Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 09/16/2003 PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING PACKET Planning Committee Agenda Councilmembers: Tim Clark•Bruce White•Leona Orr, Chair • KENT September 16, 2003 WASHINGTON 3:00 p.m. Item Description Action Speaker Time Page 1. Approval of Minutes dated August 19, 2003 YES 1 2. Cluster Housing Zoning Code Amendment YES Charlene Anderson 20 min 3 #ZCA-2003-2 3. Binding Site Plan- Subdivision Code Amendment YES Kim Marousek 20 min 77 #SCA-2003-1 4. Proposed Zoning Study—DCE Area e p a.��, East of Burlington Northern Tracks � NO Fred Satterstrom 20 min 115 S:IPermitlPlawPlanning Committee120031Agendas191603Agenda-PC.doe Unless otherwise noted,the Planning Committee meets at 3:00 p.m. on the P Tuesday of each month. Council Chambers East,Kent City Hall,220 4th Avenue South, Kent,98032-5895. For information please contact Planning Services at(253)856-5454. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at (253) 856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. 1 PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES August 19,2003 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Chair Leona Orr, Tim Clark, Bruce White The meeting was called to order by Chair Leona Orr at 3:00 P.M with Judy Woods temporarily filling in for Tim Clark prior to his arrival. Approval of Minutes of June 17,2003 Committee Member Bruce White moved and Committee Member Judy Woods seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the July 15,2003 meeting. The motion carried 3-0. #ZCA-2003-4 Stewart Amendment Community Development Director Fred Satterstrom stated that this application proposes a change to Kent's Zoning Code nonconforming use regulations in order to re-establish a bank with a drive up facility in the Stewart bank building located at Second and Gowe Street. Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff wishes to maintain the pedestrian orientation of the (DC) Downtown Commercial zoned area along Meeker and First Avenue based on adopted downtown planning documents and the regulations adopted through Ordinance 3050 in 1992 which prohibit auto oriented types of uses. Mr. Satterstrom stated that approval of this amendment will affect only the Wells Fargo Bank and the Stewart Bank Building. The proposal recognizes grandfather rights for those banks and drive up facilities not allowed under existing regulations. Mr. Satterstrom stated that the Land Use and Planning Board considered this amendment at their July 28, 2003 hearing, recommending Council approval as proposed by Mr. Stewart, as they felt this amendment would not adversely affect the integrity of the 16 acre DC zoned downtown core area. Mr. Satterstrom stated that staff feels that in the final analysis this amendment is a responsible request, would not measurably deteriorate the pedestrian environment and recognizes preexisting rights. Tim Clark moved and Bruce White seconded a motion to approve #ZCA-2003-4 Stewart Amendment as recommended by staff with an amendment to change the definition of "Planning Director"to "Planning Manager" in the body of the draft Ordinance. Motion carried 3-0. 4ZCA-2003-2 Cluster Housing Amendment Planning Manager Charlene Anderson submitted a letter from Garrett Huffman with Master Builders Association supporting Cluster Housing. Ms. Anderson defined the clustering criteria, stating that this ordinance is a result of a request by the Planning Committee to have staff analyze clustering as a development option in residential areas. Ms. Anderson stated that the Land Use and Planning Board, at their July 28, 2003 hearing,unanimously approved Option C with a couple of amendments. After discussion, Ms. Anderson concurred with the Committee that a separate Clustering Ordinance could be created to distinguish the existing proposal from the clustering provisions required in Urban Separator areas. Tim Clark moved and Bruce White seconded a motion directing staff to modify the ZCA-2003-2 Cluster Housing Amendment ordinance to distinguish clustering in residential development areas and in Urban Separator areas. Motion carried 3-0. #CPA-2003-3 Capital Facilities Element 2003 Annual Update Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that the recently adopted Ordinance 3650 allows the City Council to hold the required public hearing on the updated Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent, Federal Way and Auburn School Districts during the yearly budgeting process that occurs beginning in September. Chair Orr stated that no action would be taken at this time as this was for information only. The meeting adjourned at 3:45 P.M. • Pamela Mottram, Admin Secretary,Planning Services S:iPerminPlanTlanning Committee120031,Minutes181903pc-nzin.doc 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4^60�04 Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES NS7 K E N T Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager WASHINGTON Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 TO: CHAIR LEONA ORR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: CLUSTER HOUSING—ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 4ZCA-2003-2 MOTION: I move to recommend/not recommend approval of#ZCA-2003-2, providing for cluster housing as forwarded by the Land Use & Planning Board and staff, and to forward this item to the Consent Calendar of the October 71h City Council meeting. SUMMARY: After considering the proposed ordinance for cluster subdivisions at their August 19ih meeting, the Planning Committee requested a revised ordinance to separate clustering provisions in urban separator areas from clustering provisions in all other single family residential zoning districts. The revised ordinance is included in the agenda packet. At their July 28`h public hearing, the Land Use & Planning Board recommended, by a 6-0 vote, approval of an amendment to allow cluster subdivisions in single family residential zoning districts. In their motion, the Board recommended amendments to staff's Option C; the amendments encourage shared driveways and support complementary housing features, and delete any change to existing clustering provisions in Urban Separator areas. The proposed code revisions resulted from a March 181h Planning Committee motion to have staff analyze clustering as a development option for residential development. Staff had presented proposed code revisions to the Board at their April 14`h workshop. Kent City Code currently requires clustering of residential dwellings when a property is designated Urban Separator on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Currently, there is no other code provision allowing clustering as a development option. As defined by the Kent Zoning Code, clustering or cluster subdivision "means a development or division of land in which residential building lots are reduced in size and concentrated in specified portion(s) of the original lot, tract. or parcel." BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: At a March, 1995 Planning Commission workshop, Planning staff presented potential amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes to allow cluster housing and related development techniques. The Planning Commission held several workshops and two public hearings on the issue. Planning staff also held two public forums on the issue. On October 23, 1995, the Planning Commission forwarded staff s proposal to the City Council without recommendation. Unresolved issues related to minimum lot size and the requirement for a i ti Conditional Use Permit. On November 25, 1995 and January 16, 1996, the City Council Planning Committee revie*ed the proposal, with outstanding issues being sidewalks and street design, including street widths and on-street parking. No further action on the issue was taken at that time. In March 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3551 related to Urban Separators. The Ordinance required residential clustering for subdivisions located within areas designated Urban Separators. The clustering Provisions allow only detached single family dwelling units, maintain maximum densities of the honing district, require a minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet and a 30-foot minimum lot width, restrict the number of units in a cluster and require cluster separation, and have a 501/d common open space requirement beyond that of any sensitive area. Design review is not required. However, at their February 27, 2001 meeting, the Planning Committee directed staff to review and recommend design criteria for clustered subdivisions, including, for example, maD imum impervious surface, shared driveways, and other appropriate building and site designs. IIt was stated that the idea was to keep the cluster of units as far away from sensitive areas as pos$ible and reduce the amount of impervious surface that was actually built, reducing and filtering ithe run off in order to reduce contaminants. Cluster development provides opportunities to preserve open space for community greens and recreation, natural resources, environmentally critical areas, and historic preservation. It also provides for more efficient provision of infrastructure, including opportunities for water conservation. The SEPA Responsible Official has determined that no separate threshold determination, pursuant to SEPA, is requited for the proposed amendment. Any impacts associated with this proposed code amendment have been adequately addressed in the City's Comprehensive Plan EIS. CA1pm: S:\Permit\PlanIZONECgDEAMEND1200312031045-2003-2pc2.doc Enc: Revised Draft Ordinance;July 21 staff memo to Board w/attachments;minutes of 7/29/03 public hearing cc: Fred N. Satterstrom,AI(P,CD Director Charlene Anderson,AIdP,Planning Manager Parties of Interest Project File 4ZCA-2003 i r2 I i Planning Committee Meeting August 19,2003 Page 2 of 2 5 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending chapter 12.04 and chapter 15.04 of the Kent City Code to provide for cluster developments in the SR-1, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6, and SR-8 zoning districts. WHEREAS, the City of Kent continues to endeavor to provide flexibility in housing design, to discourage development sprawl, to facilitate the economical and efficient provision of public services, and to preserve usable open space and recreation areas; and WHEREAS, the City has development regulations for traditional housing formats, and it has recently adopted a planned unit development process for residential developments to provide additional flexibility and to preserve open space; and WHEREAS, cluster subdivision means a development or division of land in which residential building lots are reduced in size and concentrated in specified portion(s) of the original lot, tract, or parcel; and WHEREAS, the City desires to add the option to cluster single family developments in order to further the City's density, open space, and other housing development goals; and 1 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments II WHEREAS, after providing appropriate public notice, the City held a public hearing on a proposal for cluster developments at the regular land use and planning board meeting on July 28, 2003; and WHEREAS, the planning committee considered this matter at its regularly scheduled meeting on August 19, 2003; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2003, the City provided the required sixty (60) day notification of the City's proposed amendment for cluster developments under RCW 36.70A.106 to the State of Washington; and WHEREAS, the sixty (60) day notice period has lapsed and the amendment is deemed appropriate; NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY'ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: S CTION 1. - Amendment. The heading of Section 12.04.263 of the Kent City Code i� amended as follows: See. 12.04.263. Clustering in urban separators. S CTION 2. -Amendment. The following Section 12.04.264 shall be added to the Kenk City Code: Sge. 12.04.264. Clustering in residential zones outside urban separators. 2 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 7 A. 'When located wholly outside an urban separator, cluster subdivisions are allowed in SR-1 SR-2 SR-3 SR-4.5. SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts subject to the regulations below. B. The purpose of this cluster development option is as follows: to permit greater flexibility in design and discourage development sprawl; to facilitate the economical and efficient provision of public services; to provide a more efficient use of land in harmony with its natural characteristics; to preserve more usable open space agricultural land tree cover, recreation areas. and scenic vistas; and to expand the opportunity for the development of affordable housing without increasing the development's overall density. Development standards and review criteria are intended to ensure that lots are consistent with the desired character of the zone, allowing lots to vary in size and shape while still adheringto o the planned density of the zone. C. Cluster subdivisions shall be subject to the development standards outlined in KCC Title 15. unless otherwise modified by this chapter. These standards include, but are not limited to minimum lot size, width, yards, setbacks, parking, landscaping, and signage. D. The provisions of KCC 12.04.235 through 12.04.255, as well as other applicable portions of this chapter, shall apply unless specifically excepted In addition the following standards shall apply to clustered Type I short subdivisions: 1. Location. The cluster residential development may be allowed in SR- 1 SR-2. SR-3 SR-4.5 SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts outside of urban separators. 2. Permitted uses. The cluster residential development option shall include only single-family residential uses, as defined in KCC 15.02.115. 3. Minimum area. No minimum area is established for a cluster residential development. 4. Permitted density. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in a cluster development shall be no greater than the number of dwelling units allowed for the parcel as a whole for the zoning district in which it is located. 3 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments i 5. Lot size. In the interest of encouraging flexibility in site design and the preservation of open space, the minimum lot size of individual building lots within a clusters subdivision in single family residential zoning districts may be reduced by twe!Zy-five percent of the minimum lot size for the underlying zoning district. 6. Lot width. The minimum lot width for individual building lots in a cluster subdivision shall be thirty (30) feet. The hearing examiner may allow a shared driveway easement to be included in the minimum lot width of irregular lots, provided the total driveway width is no greater than twelve (12) feet. 7. Other development standards. Development standards other than lot size and lot widtj shall be the same as are required within the zoning district in which the cluster residential development is located. Design review is required for cluster development projects using the review criteria in KCC 15.09.045(C), Multifamily design review. 8. Additional approval Criteria for cluster development projects. a. The proposed cluster development project shall have a beneficial effect'.upon the community and users of the development that would not normally be ac4ieved by traditional lot-by-lot development, and it shall not be detrimental to o xisting or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive flan. b.1 The proposed cluster development project shall be compatible with the existing land use or property that abuts or is directly across the street from the subject property. Compatibility includes, but is not limited to, apparent size, scale. mass, and architectural design. C. Unusual and sensitive environmental features of the site shall be preserved, maintained and incorporated into the design to benefit the development and the community. d The proposed cluster development project shall provide open areas by using to*hniques such as separation of building groups. use of well-designed open space coM2mon or shared space, and landscaping. Open space shall be 4 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments i i 9 integrated within the cluster development project rather than be an isolated element of . the project. e The proposed cluster development project shall promote variety and innovation in site and building design and shall include architectural and site features that promote community interaction and accessibility, such as porches, de-emphasized garages shared driveways. sidewalks/walkways, and adjacent common areas Buildings shall be related by common materials and roof styles, but contrast shall be provided throughout the site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building scale and orientation. f Building design shall be based on a unified design concept, particularly wben construction is in phases. 9. Common open space. a. The common open space in cluster subdivisions shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the entire parcel, whether or not the parcel is constrained by critical areas or buffers. b. Parking areas public right of way, maneuvering areas, roads.. storage areas driveways and yards within individual lots shall not be included in common open space. C. The common open space tracts created by clustering shall be located and configured in the manner that best connects and increases protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, connects and protects area wildlife habitat creates connectivitv between the open space provided by the clustering and other adjacent open spaces as well as existing or planned public parks and trails and maintains scenic vistas. d. All natural features (such as streams and their buffers, significant strands of trees and rock outcropping) as well as sensitive areas (such as steep slopes and wetlands and their buffers) shall be preserved. e. Future development of the common open space shall be prohibited Except as specified on recorded documents creating the common open space all common open space resulting from lot clustering shall not be altered or 5 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 1 i disturbed in a manner that degrades adjacent environmentally sensitive areas, rural areas, agricultur4i areas, or resource lands; impairs scenic vistas and the connectivity between the open space provided by the clustered development and adjacent open spaces: de rgradesiwildlife habitat; and impairs the recreational benefits enjoyed by the residents of the development. f. Ownership of such common open spaces may be retained by the owner or subdivider. conveyed to residents of the development, conveyed to a homeowners' association for the benefit of the residents of the development, conveyed to the;city with the city's consent and approval, or conveyed to another party upon approval of the city of Kent. SECTION 3. - Amendment. The heading of Section 12.04.578 of the Kent City Code is amended as follows: See. 12.04.578. Clustering in urban separators. SYCTION 4. -Amendment. The following Section 12.04.579 shall be added to the KerA City Code: Ste. 12.04.579. Clustering in residential zones outside urban separators. A. When loFated wholly outside an urban separator, cluster subdivisions are allowed in SR-1j SR-2, SR-3, SR-4.5. SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts subject to the regulations belM. B. The punjose of this cluster development option is as follows: to permit greater flexibility in design and discourage development sprawl; to facilitate the economical and Vfficient provision of public services, to provide a more efficient use of land in harmjony with its natural characteristics; to preserve more usable open space. agricultur11 land, tree cover, recreation areas, and scenic vistas; and to expand the opportunity for the development of affordable housing without increasing the f 6 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments I 11 development's overall density. Development standards and review criteria are intended to ensure that lots are consistent with the desired character of the zone allowing lots to vary in size and shape, while still adhering to the planned density of the zone. C. Cluster subdivisions shall be subject to the development standards outlined in KCC Title 15 unless otherwise modified by this chapter. These standards include, but are not limited to. minimum lot size width yards, setbacks, parking, landscaping, and signage_ D. The provisions of KCC 12.04.545 through 12.04.570 as well as other applicable portions of this chapter shall apply unless specifically excepted In addition the following standards shall apply to clustered Type II short subdivisions: 1. Location. The cluster residential development may be allowed in SR- I, SR-2 SR-3 SR-4.5 SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts outside of urban separators. 2. Permitted uses. The cluster residential development option shall include only single-family residential uses, as defined in KCC 15.02.115. 3. Minimum area. No minimum area is established for a cluster residential development. 4. Permitted density. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in a cluster development shall be no greater than the number of dwelling units allowed for the parcel as a whole for the zoning district in which it is located. 5. Lot size. In the interest of encouraging flexibility in site design and the preservation of open space, the minimum lot size of individual building lots within a cluster subdivision in single family residential zoning districts may reduced by twenty-five percent of the minimum lot size for the underlying zoning district. 6. Lot width. The minimum lot width for individual building lots in a cluster subdivision shall be thirty (30) feet. The hearing examiner may allow a shared driveway easement to be included in the minimum lot width of irregular lots, provided the total driveway width is no greater than twelve 02) feet. 7 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments i 1 Y 7. O�her development standards. Development standards other than lot size and lot widj) shall be the same as are required within the zoning district in which the cluster residgntial development is located. Design review is required for cluster development projects using the review criteria in KCC 15.09.045(C), Multifamily design review. 8. A0ditional approval Criteria for cluster development proiects. a.. The proposed cluster development project shall have a beneficial effectupon the community and users of the development that would not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development, and it shall not be detrimental to ixisting or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive pj an. b. The proposed cluster development project shall be compatible with the existing land use or ]roperty that abuts or is directly across the street from the subject property. Compatibility includes, but is not limited to, apparent size, scale, mass, and architectural design. c. Unusual and sensitive environmental features of the site shall be preserved, maintained and incorporated into the design to benefit the development and the community. d. The proposed cluster development project shall provide open areas by usingte�hniques such as separation of building groups, use of well-designed open space, common or shared space, and landscaping. Open space shall be integrated withiq the cluster development project rather than be an isolated element of the project. e.` The proposed cluster development project shall promote variety and innovation in site and building design and shall include architectural and site features that promote community interaction and accessibility, such as porches, de-emphasi�arages, shared driveways, sidewalks/walkways, and adjacent common areas. Buildings shall be related by common materials and roof styles, but contrast shall b provided throughout the site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing, building scale and orientation. 