Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 02/22/2010 (3) ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager W/SHINGTON Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 AGENDA LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD HEARING FEBRUARY 22, 2010 7:00 P.M. LUPB MEMBERS: CITY STAFF Dana Ralph, Chair Fred Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director Jack Ottini, Vice Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Mgr Steve Dowell Katie Heinitz, AICP, Planner Navdeep Gill Kim Adams Pratt, Assistant City Attorney Jon Johnson Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary Aleanna Kondelis-Halpin Barbara Phillips This is to notify you that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2010 in Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers East and West, 220 4th Avenue South, Kent, at 7:00 P.M. The public is welcome to attend the public hearing and all interested persons may have an opportunity to speak. Any person wishing to submit oral or written comments on the proposed amendment may do so prior to or at the meeting. The agenda will include the following item(s): 1. Call to order 2. Roll call 3. Approval of the January 25, 2010 Minutes 4. Added Items to Agenda 5. Communications 6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings 7. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Cottage Housing Demonstration Ordinance - Amendment Consideration of an amendment to the Cottage Housing Demonstration Ordinance with respect to maximum number of dwelling units. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City in advance for more information. For TDD relay service for Braille, call 1-800-833-6385, for TDD relay service for the hearing impaired, call 1-800- 833-6388 or call the City of Kent Planning Services directly at(253)856-5499(TDD). For further information or copies of the staff report(s)or text of the proposed amendment(s)contact the Planning Division office at(253)856-5454. You may access the City's website for documents pertaining to the Land Use and Planning Board at:http.//kentwa.igm2.com/citizens/Default.aspx?DepartmentlD=1004. This page intentionally left blank. 1 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 25, 2010 Board Members Present: Vice-Chair Jack Ottini, Steve Dowell, Navdeep Gill, Aleanna Kondelis- Halpin, Barbara Phillips Board Members Absent: Chair Dana Ralph (Excused), Jon Johnson (Excused) Staff Members Present: Fred Satterstrom, Mike Gillespie, William D Osborne, Kim Adams Pratt and Molly Bartlemay 3. Approval of Minutes Dowell MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a motion to approve the January 11, 2010 Minutes. Motion PASSED 5-0. 4. Added Items None S. Communications None 6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings None 7. AZ-2009-1 Panther Lake Annexation Comprehensive Plan Land Use & Zoning Maps Planning Director Fred Satterstrom stated that this is the first public hearing on annexation zoning anticipating that City Council will hold two additional hearings in March and April, with annexation zoning scheduled for adoption one month prior to the official July 15t annexation date. Planner William Osborne stated that the annexation area is approximately 5 1/4 square miles in size and consists of 3350 acres with commercial and residential similar to Kent. The site is located generally north and northeast of existing city limits, adjacent to Big Soos Creek and the Gary Grant Soos Creek Park, bounded north by 192Id at the City of Renton's boundaries. Most of the area is currently designated for residential development, with about 20% as green belt/urban separator and 1-2% being commercial in either community business or neighborhood business designations. Osborne stated that Kent is considering two alternatives. The first alternative is to look at existing County zoning then applying a City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation to that zone that is most consistent. Osborne stated that Kent has Mobile Home Park (MHP) designations that would apply to four (4) mobile home parks. Osborne stated that the second alternative is similar to Alternative 1, with the exception of changing the old Panther Lake Elementary site. Alternative 2 amends the existing map and changes the Panther Lake Elementary School site from a comprehensive plan land use map designation of Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) to Mixed-Use (MU); and the zoning to Community Commercial Mixed-Use (CCMU) similar to the zoning adjacent to the East. Osborne stated that staff received a proposal from RE Ruth to change zoning at 192"d and Benson to Community Commercial (CC) for a southeast portion of the parcel, which would unify zoning for this parcel under CC but would create split zoning on two parcels. Osborne noted the differences between Kent and King County zoning. Kent's Comprehensive Plan Land Use map includes separate single family residential designations for each density increment, distinct mobile home park designations, and multifamily residential townhouse zoning requiring home ownership. King County allows density bonuses and attached housing in single family residential zones outside of Planned Unit Developments. Kent's Neighborhood Services (NS) land use plan map designation and Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) zones do not allow mixed-use. Osborne noted similarities in base densities for single family residences, community scale commercial and green belts in King County that are much like urban separators in Kent. Land Use and Planning Board Hearing January 25, 2010 Page 1 of 4 2 Ottini declared the Public Hearing open. George Curtusan, 21216 132nd Ave SE, Kent WA 98042 spoke on behalf of his father who resides on 132nd Avenue, on property zoned R1 and wanted to know if zoning would be changed to allow more than one structure per acre. Camille O'Brien 19619 116t" Ave