOC L0G.99G/ / o i O 7 � y a� 1 reel RaC�I � ' 1�`�, •„/ LJ\' � 9eln r� c I � 2 C� Q 0 m r — d W r 011 AR X 10iPp.A p 7 IOYE Of e[ 10 AR Y q•A. 7• 1 10/1h Arty I ry4w .i O S IWN �•( 14 MP Ar 4 M u r 106N AR Y 106U A.X v 1071h An SE: w I= - MIA AR tf ICAIA„R ei "d w 'Cu u VA )a 1091h Aw tG g >n p _ �I•• � _ �_ a Aa 4 � IIMh 4vw�T_ CD 8 C n III III A,w tr O � B I111�1�1 ~ M1 1111111111[II r IC IILr P v i f O � II I,',i'ili sill � ro - 8 nor w v1' I1 1 I I I Ileln AR SS S I ' II;11111 1 , 116rn+R Si IIeIn A,sc J � u N• M r F+• MI u.l n• - laan Aw SE r g p I'•• w ..• a s \ MI I'VJ�� :Uh Aw Vllh A-$[ 'V > ^Y W �« 12111 AR S Y ►e �' rn a � � I27m PI X � /N t7 �_ O n.V� p"' ✓✓ � O S•Y �\2S;_� � tied. 1/ p ►•I• `per \ �`\�f�fV// Xt ]:ne Aw 5[III,IPIII - 1�111 a4 0 O n• _ S I7M%Y \Y 1,41e Are [ 941h Art t A1� k iC IG Q 1C r C i An S 1••••1 et 14M A*Sr 140 AR X loh A%t( O IIOIh MR$[ C 113y Aw X w O N NCL ❑p 1111%X � l0 1 w w s = C Cb Y i 5 IIeM.Arc X _w K Iti 1u1n PI Y I/7lh Art S[ IQ S iC 4 g L 117IA A. I