8 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 13 f Building design shall be based on a unified design concept, particularly when construction is in phases. 9. Common open space. a The common open space in cluster subdivisions shall be a minimum of twenty-five(25) percent of the entire parcel whether or not the parcel is constrained by critical areas or buffers. b Parking areas public right of WE, maneuvering areas roads storage areas driveways. and yards within individual lots shall not be included in common open space. C. The common open space tracts created by clustering shall be located and configured in the manner that best connects and increases protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas connects and protects area wildlife habitat creates connectivity between the open space provided by the clustering and other adjacent open spaces as well as existing or planned public parks and trails and maintains scenic vistas. d. All natural features (such as streams and their buffers, significant strands of trees and rock outcropping) as well as sensitive areas (such as steep slopes and wetlands and their buffers) shall be preserved. e. Future development of the common open space shall be prohibited Except as specified on recorded documents creating the common open space all common open space resulting from lot clustering shall not be altered or disturbed in a manner that degrades adjacent environmentally sensitive areas, rural areas agricultural areas or resource lands,• impairs scenic vistas and the connectivity between the open space provided by the clustered development and adjacent open spaces; degrades wildlife habitat• and impairs the recreational benefits enjoyed by the residents of the development. f. Ownership of such common open spaces may be retained under ownership by the owner or subdivider, conveyed to residents of the development conveyed to a homeowners' association for the benefit of the residents 9 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 14 of the developmj nt, conveyed to the city with the city's consent and approval, or conveved to another party upon approval of the city of Kent. SECTION S. - Amendment. The beading of Section 12.04.778 of the Kent City Code i1s amended as follows: see. 12.04.778. Clustering in urban separators. UCTION 6. -Amendment. The following Section 12.04.779 shall be added to the Kenk City Code: Sic. 12.04.779. Clustering in residential zones outside urban separators. A. When located wholly outside an urban separator cluster subdivisions are allowed in SR-I,' SR-2. SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts subject to the regulations belo,� . B. The purpose of this cluster development option is as follows: to permit greater flexibilitj in design and discourage development sprawl; to facilitate the economical and i ficient provision of public services; to provide a more efficient use of land in harm6ny with its natural characteristics; to preserve more usable open space. agricultural land, tree cover, recreation areas, and scenic vistas; and to expand the opportunity Lor the development of affordable housing without increasing the development's overall density. Development standards and review criteria are intended to ensgre that lots are consistent with the desired character of the zone, allowing lots to yM in size and shape, while still adhering to the planned density of the zone. C. Cluster subdivisions shall be subject to the development standards outlined in KCC Title 15, unless otherwise modified by this chapter. These standards include, but are not limited to, minimum lot size, width. yards. setbacks, parking, landscaping, and si ng age. 10 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 15 Q. The provisions of KCC 12.04.745 through 12.04.770, as well as other gplicable portions of this chapter, shall apply unless specifically xcepted In addition the following standards shall apply to clustered subdivisions: 1 Location. The cluster residential development may be allowed in SR- 1 SR-2 SR-3 SR-4.5 SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts outside of urban separators. 2 Permitted uses. The cluster residential development option shall include only single-family residential uses as defined in KCC 15.02.115. 3. Minimum area. No minimum area is established for a cluster residential development. 4 Permitted density. The maximum number of dwelling units permitted in a cluster development shall be no greater than the number of dwelling units allowed for the parcel as a whole for the zoning district in which it is located. 5 Lot size In the interest of encouraging flexibility in site design and the preservation of open space the minimum lot size of individual building lots within a cluster subdivision in single family residential zoning districts may be reduced by twenty-fivepercent of the minimum lot size for the underlying zoning district. 6 Lot width The minimum lot width for individual building lots in a cluster subdivision shall be thirty (30)feet. The hearing examiner may allow a shared driveway easement to be included in the minimum lot width of irregular lots, provided the total driveway width is no greater than twelve 02) feet. 7. Other development standards. Development standards other than lot size and lot width shall be the same as are required within the zoning district in which the cluster residential development is located. Design review is required for cluster development projects using the review criteria in KCC 15.09.045(C), Multifamily design review. 8. Additional approval Criteria for cluster development projects. a. The proposed cluster development project shall have a beneficial effect upon the community and users of the development that would not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development, and it shall not be 11 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 1 detrimental to existing or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive pan. b.j The proposed cluster development project shall be compatible with the existin¢�1and use or property that abuts or is directly across the street from the subject property. Compatibility includes, but is not limited to, apparent size, scale, mass, and architectural design. C. Unusual and sensitive environmental features of the site shall be preserved, mahntained and incorporated into the design to benefit the development and the community. & The proposed cluster development project shall provide open areas by using techniques such as separation of building groups, use of well-designed open space, common or shared space, and landscaping. Open space shall be integrated within!the cluster development project rather than be an isolated element of the project. e.i The proposed cluster development project shall promote variety and innovation in site and building_design and shall include architectural and site features thatipromote community interaction and accessibility. such as porches, de-emphasized garages, shared driveways, sidewalks/walkways, and adjacent common areas. Puildings shall be related by common materials and roof styles, but contrast shall b� provided throughout the site by the use of varied materials, architectural detailing. building scale and orientation. f Building design shall be based on a unified design concept, particularly when construction is in phases. 9. Common open space. a.i The common open space in cluster subdivisions shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the entire parcel, whether or not the parcel is constrained by critical areas or buffers. b. Parking areas, public right of way, maneuvering areas, roads, storage areas. Oiveways, and vards within individual lots shall not be included in common opens ce. 12 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 17 C. The common open space tracts created by clustering shall be located and configured in the manner that best connects and increases protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas connects and protects area wildlife habitat creates connectivity between the open space provided by the clustering and other adjacent open spaces as well as existing or planned public parks and trails, and maintains scenic vistas. d All natural features (such as streams and their buffers. significant strands of trees and rock outcropping). as well as sensitive areas (such as steep slopes and wetlands and their buffers) shall be preserved. e Future development of the common open space shall be prohibited Except as specified on recorded documents creating the common open space all common open space resulting from lot clustering shall not be altered or disturbed in a manner that degrades adjacent environmentally sensitive areas, rural areas agricultural areas or resource lands, impairs scenic vistas and the connectivity between the open space provided by the clustered development and adjacent open spaces: degrades wildlife habitat: and impairs the recreational benefits enjoyed by the residents of the development. f. Ownership of such common open spaces may be retained under ownership by the owner or subdivider, conveyed to residents of the development conveyed to a homeowners' association for the benefit of the residents of the development conveyed to the city with the city's consent and approval, or conveyed to another party upon approval of the city of Kent. SECTION 7. —Amendment. Section 15.04.170 the Kent City Code is amended as follows: 13 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 1 Sec. 15.04.170. Agricultural and Residential Zone Development Standards. Zoning Districts � h m p p c r s d m c c � 3 3 c a� x3 c - F W mum A ti y E IL �. c 'm E C 3 m 'm i C T T T T cA N N N m li ti ut !li UL `�.° E o c d> dl rn dt dt m = d o m ms rn c -a a c c U) c c -Ccm U) co un uJ (b N D p it 0 a co U) W W W F � a a SF Duplex SF Duplex MF SF Duplex 51F SF Duplex MF SF Duplex MF SF Duplex MF Maximum density: ]du/ 1 du/ne 2.18 3.63 4.53 Q.05 8.71 8.71 10.89 12.0 12.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16 23.0 23 40.0 40 dwelling units per 10 ac duslac dos/ dust dust dust dual duslac dos/ dus/ dust dual dust dust duslac dust dos/ dos/ acre ac ac me Be Be Be 8C ac a a a ac Be ac Minimum lot area: l0 ac 34,700 16,000 9,600 7,600 5700 4,000 4,000 8,000 none 8,000 8,500/none 8,000 8,500/ none 8,000 8,500/ none 8,000 8,300 none 8,OoO 8,500/ square feet Or sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sp ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft 3,SOa sq ft 3,500 s9 ft 2,300 sq ft 1,600 sq ft 900 acres,as noted sq ft sq ft sq ft. sq ft sq ft (27) (1) (2) (3) Minimum lot 60 ft 60 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft 9a ft 40 ft 25 ft 80 ft 25 ft 80 ft 80 ft 25 ft 80 ft 80 ft 25 ft 80 ft 80 ft 25 ft 80 ft 80 ft 25 ft 80 ft 80 ft width:feer(4) Maximum site 30% 30% 30% 45% 45% % 55% 55% 401% 55% 40% 45% 55% 40% 45% 55% 40,y 45% 55% 40% 45% 55% 40% 50% coverage:percent (5) (5) (5) 5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) (5) of site Minimum yard (2 requirements:feet Front yard 20 ft loft loft ]aft loft 110ft loft 10ft loft ]oft loft loft 10ft 10ft loft 10ft 10ft loft 10ft 10ft loft 10ft ]oft 20 ft (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) 16) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6) (8) (8) (8) J8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (8) (9) (9) (9) l9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) Side yard 15 ft 15 ft 5ft 5ft 5ft §ft 5ft 5ft 5ft 5ft 5ft (11) 5ft Sft (1l) .9 ft .9 ft (1l) 5ft 5ft (11) 5ft 5ft (I (30) (30) (30) (30) (30) (30) Side yard on 20 ft 20 ft loft 10ft ]Oft 110ft ]Oft 10ft ]Oft ]Oft loft is ft ]Oft loft 15 ft 10ft 10ft 15 ft ]Oft loft 15 ft ]oft loft 15 ft flanking street of (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) (9) a corner lot Rear yard 20 ft 15 ft 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft ft 5 ft 5 ft 8 ft 5 ft 8 ft 20 ft 5 ft 8 ft 20 ft 5 ft 8 ft 20 ft 5 ft 8 ft 20 ft 5 ft 8 ft 20 ft Additional (12) (12) (32) (32) (14) (31) (31) (14) (31) (31) (14) (14) (14) setbacks/distances (15) (32) (32) (15) (15) (15) (15) between buildings (32) (31) (31) (32) Height limitation: 2.5 2.5 stry/ 2.5 2.5 2.5 '$.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 12 stry/ 3 2.5 2 stry/ 3 2.5 2.5 3 2.5 2.5 3 2 2.5 4 in stories/not to slry'I 35 ft stryi stry/ stryl sitry/ stryi stry/ stryl slry! 30 ft stryl stryl 30 ft stryl stry/ stry/ stry/ stryl stry/ stryl stry/ stryl stry/ exceed in feet 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 30 ft 30 ft 3.5 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 30 ft 35 ft 40 ft 30 ft 35 ft 41111 30 ft 35 ft 50 ft (16) Maximum 40% 40% 40% 50% 60% 10% 75% 75% 70% 75% 709% 70% 75% 70% 70% 75% 70% 75% 70% 75% 70%, impervious surface: (19) (19) (23) (23) (23) (23) (23) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) (19) percent of total parcel area Zero lot line and The provisions in KCC 15.08.300,15.08310,15.08.320,and 15.08.330 shall apply. clustering(24) Signs The sign regulations of Chapter 15.06 KCC shall apply. Off-street parking The off-street parking requirements of Chapter 15.05 KCC shall apply. Landscaping The landscaping requirements of Chapter 15.07 KCC shall apply. Multi-familv (25) (25) (25) (25) (25) transition Area Multi-family design (26) (26) (26) (26) (26) review Additional Additional standards for specific uses are contained in Chs.15.08 and 1S.D9 KCC standards Additional (20) (31) '23, L31 (� ( (28) (28) standards (33 - (29) (2 9) 14 19 SECTION 8. —Amendment. Section 15.04.180 the Kent City Code is amended as follows: Sec. 15.04.180. Agricultural and residential land use development standard conditions. 1. Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet for the first two (2) dwelling units, and two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet for each additional dwelling unit. 2. Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet for the first two (2) dwelling units, and one thousand six hundred (1,600) square feet for each additional dwelling unit. 3. Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet for the first two (2) dwelling units, and nine hundred (900) square feet for each additional dwelling unit. 4. To determine minimum lot width for irregular lots, a circle of applicable diameter (the minimum lot width permitted) shall be scaled within the proposed boundaries of the lot; provided, that an access easement to another lot is not included within the circle. 5. Interior yards shall not be computed as part of the site coverage. 6. Porches and private shared courtyard features may be built within the front building setback line. 7. For properties abutting on West Valley Highway, the frontage on West Valley Highway shall be considered the front yard. 8. Proposed front yards less than twenty (20) feet in depth are subject to approval by the planning manager, based on review and recommendation from the public works department relative to the existing and future traffic volumes and right- 15 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 2 i of-way reyuirem(nts as specified in the city comprehensive transportation plan and city construction jstandards. 9. At least "enty (20) linear feet of driveway shall be provided between any garage, carport, or other primary parking area and the street property line with the exception of an apley property line. 10. An aggregate side yard of thirty (30) feet shall be provided. A minimum of ten (10) feet shall be provided for each side yard. On a corner lot the side yard setback shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the property line. 11. Each sidl yard shall be a minimum of ten (10) percent of the lot width; however, regardless of lot width, the yard width need not be more than thirty (30) feet. For multifAmily townhouse developments that attach three (3) units or less, in the MRT-12 or YRT-16 zoning districts the aggregate yard width need not be more than thirty (30) f$et,but in no case shall a yard be less than ten (10) feet. 12. Structure$ for feeding, housing, and care of animals, except household pets, shall be set back fifty (50) feet from any property line. i 13. Additionol setbacks for the agriculture general AG zoning district. i a. Sttuctures for feeding, housing, and care of animals shall be set back fifty (50) feet fro'In any property line. b. T#ansitional conditions shall exist when an AG district adjoins a i residential district containing a density of two (2) dwelling units or more per acre or a proposed residential area indicated on the city comprehensive plan. Such transitional conditions shall not exist where the separation includes an intervening use such as a river, railroad main line, major topographic differential, or other similar conditions, or where the industrial properties face on a limited access surface street on which the housing does not face. When transitional conditions exist as defined in this subsection, a yard of not less than fifty (50) feet shall provided. 16 Amendment to KCC 12.04 i Cluster Developments i 21 C. Setbacks, Green River. Industrial development in the AG district abutting the Green River, or Russell Road or Frager Road where such roads follow the river bank, shall be set back from the ordinary high-water mark of the river a minimum of two hundred (200) feet. Such setbacks are in accordance with the city comprehensive plan and in accordance with the high quality of site development typically required for the industrial park areas of the city and in accordance with the state Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and shall be no more restrictive than, but as restrictive as, the Shoreline Management Act. 14. An inner court providing access to a double-row building shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet. 15. The distance between principal buildings shall be at least one-half the sum of the height of both buildings; provided, however, that in no case shall the distance be less than twelve (12) feet. This requirement shall also apply to portions of the same building separated from each other by a court or other open space. 16. The height limitations shall not apply to barns and silos; provided, that they are not located within fifty (50) feet of any lot line. 17. Beyond this height, to a height not greater than either four (4) stories or sixty (60) feet, there shall be added one (1) additional foot of yard for each additional foot of building height. 18. The planning manager shall be authorized to approve a height greater than four (4) stories or sixty (60) feet, provided such height does not detract from the continuity of the area. When a request is made to exceed the building height limit, the planning manager may impose such conditions, within a reasonable amount of time, as may be necessary to reduce any incompatibilities with surrounding uses. 19. Except for lots used for agricultural practices, the maximum impervious surface area allowed shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet when the lot is greater than one (1) acre. 17 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 2 20. The following uses are prohibited: a. The removal of topsoil for any purpose. b. Gkade and fill operations; provided, that limited grade and fill may be approved as needed to construct permitted buildings or structures. C. Ail subsurface activities, including excavation for underground utilities, pipelines, or other underground installations, that cause permanent disruption of the, surface of the land. Temporarily disrupted soil surfaces shall be restored in a mariner consistent with agricultural uses. d. DOmping or storage of nonagricultural solid or liquid waste, or of trash, rubbish or noxious materials. e. Aptivities that violate sound agricultural soil and water conservation management practices. 21. Outdoor storage for industrial uses shall be located at the rear of a principally permitted struct*e and shall be completely fenced. i 22. Mobile home park combining district, MHP. The standards and procedures of the city mobile home park code shall apply. General requirements and standards for mobile home!park design, KCC 12.04.055; mobile home parks, Ch. 12.05 KCC. 23. Except fcr lots used for agricultural practices, the maximum impervious surface area allowed shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet. 24. Minimum lot width, building setbacks, and minimum lot size regulations may be modified consistent with provisions for zero lot line and clustering housing development. 25. The requirements of KCC 15.08.215 shall apply in any multifamily transition area, which includes any portion of a multifamily district within one hundred (100) feet of a single-family district or within one hundred (100) feet of a public street right-of-way. 18 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 23 26. The requirements of KCC 15.09.045 for multifamily design review shall apply to any multifamily dwelling of three (3) or more units. 27. Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet for the first two (2) dwelling units, and three thousand five hundred (3,500) square feet for each additional dwelling unit. 28. The following zoning is required to be in existence on the entire property to be rezoned at the time of application of a rezone to an MR-T zone: SR-8, MR-D, MR-G, MR-M, MR-H, O, O-MU,NCC, CC, GC, DC, or DCE. 29. All multifamily townhouse developments in the MR-T zone shall be condominiums only. A condominium plat shall be filed and recorded pursuant to Chapter 64.32 RCW prior to approval of a development permit by the city. 30. As an option to the five (5) foot side yard requirement for single-family development in all multifamily zoning districts as set forth in KCC 15.04.170, a side yard width of no less than three (3) feet may be utilized under the following conditions: a. Fire hydrants for the development, as required by the fire code set forth in KCC Title 13, will be placed a maximum of three hundred (300) feet in separation; b. The required fire hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow of one thousand five hundred(1,500) gallons per minute; and C. Emergency vehicle access roads shall be provided to the development, which includes an improved road accessible within one hundred fifty (150) feet of all portions of the exterior first floor of the structure. This option is subject to the approval of the Washington State Building Council. Application of this option shall be effective upon receipt by the city of Kent of such approval. 