SE Renton WA 98058 stated she is zoned one house per acre and that zoning across the street is six (6) houses per acre. O'Brien stated that current zoning should conform to a geographical outline, something other than a road, and zoning should reflect current usage. She voiced her opposition to allowing different zoning for separate parcels located on opposing sides of a street. Jon Ruth 19400 108t" Ave SE Renton stated that he represents the Ruth Proposal. He stated that the Ruth property is located on the southeast corner of Benson and 192nd and has a King County zoning designation of Neighborhood Business. Ruth stated that preliminary work has been completed on the parcel including conceptual design. He stated that the Department of Transportation has issued their approval on a road design. Ruth stated that the new zoning that Kent would implement will impose height restriction constraints on his property and disallow drive-thru's. Ruth stated that they included additional properties as part of their proposal in anticipation of long range planning. He stated that the parcels are not split zoned. Ruth noted that they are not asking for anything greater than what they would have been allowed under King County's jurisdiction. Janet Herman 21617 132nd AVE SE stated that she resides near Soos Creek Elementary School and understands that her property is zoned SF 4.5. She questioned how to seek a zoning change to SF 6 stating that she and her neighbor would like to develop their property. She questioned if the new zoning would change the number of houses that could be developed. She questioned if there were any plans to widen 132nd Jim Dojan 11213SE 196t" St stated that high density zoning will aggravate flooding problems. He stated that there are major backups on 208t" and access from any future development from the former Panther Lake site should not be off of 208th. Arlene Jenson 13224 SE 230t" St questioned if neighborhood covenants or zoning supersedes. Paul Morford, PO BOX 6345, Kent 98063 stated that the Panther Lake area is now an urban area versus a rural area. He recommended that staff consider higher densities for marginal areas such as commercial property, the Ruth property and the Panther Lake property. Morford encouraged staff to apply zoning that complies with Growth Management further stating that the split zoning on those properties within the Urban Growth Boundary should be eliminated. John McAllister, 9739 S 208t" St, Kent, WA raised questioned regarding streets including 100t", 208t", and 216t" Charles Garner 29811 Marine View Dr. SW, Federal Way, WA stated that he owns six (6) acres in the annexation area used as a farm and voiced concerns about being able to keep his animals under the new Kent zoning. Garner questioned if areas that have been preliminarily platted are still allowed. Don Leever 13725 SE 233rd St, Kent, WA 98042 stated that 4 acres of open land (Lake Jolie area) south of his property have been considered by King County as undevelopable for several years because of water fowl, migration, wetlands, and an eagle nesting area. He voiced his concern that Alternative 1 indicates that this area would be zoned as FS-6, questioning if the City or the County would prevail over the zoning. He reiterated his concerns with the wetlands, whereby Land Use and Planning Board Hearing January 25, 2010 Page 2 of 4 3 Osborne advised Leever to contact planning staff, suggesting that he submit comment to the Planning Division with his recommendations. Osborne stated that those areas designated as R1 are very likely designated as Greenbelt or Urban Separator in King County. He stated that Kent is proposing to designate those areas as urban separator areas. Osborne cited Kent's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal LU-3, Policy LU 31.1, and Policy LU 31.2 with respect to establishing urban separators. Osborne cited Countywide Planning Policy LU-27 and read from a document submitted to the Boundary Review Board as part of Kent's Notice of Intent to meet the criteria that the annexation would be consistent with countywide planning policies. Staff proposes to take King County's existing zoning along with any associated constraints on that zoning such as urban separators and apply Kent's equivalent zoning. In response to comments associated with drive-thru uses, Osborne stated that retail drive-thru eateries or beverage drive-thrus are prohibited in NCC zones. However, other commercial retail uses such as banking drive-thrus would require a conditional use permit. Osborne stated that the City submitted a report of priority projects to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), a regional transportation planning organization that allocates funds from the Federal Government to local jurisdictions and counties based on project scoring. Kent identified the completion of 132nd Avenue as high priority, as well as identifying this project in Kent's Transportation Master Plan. Public Works Development Engineering Manager Mike Gillespie stated that portions of 132"d Avenue have been included in the Transportation Improvement Plan. He stated that staff will complete an analysis over the next year for both 132"d and 116th, using that information to determine projects to include in the Capital Improvement Program. Osborne addressed the issue of split-designated parcels identified in the annexation area. He stated that unless property owners approach the city to request some remediation to make the designations whole for their parcels, the city is looking at applying King County's existing zoning. Assistant City Attorney Kim Adams Pratt addressed split designations with respect to covenants for zoning. She stated that current case law is that homeowners association or subdivision covenants trump any zoning citing that if covenants say that the property allows 5 units per acre, those covenants would override zoning that allows 