19 Amendment to KCC 12.04 0 Cluster Developments 2 31. Where lands are located wholly or partially within the urban separator, as designated on the City of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map, dwelling units shall be requiredto be clustered, subject to the provisions of Ch. 12.04 KCC, entitled "Subdivisions." The density in a cluster subdivision shall be no greater than the density that world be allowed on the parcel as a whole, including all critical areas (creeks, wetlands, geological hazard areas), and buffers, using the maximum density provisions of thelzoning district in which it is located. The common open space in a cluster subdivision shall be a minimum of fifty (50) percent of toe nonconstrained area of the parcel. The nonconstrained area of the parcel includes ill areas of the parcel, minus critical areas, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5) as currently and hereinafter amended, and buffers. The remainder of the nonconstrained area of the parcel shall be the buildable area of the parcel. The common open space tracts created by clustering shall be located and configured in i the manner that !best connects and increases protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, connects and protects area wildlife habitat, creates connectivity between the open space provided by the clustering and other adjacent open spaces as well as existingi or planned public parks and trails, and maintains scenic vistas. Critical areas and buffers shall not be used in determining lot size and common open space requirements in a cluster subdivision. All natural features (such as streams and their buffers, significant strands of trees, and rock outcropping), as well as sensitive areas (such as sleep slopes and wetlands and their buffers) shall be preserved, as open space in a duster subdivision. Future development of the common open space shall be prohibited. Except as specified on recorded documents creating the common open space, all common open space resulting from lot clustering shall not be altered or disturbed in a manner that degrades adjacent environmentally sensitive areas, rural areas, agricultural areas, or resource lands; impairs scenic vistas and the connectivity between the open space provided by the clustered development and adjacent open spaces; degrades wildlife habitat; and impairs the recreational benefits enjoyed by the residents of the 20 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 25 development. Such common open spaces may be retained under ownership by the owner or subdivider, conveyed to residents of the development, conveyed to a homeowners association for the benefit of the residents of the development, conveyed to the city with the city's consent and approval or to another party upon approval of the city of Kent. The minimum lot size of individual lots within a clustered subdivision is two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, and the minimum lot width is thirty (30) feet. In the event that common open space prohibits development of one single- family residence on the parcel, the common open space will be reduced by the amount necessary to meet the. minimum two thousand five hundred (2,500) square foot lot size. New lots created by any subdivision action shall be clustered in groups not exceeding eight (8) units. There may be more than one (1) cluster per project. Separation between cluster groups shall be a minimum of one hundred twenty (120) feet. Sight-obscuring fences are not permitted along cluster lot lines adjacent to the open space area. 32. For multifamily townhouse developments that attach three (3) units, the minimum building to building separation shall be ten (10) feet. For duplex and single-family condominium townhouse developments, the minimum building to building separation shall be established through the Uniform Building Code (UBC). 33. Where lands are located wholly outside the urban separator. as designated on the City of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map, dwelling units may be clustered. subject to the applicable provisions of Ch. 12.04 KCC. SECTION 9. — E ect. The existing sections of the Kent City Code, which are repealed and replaced by this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect until the effective date of this ordinance. 21 Amendment to KCC IZ04 Cluster Developments 2 5 'CTION 10. —Severability. If any one or more section, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. MCTION 11. —Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty;days (30) days from and after its passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JAC BER, CITY CLERK APPROVED A8 TO FORM: TOM BRUBAK!ER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 2003. APPROVED: " day of 2003. PUBLISHED: day of 2003. I(hereby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. 22 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 27 (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P\CiviilOrdinancelClusterDevelopments.doc 23 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 29 #ZCA-2003-2 CLUSTER HOUSING AMENDMENT Ms Anderson stated that on March 18, 2003 the Planning Committee requested staff analysis of clustenng as a development option for resldentlal development Ms Anderson stated that staff brought some code revisions to the April 141h Land Use and Planning Board Workshop She stated that the definition of "cluster or cluster subdivision" is a development or division of land in which residential building lots are reduced in size and concentrated in specific portions of the original lot, tract or parcel Ms Anderson stated that the Issue of clustenng was reviewed by the former Planning Commission in 1995 and was never resolved She stated that some unresolved Issues related to what a minimum lot size might be and requirements for a conditional use permit Ms Anderson stated that the only clustering provisions currently in City Code relate to areas designated as urban separators She stated that clustering is required for subdivisions located within those urban separator areas Ms Anderson stated that the clustering provisions in urban separators allow only detached single family dwelling units with a maximum density of SR-1 zoning Ms Anderson stated that the Urban Separator clustering provisions require a minimum lot size of 2500 square feet, a 30 foot minimum lot width and restrict the number of units that are in a cluster, require separation of clusters and a fifty-percent common open space requirement beyond a sensitive area She stated that design review is not currently required Ms Anderson stated that the Planning Committee discussed urban separators and clustering at their February 27, 2001 meeting, directing staff to take a look at design critena for clustering subdivisions Ms Anderson stated that the current proposal includes a provision for design review as well as changes to the subdivision ordinance Ms Anderson stated that staff recommends Option C Ms Anderson referred to the staff report whale summarizing the options, which referenced Subdivision Code as well as Zoning Code Sections Ms Anderson brought the Single Family Residential Development Options Matrix to the Board's attention Ms Anderson stated that none of the options change urban separator designations aside from defining a purpose for clustering, including some approval criteria, and applying Multifamily Design Review standards She stated that the basic lot size and sensitive area provisions remain the same for urban separators Ms Anderson defined common open space, stating that the requirement for common open space in Planned Unit Developments Is 35 percent, 25 percent is proposed for cluster housing The 10 percent reduction in common open space considers the inclusion of front and back yards within cluster developments In response to Mr Harmon, Ms Anderson stated that her focus has been not to change urban separators, reiterating that design review would now be required She stated that there is a purpose statement on clustering which technically applies to urban separators Ms Anderson stated that existing approval criteria Includes architectural design compatibility and compatibility with surrounding areas She stated that none of the criteria changes the urban separator designation in her opinion, rather enhances it Mr Harmon discussed his concerns regarding a "due process" public notification process concerning urban separators as it relates to the Cluster amendment before the Board Assistant City Attorney Kim Adams-Pratt assured Mr Harmon that due process was followed and proper notice given on this Cluster amendment which is a new action and separate from the urban separator issue Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 28,2003 Page 3 of 7 0 I Ms Rannlger stated that bhe supports cluster zoning as a housing option but voiced her opinion that the urban sleparator Issue could derail staff in pursuing a cluster zoning amendment, recommending that these Issues be viewed separately, Ms Anderson stated that if the Board was concerned, they could direct staff to include an option to not change urbain separators at all by excluding the provision for purpose, the additional approval criteria land design review requirement Chair Harmon declared the.Public Hearing open Tom Sharp, 24254 143`d Ave. SE, Kent, WA 98042 stated that he supports cluster housing as it provides more flexibility in terms of the existing zoning code Mr Sharp stated that cluster housing allows for 25 percent more green space then a PUD and that the cluster housing option typically costs half of what it would cost to develop a PUD, as a PUD requires both a PUD and plat fee Mr !Sharp stated that cluster housing provides developers with an innovative design alternative Mr Sharp recommended deletion of the words "in groups" in Section 8 e from the sentence stating `Buildings +rt greUps shall be related by common materials " as this is saying if you have a series of clusters, et ery group must be different, contradicting the sentence in 8 f which states that common materals and designs must be used Mr Sharp stated that he would like to see the word "shared driveways" added after " deemphasized garages" in Section 8 e, as part of the approval criteria for design review He stated that shared driveways decrease the amount of pavement and run-off areas, creates more open space and can Oe constructed across easements Ms Anderson stated that !staff supports shared driveways and is amenable to adding the words "shared driveways" to section 8 e and removing the words "in groups" as staff strives to create continuity in desigril as well as allow for diversity Ms Anderson stated that shared driveways require an easehient from both properties, Indicating that a 12 foot wide driveway would require a 6 foot easement from each property Ms Anderson stated that; one of the City's code provisions states that "in irregular lots, easements cannot be couroted in the minimum lot width" Ms Anderson explained that if the minimum lot width is 30 feet with a shared driveway, 12 feet of shared driveway could not be counted in the minimum lotiwldth Ms Anderson suggested that under the minimum width section, staff would propose adding the statement "The Hearing Examiner may include a shared driveway easement in the minimum lot width of irregular lots provided the total driveway width is no greater than 12 feet" Mr Sharp concurred with staff's recommendation Nicole Flncher MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to close the Public Hearing Motion Carried I Deborah Ranniger MOVE[ and David Malik SECONDED a motion to accept #ZCA-2003-2 Cluster Housing Amendment Option C with the following amendments 1 — Adding under 8 ie "shared driveways in the list of architectural and site features" 2 — Deleting in that $ame section the word "In groups" for the last sentence 3 -Adding a statement under "Lot Widths" that states `The Hearing Examiner may include a shared driveway easement in the minimum lot width of irregular lots provided the total dnveway width is no greater than 12 feet', and 4- Adding a statement that "there will be absolutely no change to the urban separator provisions as they currently exist " Motion CARRIED unanimously Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 28,2003 Page 4 of 7 31 Ms Anderson stated that the Cluster Housing amendment will follow the Stewart amendment to the Planning Committee on either August 19 or September 16 with the potential Council meeting on October 7, related to the sixty day State notification Mr Malik left the meeting before the Comprehensive Plan Update, Chapter 4, Land Use Element was heard #CPA-2002-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE— CH. 4-LAND USE ELEMENT Planner, Gloria Gould-Wessen stated that four LUPB workshops have been held on Chapter 4 Land Use Element, stating that this Chapter is part of the ongoing effort to update the Comprehensive Plan as mandated by the State under the Growth Management Act (GMA) Ms Wessen defined the proposed text and map changes She stated that the intent of the Land Use Element is to guide the character of the City's development patterns and implementation phase where development of regulations can be written She stated that the Land Use map will show where development can occur and text will show when it can occur Ms Wessen stated that the Land Use Element contains textual changes that reflect our new boundaries, utilize the Census 2000 statistics, and is consistent with the Growth Management Act, the Countywide Planning Policies and Puget Sound Regional Council's Destination 2030 Ms Wessen stated that the Natural Resources Section has been expanded to support the City's critical areas ordinance currently being written Ms Wessen stated that text has been revised concerning the City's development capacity and regional growth targets She stated that the Urban Center boundary has been clarified and defined by using Kent's Downtown Action Plan Ms Wessen stated that the results of the 2002 Innovative Housing Workshop have been incorporated as part of the Land Use Element Ms Wessen stated that the Urban Center Section contains the following policies 1 Support for the inclusion of public art along the Sound Transit Corridor 2 Support for locating facilities and human services in and around the urban center 3 Supports good design and encourages development of public and semipublic spaces Ms Wessen stated that the Housing Section contains the following policies 1 Allows for cottage, cluster and attached single family housing 2 Supports the achievement of allowable density in single family development through flexible and creative site design 3 Includes flexible private street standards to encourage a variety of compact, innovative residential developments Ms Wessen stated that the Commercial Section contains the following policies 1 Encouragement of good design for both redevelopment and new development within existing Neighborhood Commercial zoning districts 2 Discourages expansion of neighborhood service land uses into adjacent single family areas Ms Wessen stated that the Manufactunng/industnal Center Section contains the following goals and policies 1 A new goal establishes the use of development standards to create an attractive employment center and to mitigate Impacts 2 A policy supports and manages setbacks and landscaping to protect environmentally sensitive areas 3 A policy ensures multimodai forms of transportation and supports minimizing parking adjacent to public transit corridors 4 A policy supports the creation of attractive streetscapes, in particular along the Sound Transit Corridor Land Use and Planning Board Minutes July 28,2003 Page 5 of 7 33 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director 4^60�0! PLANNING SERVICES K E N T Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager WASHINGTON Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 DATE: DULY 21, 2003 TO: CHAIR RON HARMON AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: CLUSTER HOUSING—ZONING CODE AMENDMENT ZCA-2003-2 LUPB Public Hearing July 28, 2003 INTRODUCTION: At their March 18`h meeting, the Planning Committee passed a motion to have staff analyze clustering as a development option for residential development. Staff presented proposed code revisions to the Board at the April 141h workshop. Kent City Code currently requires clustering of residential dwellings when a property is designated Urban Separator on the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. There is no other code provision allowing clustering as a development option. As defined by the Kent Zoning Code, clustering or cluster subdivision "means a development or division of land in which residential building lots are reduced in size and concentrated in specified portion(s) of the original lot, tract, or parcel." BACKGROUND: At a March, 1995 Planning Commission workshop, Planning staff presented potential amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes to allow cluster housing and related development techniques. The Planning Commission held several workshops and two public hearings on the issue. Planning staff also held two public forums on the issue. On October 23, 1995, the Planning Commission forwarded staffs proposal to the City Council without recommendation. Unresolved issues related to minimum lot size and the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit. On November 25, 1995 and January 16, 1996, the City Council Planning Committee reviewed the proposal, with outstanding issues being sidewalks and street design, including street widths and on-street parking. No further action on the issue was taken at that time. In March 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3551 related to Urban Separators. The Ordinance required residential clustering for subdivisions located within areas designated Urban Separators. The clustering provisions allow only detached single family dwelling units, maintain maximum densities of the zoning district, require a minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet and a 30-foot minimum lot width, restrict the number of units in a cluster and require cluster separation, and have a 50% common open space requirement beyond that of any sensitive area. Design review is not required. However, at their February 27, 2001 meeting, the Planning . Committee directed staff to review and recommend design criteria for clustered subdivisions, 3 i LUPB Hearing 7/28/03 Cluster Housing ZCA-2003-2 Staff Report Page 2 including, for example, maximum impervious surface, shared driveways, and other appropriate building and site designs. It was stated that the idea was to keep the cluster of units as far away from sensitive areas as possible and reduce the amount of impervious surface that was actually built, reducing and filtering the run off in order to reduce contaminants. Cluster development provides opportunities to preserve open space for community greens and recreation, natural resources, environmentally critical areas, and historic preservation. It also provides for more efficie$tt provision of infrastructure, including opportunities for water conservation. i OPTIONS & RECOMMI,NDATION: Attached is a draft of options for code provisions for clustering in single family residential areas. Staff is recommending Option C. The SEPA Responsible Official has determined that no separate threshold determination, pursuant to SEPA, is required. Any impacts associated with this proposed code amendment have been adequately addressed in the City's Comprehensive Plan EIS. Also included in the agenda)packet are the August 28, 1995 staff memorandum w/attachments to the Planning Commission„ the minutes of the October 23, 1995 meeting of the Planning Commission, two staff memoranda to the Planning Committee dated November 21, 1995 and January 16, 1996 and the Planning Committee minutes of January 16, 1996. Staff will be available at the,July 28t'hearing to further discuss the issue. CA\pm: S:\Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2003\2031045-2003-2ph.doc Enc: Options for Code Provisions Development Options Matrix P.C. Minutes 10/23/95 P.C. Minutes 1/16/96 Staff Memoranda to P.Ci dated 8/28/95, 11/21/95 & 1/16/96 cc: Fred N. Satterstrom,AI(P,CD Director Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager Parties of Interest Project File#ZCA-2003�2 ( iu,tci Hou,nr� 12 04 263 Clustering 12 fig{ 57' 12 04 77,, Pulposc ii he t)u lx),c of the f lu,ict &N C11T11l�2itt u11t1on 1, Io_ Ilernnt �2ieater ilcvblltt y ul de,t n am1 dlui�ula�ac drtrktl)nlent , 11ai�1 faulltatc the econoillie'll 111d clhu.�cnl plmi,Ioli of 11ublll ,o1 cof of,wil1C a 111')t" �ili�icnt we of 1,wd in harmom «ith It, natulai (.11A dLtei),tlL, hlC."cl« MOW u,ahlc tlpcn <t N10111111,)l 1,111d ttC_r COICI lL�tc,lllon-dled, to ,CCIIiL htd, and ctpand Ille oppin t till IN, lol the dC.A I I iltlefil uI 'Iffoldable hou,ln��- the dc�clopnlenl Devc(tvmcnt ,I,inttald, .Ind lcNlc�\ ultella .tic uucndcd to rixtue that lot, alc coll,l,tent �_�th the dc,lic_d c1l'u'loel „l-Ili, /olit_.111(m III, I;)t, Its y al v In We 311ti shape plov lded thr_hiannctl intcn,ity-of the /onc 1, .ulhc led to A All (Type 11 LI}pc J i� short lsubdivisions) in the SR-1 zoning district shall be required to be clustered pursuant to this section when the property is located wholly or partially within an urban separator as designated on the City of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map _t lu,tci,ubtfN i,lon, also n1a� he authain/rd m �[t-I 512-_' S(�-3 SR- 1 SR-6 ,wd SR-X /011;112 B Cluster subdivisions shall be subject to the development standards outlined in KCC Title 15 These standards include minimum lot size, width, yards, setbacks, parking, landscaping, signage, eu%and so Im th. unless othel1 Ise lrloditied bs thus (11a13tei C The provisions of (KCC 12 04 235 through 12 04 255) !Kt C 12 04 �-4 -,(III o h I? ()4 57(i�KC( 13 01 7-I5 thioti-h i '_ 0-4 770), as well as other applicable portions of this chapter, shall apply unless specifically excepted in addition, the following standards shall apply to clustered (Type I) 1-1)11r Ihj short (subdivisions) I Location The cluster residential development shall be required in the SR- 1 zoning district within urban separator areas C lo"Iel -iC�,utenu,ll ticv 62pment also maw be ,tighoii/ed in Alt- I SR-?. �It-? SR-4 i SR-6 jnd /onin g distili_t, ^ i 3E fl�xitim__ /0111 � Ok 1111Lni1nuIII - 21 O3 2 2 Permitted uses The cluster residential development option shall include only single-family reside ntial uses. is defined in h( C 15 02 115 3 Minimum area No minimum area is established for a cluster residential development 4 Permitted density Thd maximum number of dwelling units permitted in a cluster development shal{1 be no greater than the number of dwelling units allowed for the parcel as a whole for the zoning distnLt in which it is located 1 5 Lot size O pUon A• Same as ut ,k i ban Se iai ator Ni eas. 5. 1 of size. in the interest o1 ell Coll t.i4-;l 11t: 1 esibifity in stic design rind the )_iresei%ation of open space, the niinmru0) lot sue of indisidnal building loss rsithul a cbister subdisision is Yit}i thousand the hunibed (2500) %(fuare Jeet. Nell lots ctealed bs .ins 'ubdnitiion action sli:ill he (lusteied lit ,,tulips not esteedint, cialit_ f8)hts. These niaN be mote than one (l) klustei per protect. tietiaiahiin Ichticcn cluslci �'Itoaps s11.111 be a mininuun of one hwtdred hscnih (120)Ifeet Option B.- t\n Cepai o v lt'ess� !;tlici iiidu i,�i}dti `,eoai aloe lreas: 5 1 of time In the interest of encouraging flexibility in site design and the preservation of open space, tic ni+it+,+m4+ -col ,i/c (A edit+<#+� latirl<lii��� Icy �ti�1�++� a tlii.tti "W-KiiAi�lon I,, tu-e-lhltriand Fi4c titintl ff-t_' 500) tit{i,ai� ices h�ir_i, 110 mininuem lol 'iie Nk101131 'iihdi� 15ion ni sulgle 1:utuls R e ldenti:il ionuta disti lcts not located «ithtn E Him) Seyaiator areas -any "Wldi"- +On ;iti"I �lfrrll 13t' tli+st�ttN+�ttxry�s s+et-d. �r'tdift� ei�IK-(�}-tit�H--!heir-ir>z+�-{��--»��i c tl�tt3 i+itnrniani O"Il+c-haiiidirFa Option ( • (No change 10 t iban 5epai atot %teas) Some t wit fictions in other than I rban SenaiatOr ,liens: 5 Lot sue. In the interest of enrnnra��m��ticstbthts ni sltd desi+•u and the piescrsation of oven sp.tcc, the minimum lot sue of lots ssithni a Cluster 37 ( luau I h1-U ln_ /unint �I Ul ec 3 sublli-*IU()n In single t.unll� ►esidential ionlnj,, districts not located %-,thin lh ban Scuarator .rr cas may be i edm ed bN 25'/,( of the minunum lot siie for the unde►IN Ili( ionlnj,- (list) u t 6 Lot width 0l)tlons .k, 13 And �-4t niI imitim loi-widih lot InElriic l:l�l�tol�l�t1�Itiis+n a-<lu,tri ,ubtll�+,+el� �htll hr-414111V f;111 I«1The nuntnium lol �NIdth Ini lidn ldual bulldtn`_Inl, i1i a_clii,trl_,ubdn l,f(,n_,hall he thlil—_-00) Icet 7 Other development standards Development standards other than lot size and lot width shall be the same as are required within the zoning district in which the cluster residential development is located Dc,,Ign Ick ie�% i, iequneii lin_�lu,tcrdc�clolim�nl J�Io}�tl, _t Iu,1cI �3��c(o��m�inpl<il��l� i ,Lail bL L�AII .lird 1,11rl1'! ihr Ie�i�« iIiclid of lil ( I O) Q }5(t 11u1tlian11k dCSI';n IC\IC\\ - `t \ddiIion1t1 .In1 0k,Ii altc1I.1 — The 1110J1oud �I�i,lrt de1elopment I1I(se�t hall hake a hcncllual <Ilcut ulxln the�tnnnl till lly .Intl u,rl, �01 the (IO�IOMI Wlil. hlLh t+unlcl nut u01111,1ll\_Ile achlcic(l by tl.ldltion,ll lilt-11%-101 dciclopitnt .ind ,hali not be dctiilrleril,11 to c I,u1 ()I jLotcrvial ,ul_lolllldin- Lnui u,eti .i, dchiledI)\ the urnlll ehelltin C a11,u1 h Ilie I lopo,cd Clll,lcl (lc%olohn10111 iv.,t_��_1 �it ,Il Iv i11,•'Ih! .Ith —�—il _ :. I_lir c�nun,� bind it,c oI 111o]1clt\ th�lt .thW, of i"_dncctl,_ .iglu},_Ihc ,tlrcl ilum_ the ,IIO cet tllu 1ci1 t� ( un�l.iUhlllt\ In_Llude, hilt 1, nol Ill1utrtl to .iI1Il,ncnl ,ve_��.ilc n1a„ and at�huc�tuial dc,h�n - - - I nuulal .uld ,cn,IlnL cnvuunnlcntal IC,IWIC, ui the ,Ile ,hall he J11C,C[ tdn1.1u11alnld anal nito 0 ih 1MCd _Into r ile,hani0 beneiit the dr1�I_I iicill .Ind ihr L(nnnu1111k d 111r1nnl1u,rd �It1,iei dcyclt�lm�nt plo�c�t ,h,111 I11o11dc alcas ill olluluc„ 11\ wing tccluncl<Ic, ,[tell a, ,c 1o1,11_io_n of hull(1ln�21 •'Iuu), alul u,c u! 1 c11-dc,iT'nal ,+Len ,I1- .i {)1cn ,1.--e "Imli he ulte',Iated n Itl>n1_ the �I�I,trl_ dc�elu�lmcnt plojc(l iathcl than he an l,ol.xcd ylcnx•nl u1 the l tuieLt - -- c _ihc Inilnu,cdl J.111,10 (1c,eloMICI)i 11;c ,hall hiomote NaIICIN .Inkl_Innulallon In ,Ito and tluildin" de,l'-'n .ind ,hall includr Iu -1111C lulal an�I ,Itc IldtilwC Illdt hlonloli ' and ,uch ,i, 31(il1-hc, _ LIe-cintlh.I,ved__ and ad accnt 3 f li�.�u Ilnti�iu�_ /nn�cr��ct� _,nn_nilm�nt 21 o' a� 4 coininon �i�ca, _ Buildliii-,s in "Imps ,hall he fclalyd bV c(,nnnun m,ilctf.tl" .uul 1001 ,kILs, but k-oiluast_,ha►l be pim idcd thiou��hout the ,ile by the use of ',.died nmteiwlst det.iflin�!�hutldim, "Cale and tiiicnt.ttfop I Ru�ldin _ dcj ign_,h.ill lic ha,ccl on _.t LIntf%cd (Ic,I­.gii LMILCpi 1)ailtL.u►aily %%hcn cim�lku�'Uon \% III bL nI J11L c, 80 Common open space The common open space in a cluster subdivision shall be a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the nonconstrained area of the parcel_ loi_ I.ind lmillaliy__ of rrnnhlctcly ticp.it.11or�, tnd i �aiccl nr uitical .nc�is ni unnconslrmiled, loi all othci ,in'-de Lund c,fdc»ti.tl ai�as I'ail.m� areas, Iniblic ii��hts tit iias ►uanemeiino areas, roads, stoi a�yc .picas, and raids %%nhui�inilisIdual lots shall not be included in common bpcn_space. The nonconstramed area of the parcel includes all areas of tt e parcel, minus critical areas, as defined in RCW 36 70A 030(5) as currently and hereinafter amended, and buffers The remainder of the nonconstramed area of the parcel shall be the buildable area of the parcel The cominon open space tracts created by clustering shalt be located and configured in the manner that best connects and increases protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, connects and protects area wildlife habitat, crleates connectivity between the open space provided by the clustering and 'ether adjacent open spaces as well as existing or planned public parks aild trails, and maintains scenic vistas 1\ ithin t'i han Selml ato} areas. �--Otical areas and buffers shall not be used in determining lot size and common open space requirements in a cluster subdivision All natural features (such as streams and their buffers, significant strands of tries and rock outcropping), as well as sensitive areas (such as steep slopes and wetlands and their buffers)shall be preserved Future development of the common open space shall be prohibited Except as specified on recordei documents creating the common open space, all common open space resulting from lot clustering shall not be altered or disturbed in a manneri that degrades adjacent environmentally sensitive areas, rural areas, agricultural areas, or resource lands, impairs scenic vistas and the connectivity between the open space provided by the clustered development and ad3adent open spaces, degrades wildlife habitat, and impairs the recreational benefits enjoyed by the residents of the development Such common open spaces may be retained under ownership by the owner or subdivider, conveyed to residents of the development, conveyed to a homeowners' association for the benefit of the residents of the 39 INCI Iluu,m /011111❑ ( ,,, 6nu iidnunt - 'I viz----- ----- - ' development, conveyed to the city with the city's consent and approval or to another party upon approval of the city of Kent (Ord No 3551, § 5, 3-20-01 1504 180 Agricultural and residential land use development standard conditions (�NO FF,: Relci once .ipplic thle note n31 onh lui rlusterintLy issue belui c LUR 1113 ) 1 Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet for the first two (2) dwelling units, and two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet for each additional dwelling unit 2 Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet for the first two (2) dwelling units, and one thousand six hundred (1,600) square feet for each additional dwelling unit 3 Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet for the first two (2) dwelling units, and nine hundred (900) square feet for each additional dwelling unit 4 To determine minimum lot width for irregular lots, a circle of applicable diameter (the minimum lot width permitted) shall be scaled within the proposed boundaries of the lot, provided, that an access easement to another lot is not included within the circle 5 Interior yards shall not be computed as part of the site coverage 6 Porches and private shared courtyard features may be built within the front building setback line 7 For properties abutting on West Valley Highway, the frontage on West Valley Highway shall be considered the front yard 8 Proposed front yards less than twenty (20) feet in depth are subject to approval by the planning manager, based on review and recommendation from the public works department relative to the existing and future traffic volumes and right-of-way requirements as specified in the city comprehensive transportation plan and city construction standards 9 At least twenty (20) linear feet of driveway shall be provided between any garage, carport or other primary parking area and the street property line with the exception of an alley property line 10 An aggregate side yard of thirty (30) feet shall be provided A minimum of ten (10) feet shall be provided for each side yard On a corner lot, the side yard setback shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet from the property line 11 Each side yard shall be a minimum of ten (10) percent of the lot width, however, regardless of lot width, the yard width need not be more than thirty • 0 C luau I Iiwtiin_ /uninL l ui —m•. uiilnxnt I rid — Ind CL 6 (30) feet For multifamily townhouse developments that attach three (3) units or less, in the MAJ12 or MR-T16 zoning districts the aggregate yard width need not be more than thirty (30) feet, but in no case shall a yard be less than ten (10) feet 12 Structures for feeding, housing and care of animals, except household pets, shall be set back lfifty(50) feet from any property line 13 Additional setback for the agriculture general (AG) zoning district a Structures for feeding, housing and care of animals shall be set back fifty (50) feet from any pro�,erty line b Transitional conditions shall exist when an AG district adjoins a residential district continmg a density of two (2) dwelling units or more per acre or a proposed residential area indicated on the city comprehensive plan Such transitional condmions shall not exist where the separation includes an intervening use such as a river, railroad main line, major topographic differential or other similar conditions, or where the industrial properties face on a limited access surface street on which the housing does not face When transitional con itions exist, as defined in this subsection, a yard of not less than fifty (50) feet shall be provided c Setbacks, Green River Industrial development in the AG district abutting the Green River, or Russell Road or Frager Road where such roads follow the river bank, shall b¢ set back from the ordinary high-water mark of the river a minimum of two hundred (200) feet Such setbacks are in accordance with the city comprehensive plan and in accordance with the high quality of site development typically required for the industrial park areas of the city and in accordance with the state Shoreline Management Act of 1971, and shall be no more restrictive than, but as restrictive as, the Shoreline Management Act 14 An inner court providing access to a double-row building shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet 15 The distance betwoen principal buildings shall be at least one-half(U2) the sum of the height 6f both buildings, provided, however, that in no case shall the distance be less than twelve (12) feet This requirement shall also apply to portions of thO same building separated from each other by a court or other open space 16 The height limitations shall not apply to barns and silos, provided, that they are not located witthm fifty (50) feet of any lot line 17 Beyond this height4i to a height not greater than either four (4) stories or sixty (60) feet, there shall be added one (1) additional foot of yard for each additional foot of building height 41 t luau IkwSniu /011111L! ( nh,__niuulm�nl P,iuc 7 18 The planning manager shall be authorized to approve a height greater than four (4) stories or sixty (60) feet, provided, such height does not detract from the continuity of the area When a request is made to exceed the building height limit, the planning manager may impose such conditions, within a reasonable amount of time, as may be necessary to reduce any incompatibilities with surrounding uses 19 Except for lots used for agricultural practices, the maximum impervious Surface area allowed shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet when the lot is greater than one (1) acre 20 The following uses are prohibitcd a The removal of topsoil for any purpose b Grade and fill operations, provided, that limited grade and fill may be approved as needed to construct permitted buildings or structures c All subsurface activities, including excavation for underground utilities, pipelines or other underground installations, that cause permanent disruption of the surface of the land Temporarily disrupted soil surfaces shall be restored in a manner consistent with agricultural uses d Dumping or storage of nonagricultural solid or liquid waste, or of trash, rubbish or noxious materials e Activities that violate sound agricultural soil and water conservation management practices 21 Outdoor storage for industrial uses shall be located at the rear of a principally pernutted structure and shall be completely fenced 22 Mobile home park combining district, MHP The standards and procedures of the city mobile home park code shall apply General requirements and standards for mobile home park design, KCC 12 04 055, mobile home parks, Ch 12 05 KCC 23 Except for lots used for agricultural practices, the maximum impervious surface area allowed shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet 24 Minimum lot width, building setbacks, and minimum lot size regulations may be modified consistent with provisions for zero lot line and clustering housing development 25 The requirements of KCC 15 08 215 shall apply in any multifamily transition area, which includes any portion of a multifamily district within one hundred (100) feet of a single-family district or within one hundred (100) feet of a public street right-of-way 26 The requirements of KCC 15 09 045 for multifamily design review shall apply to any multifamily dwelling of three (3) or more units 27 Minimum lot area is eight thousand five hundred (8,500) square feet for 2 C lu,lu I l�xi.me /oun?c t o� uncndm�ni I'l�c 8 the first two (2) dwelling units, and three thousand five hundred (3,500) square feet for each additional dwelling unit 28 The following zoning is required to be in existence on the entire property to be rezoned at the tinhe of application of a rezone to an MR-T zone SR-8, MR-D, MR-G, MR-M, MR-H, O, O-MU, NCC, CC, GC, DC or DCE 29 All multifamily townhouse developments in the MR-T zone shall be condominiums only A condominium plat shall be filed and recorded pursuant to Chapter 64 32 RCW prior to approval of a development permit by the city 30 As an option to thq five (5) foot side yard requnement for single-family development in all Multifamily zoning districts as set forth in KCC I5 04 170, a side yard'width of no less than three (3) feet may be utilized under the following co*ditions a Fire hydrants for thedevelopment, as required by the fire code set forth in KCC Title 13, will bej placed a maximum of three hundred (300) feet in separation, b The required fire hydrants shall have a minimum fire flow of one thousand five hundred (1,500) gallons per minute, and c Emergency vehicle !access roads shall be provided to the development, which includes an imptoved road accessible within one hundred fifty (150) feet of all portions of the exterior first floor of the structure This option is subject! to the approval of the Washington State Building Council Application of this option shall be effective upon receipt by the city of Kent of such approval 31 Where lands are located wholly or partially within the urban separator, as designated on the City of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map, dwelling units shall berequired to be clustered, subject to the provisions of Ch 12 04 KCC, Subdijvisions 0(11,tei �uhdn i,icm, al,n nia� be .iu11101 JIM III SR-1- 5R-2 Si2-1 SR-4� SR-O and SR-8 iunin<< di,liul,_The density in a cluster subdivisionp shall be no greater than the density that would be allowed on the parcel as a whole, including all critical areas (creeks, wetlands, geological hazard areas) and buffers, using the maximum density provisions of the zonint district in which it is located The common open spade in a cluster subdivision shall be a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the noticonstramed area of the parcel toi I,nul_p.imally of yomhlelck NN iihni_l.i hian Sc�iamofg and I11unnn-um ()i' u�cnl\-f i\cs25) t)cicciil ul the 414"WolIs4+a+ned--a+fiv-a;--tlie haiccl, in critieal areas of nonconsh ained loi gall other on.je lanlik residenu it area,, The nonconstramed area of the parcel includes all areas of the parcel, minus 43 t 11h10 I i01Mw-- AaIniu ( of III uulmcni Page 9 critical areas, as defined in RCW 36 70A 030(5) as currently and hereinafter amended, and buffers The remainder of the nonconstrained area of the parcel shall be the buildable area of the parcel The common open space tracts created by clustering shall be located and configured in the manner that best connects and increases protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, connects and protects area wildlife habitat, creates connectivity between the open space provided by the clustering and other adjacent open spaces as well as existing or planned public parks and trails, and maintains scenic vistas NN ithin t i bau Sepm ator areas, (-'critical areas and buffers shall not be used in determining lot size and common open space requirements in a cluster subdivision All natural features (such as streams and their buffers, significant strands of trees and rock outcropping), as well as sensitive areas (such as steep slopes and wetlands and their buffers) shall be preserved, as open space in a cluster subdivision Future development of the common open space shall be prohibited Except as specified on recorded documents creating the common open space, all common open space resulting from lot clustering shalt not be altered or disturbed in a manner that degrades adjacent environmentally sensitive areas, rural areas, agricultural areas, or resource lands, impairs scenic vistas and the connectivity between the open space provided by the clustered development and adjacent open spaces, degrades wildlife habitat, and impairs the recreational benefits enjoyed by the residents of the development Such common open spaces may be retained under ownership by the owner or subdivider, conveyed to residents of the development, conveyed to a homeowners association for the benefit of the residents of the development, conveyed to the city with the city's consent and approval or to another party upon approval of the city of Kent 10otion k Same as in L 1-ban Seimlatol lrcas. the ntinnnum lot sicc of indi%ideal lots ii ithin a clustei ed smbdii ision s ti/o thousand file hu ndied (2.500) ,(lume feet. and the minimum lot ilidth is thilti (30 sect. In the ci ent that common open space pi olubits del clouinent ut one sint-le-taniih iesidence on the parcel, the common open %pace will be seduced bi the amount netes,,aii to meet the minunum tiro thousand file hundicd (2,500) %quase loot lot tine Aeii lot-- created lit ant subdvision action shall he clustered in trsoups not exccedimfj eight (8) units. 1 hcl a mat be more than one (]) cluster per pi otect Separation betiicen cluster -roues shall be a minimum of one hundred tilentl (120) feet Siuht-obwui ine fences are not pei mitted alone cluster lot lines 4 t lu,tc,i Ilnu.ult J�-_m1e(_�n nn�nthn�m _ It Ili h,] C 10 adjacent to the open sp�lce .11ea. Onion It. (No ellantcjtu Lihan Separatot Ateas) Other than Urban Sell orator Ai eas• Theic Is no minimum lot size of Individual lots within a clustered subdivision iiR sinule tailllh lesidential /onllrfa districts not lotated nrthin UrbaniSepalator areas is aiio-Iho"aild fiic-Imndiid Eruct) tillt+m feet; a+itl, the minimum lot width is thirty (30) feet Ike rk.HIt IlIdl dekelopnwttt-W one �n #e aan}III lo"�lence on Nye-Imftt' -the t-orftiih)fI nl li +t led lay the .t ii1/11+N}-tom •..-,�-?--it,-I"'LL! ill,` !13;it III It"ii-+f O 11'ttftt-ntflik i N V-�HifilEliiYd �tjti,ts�{<k�i-4c11-51,'ti--;�♦7�s i��t4-c+t�tctl l/y-art}--itslacll�i�;+��-acil�3l�--�h14�-I� tt+a�(�-F-rliier- l�lo�e-t�}��I+at+till-l�esh��l�t-Ititi+ei--g+ot+}r4--•;;,;;;-�-� mviiiii um olie- )4 + Sight-obscuring fences are not permitted along cluster lot lines adjacent to the open space area i Option C ('o (hana_elo Urban Sepauator -areas) Some restrictions In other than L'i ban Se ai atui Aieas: I he nlinuntnu lot sve of Individual lots iiithm a elusteied subdisision In sint*Ie talTlilN /onin a districts not located iiithin Urban 'cpaiatoi areas nias he ieduced bv 251%p of the mimmuni lot si/e for [le undeihnrg, /oniny district. Parkinay area public I-1$I1ts of N ai, tllanetli el HW JI CJS, roads, StOI aLC areas, and raids irithin indkidtW tuts shall net be included in common open space. I he niminnnn Jot isidth Is 30 feet Sight-obsculinL lenses are not pernntted .11onf" 1 h1strl lot Imes adiatert !o the opcll space area I DOehnlllll�nt slantlanc{, )Ihei th<ui lol tiJ/e and Itit aulth shall lie the s.unc as ,Lie rcttuncd \\ nhm _th4> ionnr; dINtIICl -in �N]Mh the clustei lesidcnUal de%elo1)men! IN localed_DCNI I IeNIca I1 i�c)<tiied IuI ciustel dciclt�iment Pilo C IS C luster deN ch' imeht tiro i ct, shall he ei.iluatcd ti�im, tile icsie�i cirtcrla_of_K( ( _1509015LO �l 1'111nly _dcsl,m Iojo _-- the clu,lcl dew� o . uu - -crm il�- it lth the i0110o i nr' ,ldditumal Lipp of A a I I C I I.l - J I he dktclo�ncnt [) ct set .hill hatc_.1 bCIICFMcl� effect upon file Lummulylli and uxis of the ticicloimcnt i.hich itiould not nolm.Ilk he h\i u.1(hllon.11 hit-h%-lot dcvclohmcnt .Ind shall nol be dClllillLIll.11_Its <ti t,��Iu�II.I-I ,ulioundln� Lind uNcN IN dclined b�lhc t�mi i�ensn c �Lui_ - - i i 45 t luau I Il'uvnL /0111112 ( u. MMI(IM01t b I Ile 1110J10,ed LItI,(CI dcvelopn)ent plo CL1 ,hall be ulnlpatlble vv lth the cxlltinq land 1 I11,11 dbUt, 01 _P, (InCCIIV at.I0Ss tllc StICci Isom the ,ubjett plolelty_ C o III I)MIhllltk i11CIACS but Iti not llmllLd to a)),I)enl Sve S(dle mu,, MId_AR111WOU1,11 le,I c UHLISudl alai ,cnS111\0_ Cn\ilollnlcn1,11 tcatulcti III ihc_,lie ,11'111 be piC"clvcd )Il,unt,lnled and mLolpolaled 111tl)_ the dc,I-n In henctit the dc�elopnenl and the�omnlunit- d- -Ihe plollo,cd Ju,tcl devclopnlenl plo%cct ~hall plmlde aIe.1S of o1lcnn�,S 11V uSim_ It_LIMR11l(', ,ueh a, tiralaldtlon of bulldtn ' "Ioups_,Ind ti,c I It_A1t If-,II'�1„Ili`(I ilk 11 11 ii an(I l.lii(1,IL" in: 011ell ,pull, ,hall Ill' lntc�lale(l vvltllm the LluSici d0clopment plojod l,lthut_t11.u1 be ainisolated element of Ihe__L1I0 cat — --- c The pr(?j)o,cd clu,Icl dcvelopnnnt 1)103cct ~hall _ptonlutc �a11� ,end umo\atl(nl In ,Ile and bulldinl-, d�,lzn and ,h,lll_nl(,Iude aH IIIte(tulal and ,Ile fcatulc, Ihat 111om111c (mmIIllnni� lnte ALA1un ,uc}1 d"A)MI hc,,_de LIllp1ldSl/c(1 Ldl�l"�1., ,I(le\\.11�.,�\\dll.\1d\,_ alld d(t dLellt 111n1111011 liuil(inl'-, HI ,hall be lelaled h� common n1a1c11,11, and loot but (o_nna,t ,h,lll he pim-lded 1111MI1hout the Site by Ihe_ uSe of v,uic(I 11MICual, atehllcuulal dMil11111 bulldur a do alid ollentttxm — ( 1 1111(hil'u, gn_ ,h,Ill- he batie(l on d unlf icd kShfll c one cpl, p,t111�ill,Iily vvhcn conS111101un will he mhhatic, 32 For multifamily townhouse developments that attach three (3) units, the minimum building to building separation shall be ten (10) feet For duplex and single-family condominium townhouse developments, the minimum building to building separation shall be established through the Uniform Building Code (UBC) (Ord No 3439, § 2, 2-2-99, Ord No 3470, § 12, 5-17-99, Ord No 3523, § 2, 9-19-00, Ord No 3551, § 13, 3-20-01, Ord No 3600, § 3, 5-7-02) • 4 This page intentionally deft blank. i i i i 47 w o v O u CL N m -00 u O N = �. c v u `\ c ,�, v o aio'n 3 o v, o m o o h z z N z � v A ^ � cr, E N E Q c-im � � rn voi cr`v rn o za � I W w. ❑ G w 0 q > � � N ° L } N W N LL _O O O.O Vl O A Y1 R C d N A e�C O N I� Nl Oi U N N fn �i z C. V] En .}' } V7 z O s c m c u [C w O A 0 y C m L C G + > C u u 'O u u y > N CN u_ [y� A u O L r- G J G a v v a 5 cn n. (A A V) M v 48 o o v A o o u R W 0 0 ov zzU y A I ❑ a u 4� to �Ln a y j O G N c O CO N • C CO u U U Y U y c c A , °u� a u � ¢ iw` 'rUrna. x 3a CN cc i 43 v S This page intentionally ]left blank. 