6 units per acre. Osborne stated that staff found property located in the southeast corner of the Panther Lake Annexation area to be designated as SR-6 by King County after reviewing King County assessor's data. In response to Garner's concerns with keeping animals in urban separator designated areas, Osborne stated that the SR-1 zone in Kent is considered a residential agriculture district which permits farm animal use. In response to concerns to protect a 4 acre parcel of property from development due to migratory habitat, Osborne stated that the City's Critical Areas Ordinance, Storm Water Design Manual, along with the Department of Ecology's impending approval of the City's Shoreline Master Plan will have some implications for protection of critical areas associated with habitat, water quality and quantity. Osborne submitted King County Ordinance No 10197 for the record, relating to comprehensive planning, adopting the Soos Creek Community Plan Update, adopting the Soos Creek area zoning, and amending the King County Sewage General Plan. Land Use and Planning Board Hearing January 25, 2010 Page 3 of 4 4 Dowell MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to accept the submittal of King County Ordinance No. 10197 for the record. Motion PASSED. Satterstrom stated that when cities annex land, they have complete authority in terms of policing, serving, and zoning that territory as long as they are working with the Growth Management Act and satisfy State mandates except in the case of Urban Separators. Urban separators cannot be changed at a local jurisdictional level. Satterstrom explained that urban separators were adopted by King County and the Growth Management Planning Council of King County as a Countywide Planning Policy meaning that 30% of the jurisdictions in King County representing 70% of the population ratified that as a policy. Satterstrom stated that were Kent not to abide by this policy, the city could be subject to an appeal and brought before the Growth Management Hearings Board as adopting planning and zoning regulations that are not consistent with countywide planning policies. Satterstrom recommended that the Board not deviate from this policy. Dowell MOVED to Recommend Approval of Alternative 2 as described in the staff report which provides for comprehensive plan land use map and zoning map designations for the Panther Lake Annexation area and to forward such recommendation to the Kent City Council for adoption with a change to the parcels located on the southeast corner of 108t" and 192"d from Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) to Community Commercial (CC) along with the surrounding parcels. Motion died for lack of a Second. Discussion ensued over whether a zoning amendment could be included as part of the Board's recommendation. After consulting with Legal Council, Satterstrom stated that Community Commercial was not one of the alternatives considered for this property and could not be considered for change this evening. Satterstrom stated that at least two more hearings will be held and felt that there was no reason that the Land Use & Planning Board could not make their recommendation based on Alternative 2. He stated that the Board could send a recommendation as part of their motion to City Council that they consider analyzing and reviewing the merits of the alternative presented by Mr. Ruth for the Council's consideration at a later public hearing. This would allow property owners involved to be notified. Kondelis-Halpin MOVED to recommend approval of Alternative 2 as described in the staff report which provides for Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map Designations for the Panther Lake Annexation area with an amendment that we recommend to Council that they follow up with other proposals with Mr. Ruth's and others as we have heard tonight, any applications or proposals that would come through in their next review of this map and designation. Phillips SECONDED the Motion. Motion PASSED 5-0. Adiournment Kondelis-Halpin MOVED and Dowell SECONDED a Motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion PASSED 5-0. Ottini declared the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Secretary of the Board P:\Planning\LUPB\2010\Minutes\01-25-10-LUPB-Minutes.doc Land Use and Planning Board Hearing January 25, 2010 Page 4 of 4 5 ECONOMIC and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Ben Wolters, Director PLANNING DIVISION Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Director KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager VV AS H ING TO N Phone: 253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 February 16, 2010 TO: Chair Dana Ralph and Land Use & Planning Board Members FROM: Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager RE: Cottage Housing For the public hearing of February 22, 2010 Motion: Approve/Deny/Modify an amendment to the Cottage Housing Demonstration Ordinance to allow flexibility in the maximum allowable number of cottage housing units, as recommended by staff. Summary: At their February 8t" meeting, Economic and Community Development Committee members expressed a desire for the Land Use & Planning Board to consider options for amending the cottage housing demonstration ordinance related to maximum allowable number of units in a cottage housing development. The Cottage Housing Committee considered two applications for cottage housing demonstration projects - Apple Lane Cottages and Blueberry Cottages. One of the applications does not meet the provisions for maximum number of cottage housing units, i.e., 24 maximum. The Cottage Housing Committee supports an amendment to the demonstration ordinance to allow flexibility in determining the maximum allowable number of units. Budget Impact: None Background: The Cottage Housing Demonstration Ordinance No. 3895 was passed by the City Council on November 18, 2008. The Ordinance