49 CITY OF MTj LS Jim White, Mayo CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES January 16, 1996 Manning Committee Members Present: City Attorney's Office Leona Orr,Chair Laurie Evezich Tim Clark Jon Johnson Other CLtty off Kristen Langley,PW Planning Staff Norm Angelo,Fire Chief Jim Harris,Planning Director Mary Berg,Asst Fire Chief Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager Cliff Craig,Finance Linda Phillips,Planner Barbara Ekstrom,Finance Margaret Porter,Administrative Assistant Gary Gill,PW Teresa Beener,Administrative Secretary Ed White,PW • Other Rodger Anderson,Seattle King County Association of Realtors Geri Walker, Federal Way School District Daniel Moberly, Kent School District Fred High, Kent School District Dan Flynn, Master Builders Association Grace Yuan, Preston, Gates, & Ellis Gary Young, Polygon NW Dan Swallow SINGLE FAbELY RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER&ZERO LOT LINE DEVELOPMENT ZONING CODE & SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENIS 4QCA-95-2/#SCA-95-1 (L.Phillips) Planner Linda Phillips outlined the pending issues regarding the Single Family Residential Cluster &Zero Lot Line Development Zoning Code and Subdivision Code Amendments. The departments that are involved in resolving these issues are Fire,Public Works and Planning. The following is an outline of those issues discussed. Preservation of Open Space - The preservation of open space becomes more important as Kent continues to grow. The City will be tasked with managing the open space which is an important issue for preserving the quality of life and saving natural resources. • 0 Planning Committee Mmufts January 16, 1996 Page 2 AffordabilibX- Sixty percent(60%)of Kent's current population is under the age of 35. Median income increased from $2M07 in 1980 to$32,341 in 1990 (a 58%increase), where housing prices increased 100%from 19801to 1990. The need for affordable housing continues to be important. Impervious Surface Coverage- The City is concerned with impervious surface coverage and the ill effects relating to water quality in both aquifers and above ground water sources. Kent is projecting about 20,000 future households and as this growth continues the impervious surface concerns become more important. )Fire and Traffic Sa&U-IThere are concerns regarding what the minimum safe and viable street widths are specifically for Kent. The question was asked whether narrow streets would allow enough maneuvering and Visibility in Kent. Parking -The following i$sues were discussed. • Enforcing restricted parking and no parking areas Providing guest parking on a common lot to reduce street parking • Curbs- sta0dard vs. rolled(possiblity of sidewalk parking) • Sidewalks.;mandated? • Connecting streets vs dead end streets. Kristen Langley from the public Works department explained the three types of residential streets in the City of Kent. 1. The typical residential collector street is a three lane facility that is 36 feet wide from garb to curb with sidewalks on both sides of the street and no on- street parkib 2. The standafd residential street is a 32 foot wide curb to curb roadway with sidewalks on both sides of the street,on street parking provided on both sides of the street which allows for approximately 16 feet for two way access per vehicle. Ttje right of way is typically 49 or 50 feet. 3. The minor plat residential street is 28 feet from curb to curb. It allows on- street parking on both sides of the street;there is only enough width for travel in one d r tion by one vehicle at a time. When vehicles are heading in the opposite direction one would have to pull over to allow the other to pass. This street s designed around the ability of a fire truck to enter local access streets with on street parking still occurring on both sides of the roadway. The minor' plat residential street is only allowed in single subdivision properties with nine lots or less. 51 Planning Committee Minutes January 16, 1996 Page 3 Committee member Tim Clark questioned whether those street standards would still allow for the City to become more bicycle friendly. Ms. Langley explained that bicycle lanes are not being planned for the small local access residential streets. Assistant Fire Chief Mary Berg presented a video tape demonstration of maneuvering a fire truck and engine with reduced street widths. The video depicted different scenarios to include parking on both sides of the streets and curved roadways. The video demonstrated the close proximity of reduced street standards and the difficulty the fire trucks had in maneuvering. The fire fighters also demonstrated the difficulty they would have trying to get to their equipment and the Inability to lower the outriggers in order to use the Iadder for second story buildings. Fire Chief Norm Angelo stated that the major problem with restricting no parking is enforcement He explained that it is too late to enforce no parking at a time of emergency. Committee member Johnson commented that sidewalks should be required especially near schools. Chair Orr added that sidewalks should be required in the multi-family developments. 4CI!A-96-lJROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCORPORATE THE CAPITAL EACILITIES PLAN OF THE KEff & FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICTS (L.Evezich) Kent School District representative Fred High requested that the Committee consider the next step involved in implementing the school impact fees-adopting the school district's capital facilities plan into the Comprehensive plan. Mr. High presented elements of the Kent School District's capital facilities plan. The Kent school district is currently constructing a new elementary,junior and senior high school. As Kent continues to grow, more schools will be needed. Mr. High presented the Committee with specific multi-family data regarding student generation and apartment size. Ms. Geri Walker from the Federal Way school district requested the Committee consider adopting the Federal Way Capital Facilities Plan into the Kent Comprehensive Plan, Ms.Walker explained the continuing growth patterns expected for the Federal Way school distracts. At this time the Federal Way school district is not constructing any new schools;however, they are looking toward modernization of six existing schools in order to increase the capacities. Chair Orr questioned the next step involved in implementing the school impact fees. Assistant City Attorney Laurie Evezich explained that the next step would be to amend the Capital Facilities element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Capital Facilities Plans of the Kent and Federal Way school districts and to establish a fee schedule. This issue was forwarded to the Land Use & Planning Board for a public hearing on January 30, 1996 at 7:00 p m. 53 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#SCA-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 focal needs. LP/mp:a:ccpc l l 6 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 • r ,sx"�jn' war �t y M�•f W it, E 5 This page intentionally left blank. i i 55 CITY OF ejQ1MIT CITY OF KENT Jim White,Mayor BFJpy�BA (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM November 21, 1995 TO: Chairman Leona Orr and Planning Committee Members FROM: Linda Phillips,Planner DATE: November 21, 1995 SUBJECT: Single Family Residential Cluster and Zero Lot Line Development (#ZCA-95-2 and 9SCA-95-1) The Planning Commission, after some deliberation,decided to forward the Cluster and Zero Lot Line Single Family Development Standards to the Council Planning Committee without recommendation. An explanation of the materials reviewed by the Planning Commission, and background information for this Comprehensive Plan implementation proposal is presented below. The staff recommended 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. As an attempt to facilitate 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. The purpose of this proposal is to implement the Comprehensive Plan.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 he 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, i 3.. yY wa.erg,t ��e�rk''y. •'`"���"'"�s,p'DdaY j.m 5 i Single Family Residential Muster and Zero Lot Line Development(4ZCA-95-2 and 4SCA-95-1) November 21, 1995 Page 2 environmentally critical areas, and historic preservation. Single family residential cluster development is also used at an alternative to stacked or attached residential units in multifamily residential zones. Planning staff will review the staff proposed cluster development and zero lot line provisions for the Planning Committee at!your November 21, 1995 meeting. we are hopeful we can address any concerns committee members may have in order to schedule this proposal for action at a future Committee meeting.j LP/mp:a:ccpc1121 mem Attachments cc: Jim P.Hams,Planning Director Fred Satterstrom,Pilanning Manager 1 i i i i I i i 57 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 Commissioner Pattison informed the Commission that he had personally driven the sites in question and believes that the proposed use is appropriate. Commissioner Pattison supports the recommendation. Motion Carried #Z A-95-2 & OSCA-95-1 CLUSTER-DEVELOPMENT- (L. Phillips) Planner Linda Phillips,explained that this was the second hearing on the proposed cluster and zero lot line development standards. Ms. Phillips summarized the issues discussed previously and information obtained from other departments and other sources. Basically,this issue involves trying to fulfill the obligation of population projections and housing targets for Kent while utilizing mostly single family housing in diverse types and affordability. The issues that have come up while looking at cluster housing regulations have to do with lot sizes. One alternate proposed is not to allow cluster development in the R1-5.0 district. In addition,the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet would be maintained in the Rl-7.2 zoning code district. This proposal would make 5,000 square feet the smallest lot size in the Ordinance. Ms. Phillips discussed the issue of impervious area limits. She stated that Gary Gill from the Public Works Department previously voiced that his Department is in favor of such a limit. At this time there is no limit to impervious areas and ultimately single family lots could be paved 1001/6. The need for some type of limits are of special concern in the Meridian area where there are some aquifer recharge areas and it will be quite critical in the next few years as development and growth continue. There was also a question regarding the five foot separation between a garage and a house located on the property line in zero lot line development. Ms.Phillips stated that,Assistant Fire Chief Berg previously explained that if code provisions for construction,which are mostly provided for by the Building Department (Development Services), are met there would be no problem with locating buildings five feet apart. Another issue was the requirement for conditional use permits when there is not a full subdivision process. A conditional use permit requires the applicant to file a SEPA(State Environmental Policy Act) Checklist for review. It costs$150 to file and takes about thirty days to process. A conditional use permit application is then filed at a cost of S500. The conditional use permit process takes about two months and requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. This requirement is not meant to be used to deny the use, but allow public input and apply conditions to make the use compatible with surrounding uses. The process for revising the street standards for cluster developments is still being determined. Staff is working on putting a tour together for the Fire,Public Works,and Planning Departments to look at some streets that have been developed under King County and Bellevue's reduced street standards. is The cluster development provisions will still work without reduced street standards. However, #ZCA-95-10 MI-CAmendment 3 #ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development 5 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 reducing the street stand�rds increase affordability and if designed properly other issues can be avoided as long as there is good parking, adequate sidewalks, and so on. The preparation of a public information manual which would contain recommended design principles is another issue. The question is whether the City would like to spend some budget money preparing a design manual to guide the public who would like to develop cluster housing. The manual would give{ some general ideas for good design and examples of how cluster developments can be done. The last issue was the prevision of common recreation space, and whether or not that would need to be provided in additionI to any other open space that was reserved. A subdivision is required by the Parks Department to dedicate recreation space or pay a fee in lieu of the dedication to the Parks Department. The Parks Oepartment uses the fee to provide additional parks. There is a provision in the suggested Ordinance that says that if a developer devoted the open space that was saved (the 20%)to recreation purposes and the recreation area was approved by the Parks Department the fee in lieu could be waived. Commissioner Stringbami questioned that if there are still unresolved issues in the Ordinance at this time will the Commission be able to come to a decision Ms. Phillips stated that the issues are not outstanding with additionil information needed,they are simply issues that have not been resolved by the Commission. Commissioner Stringhani further questioned the issue of reduced street standards. Ms. Phillips clarified that cluster dev¢lopment is not dependent on reduced street standards This proposal is favored without the reduced street standards by the technical experts in the City. Therefore cluster development is not an issue that is dependent on reducing the street standards Commissioner Dahle questioned if the Commission could pass the cluster Ordinance with a recommendation that the street sizes remain the same. Ms. Phillips explained that if the Ordinance is recommended the streei standards would remain the same. At this time there is not a proposal to reduce street standards. Commissioner MacIsaacclarified that any request for a cluster housing development would have a public hearing through i subdivision process or a conditional use permit process regardless of the size of the cluster development. Ms. Phillips confirmed that according to the proposed Ordinance a cluster development would require some form of a public hearing. Commissioner MacIsaac stated that he thought that the goal was to try to provide another means for developing some of the in-fill areas and try to keep sosne of price of housing down while staying in our single family housing mode. He voiced his concern that the City was putting so many restrictions on cluster housing that no one would build cluster developments. #ZCA-95-10 MI-C Amendment 4 59 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 • Commissioner Dahle questioned what the cost was to hold a public hearing. Ms. Phillips explained that the Planning Department has not evaluated the actual cost, although there is a lot of time devoted for research and reporting for a public hearing. Commissioner Dahle questioned if the cost of the hearing is added to the fee for development. Mr. Satterstrom agreed that it would cost something to go through the public hearing process because it will add time. Cluster developments are generally more than four residents State law requires any plat of more than nine lots to go through a long subdivision process,which requires a public hearing. There would only be an extra hearing if a conditional use permit is required, and the proposed cluster housing request is for less than nine lots. The purpose of the conditional use permit hearing is to allow the neighbors in the area an opportunity to comment and be aware of the proposal. There would not be a requirement for a conditional use permit or a public hearing for four lots or less. If it were a very small cluster development,there would be no hearing involved Commissioner Dahle clarified that there would not be a vast amount of money involved in each individual land development. Mr. Satterstrom commented that generally speaking that would be a correct statement. In cases where an additional hearing is required it would be considered a cost increase. Commissioner MacIsaac said that when you consider building lots are $45,000 and up and if you • tie up construction for three months for a hearing, that is three months of interest that has to paid by someone. It ends up that the person paying for the interest is the person trying to buy the house. Certainly it is not something that is going to be paid for by a developer. Mr. Satterstrom remarked that the Commission needs to remember that the Planning Commission has already recommended to the City Council modified standards for single family development. It has already been recommended that optional ways be considered so that people can take advantage of the density that is allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. Some optional flexibility is already allowed, for example,the minimum lot size in the R1-7.2 zone is actually proposed to be less more like 6,200, and allowing greater flexibility in the subdivision process(lot width). Commissioner Stringham addressed the issue that even a minimal amount of a cost increase that is unnecessary is too much. In it of itself a 30 or 60-day delay may add a small amount to the purchase price and when you compound that with all the other things you have to deal with- mitigation fees, conditional use permit fees, and all the traditional delays, it just makes the problem worse. He agrees that we need to avoid any time delays as time is money in the construction business. Commissioner Stringham stated that it was his understanding that the City currently does not require a public hearing for developments of eight lots or smaller. Ms. Phillips reaffirmed that. Commissioner Stringham questioned why we should now require a public hearing for lots five to eight in size, what benefit is that? Ms. Phillips explained the concern is that the lots would be . smaller and closer together than the rest of the neighborhood. The concern was with the smaller lot sizes than the rest of the neighborhood. #ZC,4-95-10 MI-CAmendmenr 5 #ZCA-95-1 ClusrerDevelopment 0 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 Commissioner Stringham Clarified that four or smaller lots would not require a public hearing. Ms. Phillips confirmed this. (Commissioner Stringham did not see the relevance to adding a public hearing for 5-8 lots. He did not see there was a significant difference between the 1-4 lots and the 5-8 lot sizes. Commissioner Nuss stated that the difference lies in the different size of the lot is not a small issue. Commissioner Nuss stated that there have been studies done on rats at the University of Washington where they put them in a box and they watch them all fighting because they are too crowded. When you are getting more and more dense with people the monetary cost weighed against the cost to human beings,the effects 0 the human beings need to be considered here over who could make the fastest buck. Commissioner Stringham rebutted that he did not think it was about the fastest buck. He believes it is about is trying to create ownership situations in the single family market for young couples who are now priced out of that market. He also pointed out that unlike rats human beings have the power of reasoning and logic and we are not requiring a public hearing on three or four lot size developments there is little difference between three or four lots and eight lots. Commissioner Nuss questioned the Chair as to whether or not the Commission was in the discussion process or at questions.' Chair Morrill explained that they were in deliberations at this time correction we are just asWng questions to Ms. Phillips Chair Morrill opened thepublic hearing. Mr. Paul Morford, P. O Box 6345, Kent,WA 98064. Mr.Morford addressed the water problem and the site coverage. He has apiece of property near Kent Commons that he has just short platted. He was on the standards!committee for the public works and any piece of property in the City of Kent that is over 5,000 square feet of impervious area has to have storm retention He felt that the street standards was a big!issue and felt they should wait to vote on the whole issue instead of voting on a half issue. The other thing is that the,growth management is trying to encourage in-fill. The only in-fill in the City of Kent is on small lots. The last time he tried to voice his opinion on not having a minimum lot size and there was a loll of debate on that If you have 20,000 square foot of property and it was zoned 5,000 square feet! you could have four lots of all the same size. But with the cluster development,or if you didn't have a minimum, you could have a 3,000 square foot lot and have a little more open space. For instance, most of you are familiar with the property over near Fourth Avenue next to Kent Corhunons, that could be short platted. It is a big trend to have a smaller lot so you can have your own lot and have more open space. Mr. Morford felt that having a conditional use permit is a step backwards in mandating public hearings. The neighborl are notified during the short plat process and can speak at the short plat #ZCA-95-10 Ml-CAmendmept 6 #ZCA-95-1 Cluster Develovmienr 61 PIa.nning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 meetings. He suggested using the same factor to determine the number of lots allowed based on the zoning. However, allowing for smaller lot sizes which would cause more open space. Commissioner Dahle questioned what to do with small cluldren and no place to play Mr.Morford explained that there would be a place to play. Most of the people buying the smaller 4,200 square foot lots have children. The only choice for these families is to get into their own place with their own yard or an apartment. He thought that the reason for these was to try to give families another alternative to apartment Irving. Each time you make the lot size bigger or the process more cumbersome,you push the families into apartments Commissioner Nuss questioned Mr. Morford's comparison of apartment living and cluster developments. Tom Sharp, 11126 SE 256th,Kent Mr. Sharp was a member of the study group to change the PUD Ordinance because it was not working. He felt that when the PUD Ordinance was changed it became too restrictive. Mr. Sharp questioned whether we actually wanted the m-fill. Commissioner Stringham asked staff what percentage of the Comprehensive Plan relies on in-fill and redevelopment to accomplish our housing goals Mr Satterstrom was unsure of the answer. He explained that it was fair to say that a portion of the capacity of the Comprehensive Plan depends . on redevelopment as well as m-fill He believes a lot of the area that depends on in-fill is probably accommodated by your previous proposal on single family. The Planning Commission recommended a 50 foot lot width that goes a long way in offering a subdivision alternative. As mentioned before the minimum lot sizes are reduced by approximately 20%to ensure that the single family density number that was put in the Comprehensive Plan could actually be achieved through subdivision. A small portion of the capacity is dependent on cluster development. This is another way in which people who own land's that are constrained and wouldn't be able to subdivide the same as land that doesn't have constraints. This way they can transfer the density from the sensitive area to the developed area of the site. Mr. Satterstrom does not have any concrete numbers for the Commission nor did he think they got that finite in the analysis. Chair Merrill closed public hearing. Commissioner Dahle commented the Commission has no objection to 5,000 square foot lots However, there was objections to lots of 3,000 square feet. The lots she has observed were 5,000 to 6,000 square feet in size and they were very close together. Her recommendation is for nothing smaller than 5,000 square feet lots. Chair Morrill questioned the Park's involvement in the cluster development process. Ms.Phillips explained that the only time that the Park's Department would become involved in a development differently than they do now is because there is a fee in lieu required for full subdivisions. This . means that if a person who wanted to develop property and did not have a critical area that they had to save, they could devote their entire 20%of open space the Park's Department could waive the fee #ZC4-95-10 MI-CAmendment 7 #ZC4-95-1 Cluster Development 6 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 in lieu. The open space would have to be totally usable recreation space. That is the only different way that Parks would become involved. Chair Morrill asked if the �ee in lieu would be used for neighborhood parks. Chair Morrill stated That three years ago all par systems were shying away from neighborhood parks because they are so costly. Ms.Phillips explained that it is a priority right now because in the Meridian Annexation area there just aren't enoug4 neighborhood parks and the Parks Department is also trying to refurbish some neighborhood parks. ;She did not mean to infer that all of the fee in lieu money would be spent for neighborhood parks that would depend on the park plans at that time. Commissioner MacIsaac asked for a further clarification of the fee in Iieu and how it applies here with the cluster developmejnt. Ms.Phillips explained that it only becomes an issue if the entire 20% that is reserved for clusteropen space is devoted, developed, and appropriate for recreation. This would not apply where there was a wetland that had to be reserved or if it was part of the 20% was a