establishes goals, a process for selection and permitting, development and design standards. One of the development standards limits the size of the cottage housing development to a maximum of 24 units. This number of units was established based on a staff review of similar ordinances in other cities. Applicants for the Blueberry Cottages development submitted to the Cottage Housing Committee information from Ross Chapin, AIA, summarizing research he had done on the size of cottage housing developments (see attached). The Cottage Housing Committee supports flexibility in the allowable number of cottage housing units if that flexibility allows a better cottage housing development. Attached are options for Board consideration. The SEPA Responsible Official determined that the proposed revisions are procedural in nature and no further environmental review is required. Recommendation: Staff recommends Option Three. CA/pm S:\Permit\Plan\COMP_PLAN_AMENDMENTS\2008\CPA-2008-2_Cottage_Housing\LUPB\02-22-10LUPB_Memo.doc 6 Excerpt from Ordinance No. 3895 Section 5. - Development and Design Standards for Cottage Housing Demonstration Project Option One: No Change Option Two: Cottage Carriage' Development Sizes Min 6 units Allowed when included in Max. 24-ufR-sNone a cottage project Option Three: Cottage Carriage' Development Sizes Min 6 units Allowed when included in Max. 24 units a cottage project 5 Carriage units may be included within a cottage housing proposal, provided that the number of carriage units do not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total number of units in the project. The Cottage Housing Committee may select and staff may approve a demonstration project with a greater percentage of carriage units or a greater maximum number of cottage housing units if the project demonstrates a superior level of unique site design, architectural design, building materials, open space, landscaping, or sustainable development. Option Four: Same as Option Three with other more specific criteria for determining when additional units may be allowed. Option Five: Some combination of the other options. S:\Permit\Plan\COM P_PLAN_AM ENDM ENTS\2008\CPA-2008-2_Cottage_Housi ng\LU PB\02-22-10LU PB_OrdRev.doc . ` ' 7 a° U�� � 0 � �� |T��T� x��~����xm��� vu� r`/`^_/ / / / �`_ / / Post Office Box ,ps Second Street^ Langley,Washington paz*o~ USA T: (36o)2212373^ s: rvoqPm5sc»ap|nzvm ^vv:www.roochap|nzvm What is the right size for a pocket neighborhood? This is a question I've pondered for years. The answer I've come to relates to what a pocket neighborhood is, and how aggregate clusters of pocket neighborhoods are organized. In my definition, a pocket neighborhood is a cohesive cluster nf homes within a larger surrounding neighborhood. Think of it as a neighborhood within a neighborhood. Shared outdoor space is a key element of a pocket neighborhood. This space is neither private (yard) nor public (strect, park), but rather a defined space between the private and public realms. The residents surrounding this common space share in its care and oversight, thereby enhancing a felt and actual sense of security and identity. Because of its location and design, the shared outdoor space fosters casual interaction among neighbors, which, in time, may grow into deeper, long-term friendships. Pocket neighborhoods form at scale where meaningful 'neighborly' relationships are 6nxLcrcd -- snna|lerLhan what we usually think of as a neighborhood, but larger than a couple of houses. if cluster has less than 4 households, it looses the sense of being a cluster, or a group. It lacks a clear sense ofidentity, diversity or activity of larger group. When the number of households grows beyond l2orl6, it becomes difficult for a person io know their neighbors in any depth, or live close enough Locall on in an emergency. Soit seems this is the right number. Yet, a number of established examples suggest ahigher number. Cohousing communities —a type of self-organized and self-managed residential community most resembling cottage courtyard housing--typically have between 2O and 4O . residences with up to 100 residents, according in the [nhousing Association of America. ]an Gudnnand'H0yer, LheOanisharchitectvvhopioneerndthocohousingnnodel, cnnsidorstiln ideal size to br33 households. This size has been shown to be small enough so that group decisions can still be personable and manageable, yet large enough to have a diversity of skills and abilities to tackle most projects. And communities of this size can afford amenities that a cluster of dozen households cannot easily have--such as a child-care coop, guesthouse, woodworking shop, and a commercial-sized kitchen/diningfaci|ily. On a social level, cohousing advocates say that communities of 20-40 households are small enough to still know everyone by name, yet large enough for people Lo gravitate toward natural friendships and avoid awkward or uncomfortable ones. /\n interesting correlation with this number is found in Thomas More's book, Utopia published in 1516, where lie describes'an ideal city of cooperatives, each having 3Ofamilies. Examples of larger, vvel|'functinningcnnnrnunides have also been studied by social scientists. � Anthropologist Robin Dunbar identified a common upper limit of 150 individuals in a wide range of social groups -- Neolithic villages in Mesopotamia, Hutksrite communal farming communities, work divisions within corporations, and the basic unit size of armies in Roman antiquity and modern times since the 16 h century. /\ closer look at the site plans of larger communities reveals clusters of 8 to 12 homes connected within a largervvhole -- in other words, aggregate clusters of pocket neighborhoods. So, the right size ofa pocket neighborhood seems tobe4tn /3households, which may com- bine with other pocket neighborhoods into a larger aggregate community of 100 to 150 people. Ross Chapin, /\|/\ January, 2010