stream or a slope Commissioner Maclsaac atain questioned what the fee would be in lieu of. Ms. Phillips explained that it is a fee in lieu of providing a park. The Parks Department does find that dedicating a lot in a subdivision for a park dries make for a lot of small parks spaces for the City to maintain It is in lieu of dedicating land for parks and is based on the gross area or the number of lots in the subdivision. State law requires a park to be provided when new houses are constructed,so a fee in lieu was applied to the suldivision process. Mr. Satterstrom explained that if 20%of open space is required in the cluster development then they would of already satisfied,the purpose of the fee in lieu of because the fee in lieu of only requires 5%of the land area to be dedicated or set aside for a park. In most cases in cluster development,the park dedication and fee inlieu of Ordinance would be mute because the land would be part of the 20%of the open space required by the cluster development. In no case would the City collect a fee in lieu of because the fee is only paid if someone decides not to provide the open and/or park space. Comrrussioner MacIsaac asked as far as cluster housing goes clustering it tells you that you're going to end up providing some Open space. Fro example,a lot will have been reduced from 5,000 square feet to 3,000 square feet so there would be at least 2,000 square feet given up for some type of open space. Ms. Phillips explained that,the 20%must be recreation space not just open space. It can not be wet or sloped to qualify. Mr. $atterstrom explained that what we are trying to do here is to extend the same benefits to single family areas as multiple family development now enjoys in the PUD Ordinance. The City now maintains a Plan Unit Development Ordinance that applies only to multi- family zones. In a multif$mily zone in Kent you can now apply for a PUD, you can cluster your development however you want, basically you can even achieve density bonuses if you do certain things such as set aside open space and so forth. Here Kent is attempting to extend the same benefit #ZCA-95-10 MICAmendment 8 #ZCA-95-1 ClusterDevelovmeht 63 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 to single family The ability to cluster,the ability to go to smaller lots,the ability to be a little more imaginative in the site design than you can presently do under the existing or proposed subdivision standards. If this cluster housing Ordinance is not approved,then multifamily developments will have greater flexibility for development than in single family. Mr. Satterstrom realizes that the developers are telling you that nobody is going to build it,however, it is modeled after other cities and counties that presently have these ordinances and in many cases Kent's proposed Ordinance is less restrictive. Chair Morrill indicated he did not believe that the developers are not going to build rather developers are saying they just want a little bit more flexibility to make it a little bit more affordable and reduce some layers of bureaucracy. That is what the general public is seeking right now. Mr. Satterstrom explained that this proposal in some respects reduces the bureaucracy and increases the flexibility from the Ordinances that we copied in producing this document. He referred to Ms Phillips'previous statements that this proposal is less restrictive and adds greater flexibility than what is currently in place in other jurisdictions Commissioner Nuss questioned some of the housing that she has observed although some of it is nice, she is concerned with the 3,000 square foot lot size. She questioned whether or not there would . be very many of these developments and Mr. Satterstrom commented that he did not believe there would be. Commissioner Nuss pointed out other cities(White Center, Rainier Valley)where they have some pretty interesting projects. These projects are small areas and she does not want that to happen to Kent. She believes that the 3,000 square foot lot sizes are too small and she would like to focus rather on quality rather than quantity. Commissioner MacIsaac commented that we have to look to the future for the upcoming generations We are in an economic era that is reducing the standard of living. Young people today are out on the street because they can't either afford a house or an apartment. They are staying at home with their parents. Our children,our grandchildren especially,are not going to be able to afford any kind of single family house and they are going to be forced into some kind of a ghetto situation unless we do something about cuttmg as much bureaucracy and get the housing down to some kind of affordable level. What we spend as tax payers for all the paperwork, all the time that is lost,and so on, is passed on. That was an American dream for everyone of us to have a single family house. We are the responsible people that have to look at trying to cut the regulation,trying to cut out some of our bureaucracy so these kids can have some kind of a future in this country. Commissioner Nuss does not have a problem with cutting some of the bureaucracy and making it easier for people to build. She has a problem with looking at Kent right now, our multifamily situation,our human services,our taxes,things like that, that are just stretched out. She thinks that . it would not hurt Kent a whole lot to focus on quahty. A 5,000 square foot lot is not a huge lot. She thinks we should focus on quality right now instead of how many people can't really afford it and how many can we cram in an area and maybe stretch out our services even further. #ZCA-95-10 MI-CAmendment 9 4ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development 6 Planning Commission)v inutes October 23, 1995 Commissioner MacIsaac explained that in speaking of a 3,000 square foot lot we are referring to that in a cluster development.; In a cluster situation we haven't added any more houses to the area if it's five per acre if it's ten pet,acre. But what you're going to have is more open space. The size of the lot is not a terrible thing,you are having a lot more open space around. If you allow smaller lot sizes with more open space and preserve the open space there will be space for the kids to go out and play in the woods or those little areas. Going to a 3,000 square foot lot is something we should consider. You are not just looking�t some little tacky neighborhood of all these 3,000 square foot lots you are actually providing some open space with it that is really nice It can allow for some trees and some green space Commissioner Nuss rebutted that she understands that. However, there are areas where there are steep slopes where somebody with a large portion of property could build on it and they are given an allowance to build honbses closer/tighter. An example of this would be property with steep slopes, and through clustering tlpey could have ten housed crammed together Commissioner Dable questioned the price of$139,500 as being affordable. She also stated that the children need more of a jyard to play. Commissioner Epperly explained that the average home in Kent sells for$190,000.1 Commissioner Stringh*questioned why if the fee in lieu is mute in cluster housing why is it even in there. Mr.Satterstrorr�explained that the Park dedication or fee in lieu is an existing Ordinance The 20% of open space set aside in a cluster development would already satisfy the Ordinance and therefore it is mute. Ms. Phillips further explained that the Park Department has the right in the subdivision code now to decline a dedication if"the lot is not appropriate for recreation. She explained that in the proposed cluster development the fee in lieu could be waived if the subdivision residents maintained the open space as recreation. Commissioner Stringhar#r questioned whether the fee in lieu was a state mandate. Mr.Satterstrom explained that it is not a state mandate. However,the state's subdivision statue makes it incumbent on cities is to look for';.adequate open space or recreation provided in the neighborhood when approving subdivisions.; Commissioner Dahle commented regarding the 3,000 square foot lots that she would rather have the children playing in their:own yard versus playing in open space. Commissioner Hememao voiced his concern for the 3,000 square foot minimum. He suggested that a 4,200 square foot mini}num could be a compromise. It would allow for some basic modification of the basic RI-5 0 in a cluster development. #.ZC,4-95-10 MI-CAmendmont 10 65 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 Commissioner Stringham asked if there were any staff comments on Commissioner Heineman's comments. Ms.Phillips commented that the smallest lot size that has already been recommended by the Planning Commission is 4,000 which is 20% less than the 5,000 current standard. She recommended that the 4,000 square foot would be a reasonable minimum threshold if the Planning Commission was going to adjust the minimum. Mr. Satterstrom discussed a meeting he had with Mr. Bill Ruth. Mr. Ruth had indicated that he would like the Commissioners to consider in the R1-5.0 designation that in a cluster development that the right to attach units be given. He would like to be able to attach common walls. Mr. Satterstrom explained that it would still be land ownership with side to side development. This use to be an option in the PUD Ordinance in single family before it was taken out three years ago. Mr. Ruth considered this crucial in the whole cluster development Commissioner Nuss commented that if you have a townhouse or a condominiums you have ownership there. The City refers to condominiums as multifamily,so in essence by having a cluster house with attached walls with another dwelling it is still multifamily Chair Morrill commented on some homes he has seen back East with common walls. He stated that he has seen some very nice homes with attached walls. He believes allowing common walls is a good idea Commissioner Dahle asked how many walls are attached. Chair Morrill explained that back East it is block after block of attached walls and it is beautiful. Commissioner Dahle commented that it is still multifamily. Commissioner Nuss stated that the houses back East are a lot different when compared to what we have locally. Chair Morrill commented that it would be possible to build with common walls and still make nice looking neighborhood. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned Mr. Ruth's concept and wondered if attaching walls would give the residents a big back yard. Mr. Satterstrom explained that he had not discussed specific concepts with Mr. Ruth. W. Satterstrom stated that Mr. Ruth indicated that he wouldn't benefit from cluster developments without the allowance of common walls. Commissioner Stringham voiced his concerned with adding additional items to the Ordinance at such a late date after such a long deliberation. He suggested that if Mr.Ruth wanted to pursue the addition to the Ordinance that he should go to the City Council with his concerns. Commissioners MacIsaac and Nuss agreed. • Commissioner Dahle questioned if developers could build common wall structures with a nonconforming permit. Commissioner Stringham explained that common walls could only be built #ZCA-95-10 MI-CAmendment 11 #ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development 6 i Planning Commission Mi4utes October 23, 1995 if it were included in the code. Commission Stringham suggested making a decision on what was already before the Commission and not adding anything new to the deliberations. Commissioner Epperly voiced her concern with requiring a conditional use permit for the five to nine units. The property!is already posted and all the neighbors are notified. Five to nine units doesn't impact the neighborhood like ten or more would. it gives the added flexibility to use the in- fill and some redevelopment. She would like to see a conditional use permit required for ten or more units. Commissioner Stri Ingham explained that ten or more units is a full subdivision Commissioner Epperly MOVED to accept staffs recommendation as written with a change that a conditional use permit is not required for five to nine units and increasing the minimum lot size to 4,000 square feet. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion for discussion purposes. Commissioners Dahle and Nuss prefer the minimum lot size to be 5,000 square feet. Commissioner MacIsaac voiced his concern for being too restrictive. He supports no minimum lot size to cluster. Commissioner Heineman questioned the rationale for the one acre minimum. Ms.Phillips explained that the rationale was partially tradition and the 20%open space becomes quite small on anything Iess than one acre Motion failed. i Commissioner Stringhamj MOVED to accept staffs recommendation with the following changes: eliminate the one acre minimum size,raise the minimum lot size in the 5,000 square foot zone from 3,000 to 4,000, raise thej minimum lot size in the 7 2 zone from 4,200 to 5,000, eliminate the conditional use requirement for developments under ten, and eliminate the ten foot perimeter buffer requirement. The motion was SECONDED by Commissioner MacIsaac. Motion failed. Chair Morrill abstained from vote. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to accept staffs recommendation without a conditional use requirement for less than ten units and a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Motion fails for a lack of a SECOND. Commissioner Stringhamlrecommended for each Commissioner to explain their stand. Chair Morrill agreed. Commissioner Pattison e�plained his total opposition to cluster housing. Commissioner MacIsaac!feels that the proposal is too restrictive to be used. #ZGt-95-10 M1-CAmendmeW 12 Vreo'-9I-i r?""fer 67 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 Commissioner Heineman suggested to table this issue. Chair Morrill agreed. He felt more input was still needed. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned if there was public input early on. Ms. Phillips explained that the Planning Department held two separate forums. They received input from both developers and residents. Commissioner Maclsaac voiced his concern with not coming to a decision after all this time. Commissioner Nuss agreed with Commissioner Pattison to table the issue. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned how the Commission could receive more input Commissioner Epperly suggested a subcommittee Commissioner Stringham MOVED to continue the cluster housing Ordinance to an unspecified date so that the Commission can get further research and request that staff seek written information from the development community to use as a comparison. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Maclsaac requested staff comments on motion. Mr. Satterstrom explained that there has already put a lot more time on this project than anticipated The calendar for the rest of the year is already full and if the Commission is unable to act tonight this issue will not be heard again until next year. Commissioner Stringharn questioned a time line Mr Satterstrom explained that there isn't any state mandated time fimne. Commissioner Stringham withdrew his motion Commissioner Heineman withdrew his second. Commissioner Stnngham MOVED to forward the cluster housing Ordinance without recommendation ensuring that staff includes all of the Commissions comments from this hearing along with all of the amendments that were offered. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Commissioner MacIsaac voiced his concern with the Commission deadlocking issues. He was concerned that the Commission might not be doing their job if they can't come to an agreement on issues. Commissioner Heineman agreed it might be time to cut this one loose. Motion carried • #ZCA-95-10 MI-CAmendmew 13 #ZCA-95-1 Cluster Development 8 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 Commissioner Stringharki voiced his concern with the nonconforming use issues. Kmg County allows some time for the Towner to rebuild. He MOVED to request staff to draft a code amendment that would allow a simiW set of circumstances in the City of Kent for those areas that are newly annexed. Chair Momll �ECONDED the motion. Motion carried. i Commissioner Epperlyl moved to adjourn the public hearing. Commissioner Stringham SECONDED the motion. Motion carried The public hearing adjourned at 9.15 p m. Respectfully Submitted, James P.Hams c.\users\d oc\minutes.92 i #ZCA-95-10 MI-CAmendmjent 14 #ZCA-95-1 Custer Developf ent 69 CITY OF J uLD CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 MEMORANDUM vVicit- 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-i 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 6B'c 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 he necessary for the purpose of cross referencing and integrating new or revised sections with existing codes. i 7 For biscussion Purposes Only CLUSTER ZONING CODE SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS 8128195 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 jCluster Housing Development . Cluster Housin(J 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 presOrvation 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 Hine, 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 .q. 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 subdijvision for which a public hearing is required by Title 12, Chapter 12 . 04, Subdivisions . 1 71 Cluster and Zero Lot Line Development August 2 8, 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 25"s 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 2 DRAFT 1:01•Discussion Purpotes Only CLUSTER ZONING CODE SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS 8/28195 Sec. 15 08 .350r Cluster Housing Development - Authorized, The intent o� cluster housing development is to provide an alternative deg elopment pattern which will provide opportimities to preserve open; space, natural resource areas, environmentally sensitive areas, and/or historic and archeological sites while permitting development to occur at the densities designated on the Comprehensive Flan Map. Cluster housirpg 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 R1-9i.G Single-family residential R1-7L 2 Single family residential R1-51.0 Single family residential Single family cluster housing development may be permitted in the following multifamily residential zoning districts subject to the minimum lot tize, maximum density, and development standards specified in ''this chapter for cluster housing in the R1-5 . 0 district: MR-P Duplex multifamily residential MR-G Garden density multifamily residential MR-M Medium density multifamily residential MR-A High density multifamily residential Sec . 15. 08.3601. Same-Permitted uses. Except as provided in this chapter, uses permitted in cluster developments shall be as outlined in Section 15 .014 .020, Single family residential district. (note: recdmmended cluster provisions, provided in this chapter, include development of more than one single family dwelling per lot where adequate land area is available - undgrlying 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. i B. Minimum lot size, maximum density, maximum site coverage, 2 73 DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Gnl;r 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 15. 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 Rent 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 i� -`AFT74 Vor Discussion Purposes On,. CLUSTER ZONING CODE SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS 8/28/95 recreation. d. To provide a common green or open space feature which provides a community focus. 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 I rotective 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. $f 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 subdivi-sion, 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 75 ul 15.08.390 Same, Densities and Dimensions Chart PROPOSED DENSITIES AND DIMENSIONS CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT AGIMMENTIAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE A-1 RA RI-20 RI-12 RI-9 6 RI.7 2 RI-5 0 PERIIITTEDDENSIT'Y IDU/A IDU/A 2DU/A 3DU/A 4 5DU/A 6DUTA 8DU/A MINTMUM LOT WIDTH KING COUNTY 35 35 NA NA NA 30 30 KENT EXISTING 100 100 70 70 70 70 50 KENT PROPOSED 35 3S 35 35 35 30 30 mm STREET SETBACK KING COUNTY 30 30 NA NA NA 10 10 KENT EXISTING 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 KEN'PROPOSED 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 Average Average Average Avenge Average Average Average ITTN TNTERIOR SETBACKS KING COUNTY 10 10 NA NA NA 5 5 KENT EXISTING S-15 S-15 S-5 5-5 S-5 S-5 S-5 R-20 R-20 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8 KENT PROPOSED 10 10 S-5 S-5 S-5 5 5 R-8 R-8 R-3 IEAXIMUII HEIGHT KING COUNTY 35 35 NA NA NA 35 35 KENT EXISTING 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 KENO PROPOSED 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 MAX. BLDG COVERAGE •KING COUNTY 15% 15% NA NA NA 50% 35% KENT EN7517NG 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 40% •lmNT PROPOSER 30% 30% 30%, 4S% 45% 50% 55% MAX. DVIPERVIOUS SURFACE *KING COUNTY 20% 20% NA NA NA 70% 751r, KENT EXISTING NA NA NA NA NA NA NA *KENT PROPOSED 40%, 40% 40% 50% 60% 70% 75% MINIMUM LOT SIZE • KING COUNTY NA NA NA NA NA NA NA KENT ERISTING 43 450 SF 41,450 SF 20.000 SF 12,DDO SF 9,600 SF 7.200 SF 5,000 SF KENTPROPOSED 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 11,000 SF 6,500 SF 5,500 SF 4;00SF 3,000 SF 6 . Ur Disc;tss�on iia �s poll', SUBDIVISION CODE-CLUSTER RECOMMENDATIONS 8/28/95 RECOMMENDED NEW , SUBDIVISION CODE SECTION TO AUTHORIZE CLUSTE SUBDIVISIONS: (The subdivision :code does not currently contain cluster subdivisio provisions . most of the following recommendations relate to neyo Subdivision Code sections . Existing sections are indicated b underlining.) Sec . 12 . 04 050 Definitions . . . . . Cluster subdivision shall mean a residential subdivision whic complies with underlying zoning in respect to overall density, but permits clustering of residences, provided that a minimum area o land as reserved for permanent preservation or common use b homeowners ih the development Detached housing may be clustere on the buildable land subject to the provisions of Title 15. Sec. 12 . 04 . 486 . C- .uster Subdivisions A. Cluster subdivisions shall be permitted, subject to the provision of Title 15, Kent Zoning Code. Zoning Code provisions incl minimum lot 'size, and maximum density. C. The following standards shall apply to cluster subdivision. I addition the regulation of sections 12. 04 .430, 12 .04 , 440, 12 . 04 . 47 and 12 .04 .4810 shall apply unless specifically excepted. (regarding streets, curbs and sidewalks, installation of utilities, storm drainage, water system, and electrical hookups, the language o 12 . 04 . 485 . Zero lot line subdivisions could be used or included b reference . If the Public Works Department agrees to specific street standards for cluster developments, a new Section B. 1 . Streets, Curb 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 sin le-famil residential 'or multifamily residential zones as defined in titl 15 , cning, thall be contingent upon the subdivider' s dedication o land or ro idin fees in lieu of dedication to the city, a necessaryto. mitiaate the adverse effects of develo ment upon th existinga k and recreation service levels This re uiremen shall not apply to Lots of forty-three thousand five hundre (43 , 500) square feet or larger in size Tanned unit development or subdivisions of four (4) or less lots, or cluster subdivision which provide twenty (20) percent or more of the total land ar for recreational open space. CLUSUB REC 77 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES K E N T Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager - WASH IN G r° Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 TO: CHAIR LEONA ORR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: KIM MAROUSEK,AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER THROUGH: LAND USE& PLANNING BOARD SUBJECT: KENT CITY CODE AMENDMENT#SCA-2003-1 (KIVA#2032289) BINDING SITE PLAN FOR THE DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LAND MOTION: I move to recommend/not recommend approval of#SCA-2003-1 as forwarded by the Land Use & Planning Board and staff, and to forward this item to the Consent Calendar of the October 7"' City Council meeting. SUMMARY: After considering testimony at their August 25th public hearing, the Land Use &Planning Board recommended approval of an amendment that will add a new section to Kent City Code ("KCC") 12.04 to establish a binding site plan process for the division of commercially and industrially zoned land. The Board recommendation also included consolidating KCC 12.07 (Binding Site Plans for Condominiums) into KCC 12.04. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: Spurred by recent land use applications and potential redevelopment opportunities within the City's commercial and industrial areas,staff initiated an evaluation of the binding site plan process as an alternative for the division of industrial and commercial land for sale or lease. The binding site plan process provides an alternative means to legally subdivide land, for sale or lease, without following the traditional platting process. The KCC currently has a provision for a binding site plan process; however, it only applies to condominium properties. The state subdivision statue (RCW 58.17) contains provisions for a broader application of this process and extends it to the division of land within commercial and industrial zones. The binding site plan process provides flexibility within the development community to create legal lots of record via a simplified process. For example, applicants may more easily phase in public improvements over time versus a requirement to construct all public improvements prior to filing a final subdivision. Integrated commercial or industrial sites can be evaluated as a "whole" for the purpose of underlying zoning regulations. Conversely, through a traditional platting process, each lot would be required to "stand alone" with respect to setbacks, parking, lot coverage, and the like. Additionally, through the application of a binding site plan, a property owner with a developed business park could more easily segregate parcels for sale or lease without the constraints of the underlying development regulations. The proposed code amendments are attached in draft ordinance form. • KM\pm S:\Permit\Plan\SubdivisionCodeAmendments\2003\2032289-2003-lpcmemo.doc Enc: Draft binding site plan ordinance,Minutes of 8\25\03 LU&PB hearing,8\I8\03 staff memo to Board Wattachments cc: Fred N.Satterstrom,AICP,CD Director Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager Kurt Hanson,Senior Planner File#SCA-2003-I/KIVA 2032289 79 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending chapter 12.04 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Subdivisions," to add a section for Binding Site Plan for the division of industrial and commercial land, and repealing in its entirety chapter 12.07 of the Kent City Code, as said chapter will be incorporated in chapter 12.04. WHEREAS, the City of Kent endeavors to provide flexibility in the segregation of parcels of real property; and WHEREAS, for real property located in commercial or industrial zones, the binding site plan process provides an alternative means to legally subdivide land, for sale or lease, without following standard platting procedures; and WHEREAS, as authorized by chapter 58.17 RCW, the City desires to add the option of segregating parcels though a binding site plan in order to provide flexibility to development in the industrial and commercial zones; and 1 KCC I2.04— Binding Site Plan a WHEREAS, after providing appropriate public notice, the City held a public hearing on a proposal for binding site plans at the regular land use and planning board nt<eeting on August 25, 2003; and WHEREAS, the planning committee considered this matter at its regularly scheduled meeting on September 16, 2003; and i WHEREAS, on August 4, 2003, the City provided the required sixty (60) day notificaltion of the City's proposed amendment for binding site plans under RCW 36.70A.10,6 to the State of Washington; and WHEREAS, the sixty (60) day notice period has lapsed and the i amendment is dej med appropriate; NOW THEREFORE, i THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY; ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SEUTION 1. — Amendment. Chapter 12.04 of the Kent City Code, entitled"Subdivisions," is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 12.04 SUBDIVISIONS, BINDING SITE PLANS, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS Article I. General Provisions Sec. 12.014.010. Title. This code shall be hereinafter known as the city of Kent subdivision code. Sec. 12.04.015. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to provide rules, regulations, requirements, aff&standards. and procedures for subdividing land, for 2 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan i 81 obtainingbinding indingsite plans, and for adjustments of lot lines in the city, ensuring: 1. That the highest feasible quality in subdivisions will be attained; 2. That the public health, safety, general welfare, and aesthetics of the city shall be promoted and protected; 3. That orderly growth, development, and the conservation, protection and proper use of land shall be promoted; 4. That proper provisions for all public facilities, including connectivity, circulation, utilities, and services, shall be made; 5. That maximum advantage of site characteristics shall be taken into consideration; and 6. That the process shall be in conformance with provisions set forth in KCC Title 15, Zoning, and the comprehensive plan. Sec. 12.04.020. Scope. This chapter shall apply to the division of land for • sale or lease into two (2) or more parcels and to the modification of lot lines between adjoining parcels. Where this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. Unless otherwise indicated and as provided by RCW 58. 77.040, tThe provisions of this chapter do not apply to: 1. Cemeteries and burial plots while used for that purpose; 2. Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or the laws of descent; 3. Division of land due to condemnation or sale under threat thereof, by an agency or division of government vested with the power of condemnation;.. 4. Divisions of land into lots or tracts classified for industrial or commercial use when the city has approved a binding site plan for the use of the land. 5 Condominium developments. pursuant to either chapter 64.32 or 64.34 RCW that are subject to an approved binding site plan. • 3 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan 8 I I See. 12.0.4.025. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the contex,,t clearly indicates a different meaning: Active recreation activities shall mean all outdoor recreational activities which involve field and court games. Alley shall mean a public or private way not more than thirty (30) feet wide at the rear or side of property affording only secondary means of vehicular or pedestrian access' to abutting property. Binding &e Plan shall mean a scaled drawing which: (a) identifies and shows the areas' and locations of all streets, roads, improvements, utilities, open space, and any other matters specified in this chapter; (b) contains inscriptions or attachments settog forth such appropriate limitations and conditions for the use of the land as established by the city through the approval process; and (c) contains provisions whici require any development be in conformity with the binding site plan. Binding $ite Plan Committee shall be a committee consistingof f the planning manager, who shall be the chairperson, one member of the land use and planning board, the building official, public works director, and the fire chief, or other designated representative. Block shall mean a group of lots, tracts, or parcels within well-defined and fixed boundaries, Circulatign shall mean any of a number of quantitative measures that characterizes the;frequency of transportation mode trips, the duration of a mode trip, and path choices made between two (2) or more activity spaces. Traffic counts usually indicate a measure of circulation. Clustering or cluster subdivision shall mean a development or division of land in which iesidential building lots are reduced in size and concentrated in specified portion( s) of the original lot, tract or parcel. 4 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan 83 Common open space shall mean a parcel or parcels of land or an area of water or a combination of land and water within the site designated for a subdivision or a planned unit development, and designed and intended primarily for the use or enjoyment of residents of a subdivision. Common open space may contain such complementary structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment of residents of the subdivision. Community park shall mean a park that serves the entire city of Kent and can be located throughout the city. Community parks may have facilities or amenities that are not offered elsewhere in the city, and which can include boating, swimming, fishing, athletic fields, group picnic shelters, play equipment, hard courts, skateparks, and trails, and will vary at each park. Access to the park is by car, public transit, foot or bicycle. Off-street parking is provided. Comprehensive plan shall mean the document, including maps, adopted by the city council, which outlines the city's goals and policies relating to management of growth, and prepared in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. The term also • includes adopted subarea plans prepared in accordance with Chapter 36.70A RCW. Connectivity shall mean subdivisions which are connected by through streets, easements, or other rights-of-way, to activity centers including other subdivisions, neighborhood centers, shopping centers, transit stops, recreational spaces and other public facilities. Such connections shall have a character that is pedestrian-friendly and that provide a sense of location. A list of goals and criteria below indicate provisions to be considered by the public works department and planning services office in evaluating connectivity: Goals and Corresponding Criteria: A. Increase through-connections to adjacent subdivisions and activity centers. 1. Subdivision streets should connect through, except where impractical. 2. Cul-de-sac streets of subject subdivision should provide pedestrian/bicycle pathway(s) from bulb-ends to neighboring subdivision(s) streets or other adjacent activity centers. • 5 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan 4 3. Subject subdivision should provide continuous five (5) foot wide sidewalks (on both sides of streets fronting developed lots) and connect to other streets. 4. Subject subdivision intersections are four (4) way intersections. B. Increase connections to other travel modes. 1. Subdivision lots should be located no further than one-quarter (1/4) mile from the nearest bicycle path or trail. 2. Subdivision lots should be located no further than one-quarter (1/4) mile from the nearest transit stop. 3. Subdivision lots should be located no further than four (4) miles from the nearest park and ride lot. C. Provide streetscaping improvements. 1. Vehicular traffic calming. 2. Provision of planting strips. 3. Neighborhood identity elements. County auditor shall mean that person as defined in Chapter 36.22 RCW or the office of the Gerson assigned such duties under the King County Charter. Cul-de-sac shall mean a short street having one (1) end open to traffic and being terminated!at the other end by a vehicular turnaround. Dedication shall mean a deliberate appropriation of land by its owner for any general and pubilic uses, reserving to himself no other rights than such as are compatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public uses to which the property has been devoted. The intention to dedicate shall be evidenced by the owner by the presentment for filing of a final plat or a final short plat showing the dedication thereof; and the acceptance by the public shall be evidenced by the approval of such plat for filing by the city. Division pf land shall mean the subdivision of any parcel of land into two (2) or more parcels. 6 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan 85 Final plat shall mean the final drawing of the subdivision and dedication prepared for filing for record with the King County auditor and containing all elements and requirements set forth in this chapter. Hearing examiner shall mean the person appointed by the mayor, or his or her designee, to conduct public hearings on applications outlined in Ch. 2.32 KCC which creates the hearing examiner, and who prepares a record, findings of fact and conclusions on such applications. Hillside subdivision shall mean a subdivision in which any lot in the subdivision has average slopes greater than fifteen (15) percent and in which any street in the subdivision has grades greater than seven (7) percent at any point. Homeowners' association shall mean an incorporated nonprofit organization operating under recorded land agreements through which: 1. Each lot owner is automatically a member; 2. Each lot is automatically subject to a proportionate share of the expenses for the organization's activities, such as maintaining common property; and 3. A charge if unpaid becomes a lien against the property. Land use and planning board shall mean that body as defined in the Kent City Code. Lot shall mean a parcel of land of at least sufficient size to meet minimum zoning requirements for use, coverage and area, and to provide such yards and other open spaces as are required in this title. Such lot shall have frontage on an improved public street, or on an approved private street, and may consist of: 1. A single lot of record; 2. A portion of a lot of record; 3. A combination of complete lots of record and portions of lots of record; or 4. A parcel of land described by metes and bounds; provided, that in no case of division or combination shall any residual lot or parcel be created which does not meet the requirements of this title. . 7 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan 8 Lot, corner shall mean a lot abutting upon two (2) or more streets at their intersection or upon two (2) parts of the same street, such streets or parts of the same street forming an interior angle of less than one hundred thirty-five (135) degrees within the lot lines. Lot,fromjage shall mean the front of a lot which shall be that portion nearest the street or, if the lot does not abut a street, the portion nearest an ingress/egress easement. On as corner lot, the front yard shall be considered the narrowest part of the lot that fronts on a street, except in industrial and commercial zones, in which case the user of a corner lot has the option of determining which part of the lot fronting on a street shall become the lot frontage. Lot line adjustment shall mean the adjusting of common property lines or boundaries between adjacent lots, tracts, or parcels for the purpose of rectifying a disputed property line location, freeing such a boundary from any differences or discrepancies or laccommodating a minor transfer of land. The resulting adjustment shall not create any additional lots, tracts, or parcels and all reconfigured lots, tracts, or parcels shall contain sufficient area and dimension to meet minimum requirements for zoning and building purposes. Lot lines shall mean the property lines bounding the lot. Lot measurements shall mean: 1. The depth of a lot which shall be considered to be the distance between the foremost points of the side lot lines in front and the rearmost points of the side lot lines in the rear. 2. The width of a lot which shall be considered to be the distance between the side lines connecting front and rear lot lines; provided, however, that width between s�de lot lines at their foremost points where they intersect with the street line shall not be less than eighty (80) percent of the required lot width except in the case of lots ion the turning circle of cul-de-sacs, where eighty (80) percent of requirements shall not apply. 8 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan 87 Lot of record shall mean a lot which is part of a subdivision recorded in the • office of the King County assessor, or a lot or parcel described by metes and bounds, the description of which has been so recorded. Lot, through shall mean a lot that has both ends fronting on a street. Either end may be considered the front. Meander line shall mean a line along a body of water intended to be used solely as a reference for surveying. Neighborhood park shall mean a park that serves a neighborhood (not a subdivision), defined by arterial streets. These parks are generally located centrally in the neighborhood so that the park is easily accessible and neighborhood residents do not have to cross a major arterial to reach the park. Access is primarily by foot or bicycle, so the park is usually no further than one-half mile from any point in the neighborhood. Parking spaces are typically not provided, unless on-street parking is not available, accessible or safe. Neighborhood parks have amenities for casual activities that are not programmed or organized, or for which a fee is charged. • Amenities include play equipment, picnic tables, hard courts (basketball, tennis), walking trails, and open grassy areas. Official plans shall mean those maps, development plans, or portions thereof, adopted by the city council as provided in chapter 44, section 6, Laws of 1935, as amended. Such plans or maps shall be deemed to be conclusive with respect to the location and width of streets, public parks, and playgrounds and drainage rights-of- way as may be shown thereon. Park open space shall mean those areas that are environmentally sensitive, wildlife habitat, or wetlands, that remain in a relatively natural state with minimal improvements for public access, interpretation, study or enjoyment. Park service area shall mean those areas defined by arterial streets or geographic features, and which are identified in the comprehensive park and recreation plan, that a neighborhood park or community park is intended to serve. Performance bond or guarantee shall mean that security which may be accepted in lieu of a requirement that certain improvements be made before the final • 9 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan 8 plat is approved! and signed, including performance bonds, escrow agreements and other similar collateral or surety agreements. Piggyback or accumulative short subdivision shall mean multiple short subdivision of contiguous land under common ownership. Ownership for purposes of this section shall mean ownership as established at the application submittal date of the initial short subdivision approval_ Plat shah mean a map or representation of a subdivision, showing thereon the division of a tract or parcel of land into lots, blocks, streets and alleys or other divisions and dedications. Prelimingtry approval shall mean the official favorable action taken on the preliminary plat, of a proposed subdivision, metes and bounds description or dedication, by the hearing examiner following a duly advertised public hearing or on a preliminary plit of a short subdivision following a duly advertised meeting of the short subdivision} committee. Preliminary plat shall mean a neat and precise scale drawing of a proposed subdivision sho*ing the general layout of streets and alleys, lots, blocks and other elements of a plat or subdivision which shall furnish a basis for the approval or disapproval of tl* general layout of a subdivision. Roadway!shall mean that portion of a street intended for the accommodation of vehicular traffpc, generally within curblines. Short plat shall mean the map or representation of a short subdivision. Short subdivision shall mean the division or redivision of land into nine (9) or fewer lots, tracts', parcels, sites, or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer of ownership. Tracts identified for or with the potential for future development shall be included within the number of lots created, but tracts which are not buildable and/or are intended for public dedication, environmental protection or stormwater detention are nof!included in the number of lots created. Short subdivision, type I shall mean the division of land into four (4) or less lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer of ownership. Tracks identified for or with the potential for future development shall be 10 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan 89 included within the number of lots created, but tracts which are not buildable and/or are intended for public dedication, environmental protection or stormwater detention are not included in the number of lots created. Short subdivision, type H shall mean the division of land into more than four (4) and less than ten (10) lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose of sale, lease or transfer of ownership. Tracts identified for or with the potential for future development shall be included within the number of lots created, but tracts which are not buildable and/or are intended for public dedication, environmental protection or stormwater detention are not included in the number of lots created. Street shall mean a public way thirty (30) feet or more in right-of-way width which affords a primary means of access to property. Subdivision shall mean the division or redivision of land into ten (10) or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions for the purpose of sale or lease or transfer of ownership; provided, that subdivisions of less than ten (10) parcels may be defined as short subdivisions. Tracts identified for or with the potential for future development shall be included within the number of lots created, but tracts which are not buildable and/or are intended for public dedication, environmental protection or stormwater detention are not included in the number of lots created. Subdivision, phased shall mean a subdivision, which is developed in increments over a period of time. Tentative plat shall mean a map drawn in accordance with the same requirements as the preliminary plat map, but submitted prior to preliminary plat submittal. Title report shall mean a certified report from a bonded title agency showing recorded title holder and all encumbrances and defects that exist on the land. Tract shall mean a parcel of land proposed for subdivision or subdividing. Trail system shall mean those pathways that connect points of interest, parks, community facilities, streets, residences, etc. in the community, which are generally not confined within the limits of one park. Trails are intended to be used by bicycles, rollerskaters, and pedestrians; they are not intended to be used by motorized vehicles. 11 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan 9 Urban sdparators shall mean low-density lands that define community or municipal identifies and boundaries, protect adjacent resource lands, rural areas, and environmentally;sensitive areas, and create open space corridors within and between urban areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits. V. Binding Site Plan i Sec. 12.00.800. Purpose. Consistent with RCW 58.17.035, the purpose of this Article V ip a) to create an alternative process segregating}property zoned industrial or commercial for the purpose of sale or lease without the necessity of completing the procedures for platting, and b) to allow for the division of multifamily residential zonal land for condominium purposes without the necessity completing the ptocedures for platting. A binding site plan process merely creates or alters existing lob lines and does not authorize construction, improvements or changes to the property of the uses thereon. Sec. 12.0#.805. Binding site plan committee. A. A binding site plan shall be considered by the city's binding site plan committee. The Manning services office shall distribute copies of the application for binding site planjapproval to each member of the committee and to other appropriate agencies for review and comment, and provide public notice if required by KCC 12.01.140. B. A meeting attended b the he applicant or his representative and the binding site plan committee members shall be held within thirty (30) days of the determination of completeness oft the application or receipt of requested additional information, consistent with the timelines established in KCC 12.01. The meeting shall be open to the public. Notice of the public meeting shall be circulated consistent with the requirements of 1 CC 12.01.145. An additional meeting may be called if no decision is reached at the !first meeting. The second meeting shall be held no later than seven 12 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan i 91 (7) days after the first meeting or on a date mutually agreed upon by the applicant • and the committee. C. Three (3) of the five (5) members of the binding site plan committee must be present in order for the committee to take any action. D. The binding site plan committee may approve approve with conditions or modifications or deny the application The committee shall not impose any conditions which are inconsistent with prior land use approvals of the development covered by this application The decision of the committee shall be made at the committee meeting. E. As a condition of approval of the binding site plan the binding site plan committee shall have the right and authority to require the deeding of rights-of-way for street and/or utility purposes when determined necessary as a result of the binding site plan development Any deeding shall precede the recordation of the binding site plan unless otherwise specified through a development agreement. See. 12.04.810. Appeal. The decision of the binding site plan committee • shall be final unless an appeal by any aggrieved party is made to the hearing examiner within fourteen (14) days after the committee's decision. The appeal shall be in writing to the hearing examiner and filed with the planning services office. Any appeal shall be consistent with KCC 12.01.190 (Open Record Appeal). Sec 12.04.815. Applicability for commercial and industrial sites. A The subject site shall consist of one or more legally created lots; and B. The property must be zoned commercial and\or industrial. Sec 12 04 820 Application Requirements for commercial and industrial sites. All of the following information shall be included in any application for binding site plan approval for commercial and industrial lots: A At a minimum the binding site plan application shall include the following information: 13 KCC 12.04- Binding Site Plan 9re 1. A!map or plan showing the location and size of all new proposed lots; 2. Proposed and existing structures including floor areas and setbacks. 3. Location of existing and proposed public rights of way, private and public streets and easements: 4. L�cation of all existing and proposed open spaces including any required landsca ed areas. parking areas and all major manmade or natural features (i.e. streams, cre4ks. drainage courses, railroad tracks, utility lines. etc.); 5. Layout of an internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation system. including proposed or existing ingress and egress points. 6. LTcation of existing and proposed fire hydrants to serve the site; 7. Description, location and size of existing and proposed utilities, storm drainage facilities and roads to serve each lot; 8. E$pected location of new buildings and driveways; 9. Utter of water and/or sewer availability, if not served by the City of 1 Kent; 10. P4rking calculations to demonstrate that the requirements of KCC 15.05 bave been Chet; 11. Tke following code data: zoning district: total lot area; total building area: percent of Ote coverage: total parking and maneuvering area; 12. Plans, analysis and calculations verifying building code compliance of all existing structures, to include, but not limited to, identification of all types of construction and occupancy classifications, allowable area calculations. wall and wall opening protection, and provisions for exiting and accessibility for the disabled; 13. ftposed cross-access and maintenance agreements for parking, circulation, utility and landscaping improvements, if shared, 14. Tie site plan shall also include the name of proposed development; the legal descript on of the property for which the binding site plan is sought, the date on which the plAs were prepared; the graphic scale and north point of the plans; and. 15. T4e title, `Binding Site Plan" shall be at the top of the plan in large rp 1nt; 14 KCC I Z 04— Binding Site Plan i 93 B. A recent title report covering all property shown within the boundaries of the binding site plan shall be submitted with the application. C. A plan showing the layout and size of all existing and proposed utilities to serve each lot. D. A phasing plan and time schedule if the site is intended to be developed in phases. E. A complete environmental checklist if required by KCC 11.03. F. Copies of all easements covenants and other encumbrances restricting the use of the site. Sec 12 04 825 Approval Criteria for commercial and industrial sites. A Criteria An application for a binding site plan on commercial or industrial lands may be approved if the following criteria are satisfied : 1 Adequate provisions have been made for stormwater detention, water supply, sanitary sewer, drainageways• private and/or public streets• pedestrian access,• public and private utilities and other public ways; 2 Each lot shall provide access to a public road and make provisions for connectivity of alleys, pedestrian accessways and other public ways; 3 The binding site plan complies with or makes adequate provisions to comply with applicable provisions of the building code fire code public works standards, and zoning standards. 4 Potential environmental impacts together with any practical means of mitigating adverse impacts have been considered such that the proposal will not have an adverse effect upon the environment. 5 Approving the binding site plan will serve the public use and interest and adequate provisions have been made for the public health, safety and general welfare. B. Shared improvements As a condition of approval the City may authorize sharing of open space parking access setbacks landscaping and other improvements among contiguous properties Conditions of use, maintenance and 15 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan 9 restrictions on $edevelopment of shared opens ace parking access and other improvements shall be identified on the binding site plan and enforced by covenants easements or other similar mechanisms. Such agreements or restrictions shall be recorded with the King County Auditor's Office and run with the land Such agreements shall] be approved as to form by the city attorney prior to filing the final binding site plan. The binding site plan shall contain the conditions to which the binding site plan is subject, including any applicable irrevocable dedications of property. The binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any development of the site shall be in conformity with the approved site plan and any applicable development regulations subject to the vesting requirements of this chapter. C. Phasing Of Development Unless otherwise provided for in a development agreement, development ep rmit applications shall be submitted for all structures and improvements shown on the binding site plan within three (3)years of approval The planning managor may administratively extend this period by one (1) additional yea if requested by the applicant. Permit applications submitted within that period shall be subiect to tho vesting requirements of this chapter. If the applicant chooses to develop the prgpertv in a phased development. the applicant must execute a development agreement with the city pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170. This Agreement shall govern at of minimum, the use and development of the property subject to the binding site plan, including: (1) vesting applicable to subsequent permits; (2) the manner in which each phase of the development will proceed to ensure that the roads and utilities necgssary to serve each phase of the development are constructed prior to the develop ent of each phase; and (3) expiration of the agreement and all provisions therein. Sec. 12.04.830. Final Binding Site Plan for commercial and industrial sites. Filing of the final binding site plan for commercial and industrial sites shall conform to the requirements set forth in KCC 12.04.210 -Filing the final short plat. i 16 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan 95 Sec 12 04 835 Improvements for commercial and industrial sites. Prior tto the issuance of a permit for construction within a binding site plan for commercial and industrial sites all improvements required to adequately serve that portion of the plan for which the permit will be issued shall be installed. Improvements may include but are not limited to road construction; water, sewer, and storm utilities parking: building improvements to meet code: and landscaping. Public improvements may be bonded for in accord with the process in KCC 12.04.205(D), with approval of the public works director. Sec. 12.04.840. Modifications for commercial and industrial sites. A If an applicant wishes to alter a binding site plan for commercial and industrial sites or any portion thereof, that person shall submit an application to the planning services office requesting the alteration. The application shall contain the signatures of all persons having an ownership interest in lots tracts,parcels sites or divisions within the binding site plan or in that portion of the binding site plan to be altered. • The planning manager shall have the authority to determine whether a proposed alteration is minor or major. B. If the binding site plan is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of the approval of the binding site plan and the application for alteration would result in the violation of a covenant the application shall contain an agreement Wined by all parties subject to the covenants providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the alteration of the binding site plan or portion thereof. C. If the alteration is requested to a binding site plan prior to recording of the binding site plan with King County a minor alteration may be approved with consent of the planning manager and the public works director. A major alteration shall require consent of the binding site plan committee, after public notice and a public meeting is held The planning services office shall provide notice of the application for a major alteration to all owners of property within the binding site plan, and as was required by the original application. . 17 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan 9 D. If the alteration is requested to a binding site plan after recording of the binding site plan with King County and it is determined to be a minor alteration it maybe approved with !be consent of the binding site plan committee after public notice and a public meeting is held. The planning services office shall provide notice of the application for A minor alteration to all owners of property within the binding site plan, and as wasj required for the original application. If the alternation is requested to a binding site plan after recording of the binding site plan with King County and it is determined toy be a major alteration, then the planning manager shall require the binding site planbe vacated per KCC 12.04.845 and 12.04.230 and a new application for a binding sitgplan may be submitted. E. The bindin` site plan committee shall determine the public use and interest in the proposed alteration and may approve, approve with conditions or modifications. or den t�ppl#cation for alteration. If any land within the alteration is part of an assessment district, any outstanding assessments shall be equitably divided and levied against thi remaining lots, parcels, or tracts, or be levied equitably on the lots resulting from the alteration. F. After approval of the alteration, the binding site plan committee shall order the applicant to produce a revised drawing of the approved alteration of the binding site plan, which afte4i signature of the chair of the binding site plan committee, shall be filed with the Kiyig County Auditor's Office to become the lawful binding site plan of the property. Sec. 12.04.845. Vacation for commercial and industrial sites. A binding site plan may be vacated as a whole only. Vacating a binding site plan releases all conditions and obligations on the parcel associated with such plan. A binding site plan may be vacated by submitting a letter to the planning manager indicating an intention to vacate the binding site plan. The letter shall include signatures of all ownership interests within the binding site plan and shall become binding upon its acceptance by thi planning manager. 18 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan 97 Sec 12 04 850. Vesting for commercial and industrial sites. A binding • site plan application shall be considered under the zoning and other land use control ordinances in effect on the land at the time of submission of the fully complete binding site plan application Any vacant or redeveloped lot within an approved binding site plan shall comply with the standards in place at such time as a subsequent project permit application is filed on that property unless otherwise provided for in a development agreement. Sec 12 04.855. Applicability for condominium sites. Multifamily residential condominium developments are eligible for binding site plan approval. when the purpose of such approval is to divide the property so that a portion of the parcel or tract can be subjected to either chapter 64.32 or 64.34 RCW. A binding site plan can only be approved either when the development has already been constructed or when the approval has been obtained and a building permit for an entire development or a portion of a development is issued. • Sec. 12.04.860. Application requirements for condominium sites. A An application for a binding site plan for condominium sites may not be submitted until a building yen-nit has been approved. B. The binding site plan application shall conform to the following requirements and shall: ] Be on reproducible material and shall be drawn to a scale of not less than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet (unless otherwise approved by the planning services office) on sheets eighteen 08 inches by twenty-two (22) inches; 2. Contain the name of the proposed development: the legal description of the property for which binding site plan approval is sought: the date on which the plans were prepared: the graphic scale and north point of the plans; 3. Show the following: a The layout of the site including the location of all existing and proposed structures and their distance from property lines,• the location of all existing 19 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan 9 and proposed utilities, streets and easements within or abutting subject property: the location of all existing and proposed private pedestrian walks; existing and proposed open space area. b. Any areas proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public purposes, and arias to be reserved for private open space and landscaping and areas reserved for the gommon use of the occupants of the proposed development. c. All maior manmade or natural features, i.e., streams, creeks, drainage ditches,;railroad tracks, etc. i d. Building dimensions, height and number of stories, distance between buildings, location and size of parking areas and number of stalls. e.; Followingz oning code data: i. Zoning district; ii. Total lot area (square feet): i iii. Total building area(square feet); iv. Percent of site coverage; V. Number of units proposed; vi. Total number of parking stalls (include handicapped); vii. Total parking and maneuvering area (square feet); viii. Required landscaping (square feet); ix. Percent of lot in open space; X. Type of construction, xi. Sprinklered-nonsprinklered: xii. Occupancy classification. 4. Contain the name of the proposed development and the title, "BINDING SITH PLAN" shall be at the top of the plan, in large print, together with the statement required pursuant to RCW 58.17.040 (7)(e), prominently displayed on the face of the site plan maw 5. Contain the statement. "The use and development of the property must be in accordance with the plan as represented herein or as hereafter amended, accordingto o the provisions of the bindingplan regulations of the city and any I 20 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan 99 division of the land subject to this plan shall not take place until the development or the portion thereof to be divided is subject to Chapters 64.32 or 64.34 RCW." 6. Contain the statement "The roads and utilities shown on this plan need not be constructed and/or installed at the time that the property subject to this plan is divided Any permit required to develop any portion of the property shall not be issued until the roads and utilities necessary to serve that portion of this property have been constructed and installed or until arrangements acceptable to the city have been made to ensure that the construction and installation of such roads and utilities will be accomplished." 7 Set forth or reference any conditions, limitations, and requirements for the use and development of the land as required pursuant to the approvals set forth in KCC 12.04.855. C. The application shall be accompanied by a current title report. Sec. 12.04.865. Approval criteria for condominium sites. Approval of a binding site plan shall take place only after the following are met 1. Adequate provisions have been made for drainageways, alleys, streets, other public ways water supplies, open space and sanitary wastes, for the entire property covered by the binding site plan; 2. Comply with all building code requirements; 3. Comply with all zoning code requirements and development standards: and 4. Have suitable physical characteristics. A proposed binding site plan may be denied because of flood, inundation, or swamp conditions or construction of protective improvements may be required as a condition of approval. See. 12.04.870. Enforcement. Any violation of the conditions of approval, limitations on development or the requirements of development imposed as part of a is Binding KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan to binding site plan approval shall be subject to the enforcement proceedings and penalties establilhed for violation of Chapter 58.17 RCW and for violations of the subdivision code[ Sec. 124.875. Final binding site plan for condominium sites. The finaljbinding site plan map which is submitted for filing shall conform to all requirements pf the preliminary binding site plan, plus the following: 1. It'jmust be a reproducible map drawn to a scale of not less than one (1) inch equals one !hundred (100) feet, on stabilized drafting film or on linen tracing cloth. Scale and north point must be on map, 2. Size eighteen (18,) inches by twenty-two (22) inches, 3. Legal description of total parcel shall be shown on the final linen. All legal descriptions shall be metes and bounds descriptions reflecting within the descriptions ties Ito all subdivision lines, donation claim lines and/or recording plat lines; 4. Pioperty subject of the binding site plan shall be surveyed by a land surveyor licensed in the state. All exterior corners and streets shall be monumented. Surveyor's certifpcate must appear on final linen: 5. All conditions, limitations. and requirements for the use and development of the land as required pursuant to the approvals set forth in KCC 12.04.855 or the[ approval of the bindingplan committee shall be appropriately set forth or refetenced. Building permit number, if applicable, shall be shown on mylar; 6. Certificate of approval by the chairman of the binding site plan committee shall be provided on the linen: and 7. F4ce of final site plan linen must be signed by all owners of the property_ Sec. 12.g4.877. Filing binding site plan for condominiums. The binding site plan must bp signed by the chairman of the binding site plan committee. An 22 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan 101 approved binding site plan shall be filed for record in the office of the King County • Auditor and shall not be deemed approved until so filed. Copies of the approved binding site plans shall be filed with the planning services office, city clerk's office, and department of public works. Sec. 12.04.880. Expiration period for condominium sites. If the binding site plan is not filed within six (6) months of the date of approval, the binding site plan shall become null and void. Upon written request of the applicant, the planning services office may grant one (1) extension of not more than six (6) months. Such request must be received by the planning services office prior to the six (6) month expiration date. Sec. 12.04.885. Modifications for condominium sites. A. An approved binding site plan may be amended by filing a request for such an amendment with the planning services office. The planning services office shall • determine what information shall be submitted with a request for an amendment, based on the type of modification being requested. Any amendment to an approved binding site plan must be reviewed by the binding site plan committee, unless the committee sets forth other guidelines for approval of minor modifications. B. If approved by the binding site plan committee, the amendment shall be set forth in writing and filed in accordance with KCC, except that it shall be recorded only if the binding site plan committee directs it to be recorded. Article VI. Lot Line Adjustments SECTION 2. —Repeal. Chapter 12.07 of the Kent City Code entitled, "Binding Site Plan for Division of Certain Land for Condominiums" is hereby repealed in its entirety. • 23 KCC I2.04— Binding Site Plan 0 SECTION 3. - Severability. If any one or more section, subsections, or sentences of this ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in Bill force and effect. ZCTION 4. -Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JAC BER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY PASSED: day of 2003. APPROVED: day of . 2003. PUBLISHED: day of 12003. I hoeby certify that this is a true copy of Ordinance No. passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. 24 KCC 12.04— Binding Site Plan 103 (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P:ACmhOrdinancell2 04-BmdmgSitePlan.dm • 25 KCC 12.04- Binding Site Plan I 105 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, C. D. Director PLANNING SERVICES Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager K E N T Phone: 253-856-5454 WASHINGTON Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 25, 2003 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Ron Harmon at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, July 28, 2003 in Chambers West of Kent City Hall. LUPB MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Harmon, Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Steve Dowell Kim Marousek, Principal Planner Jon Johnson William Osborne, Planner David Malik Kim Adams-Pratt, Asst City Attorney Deborah Ranniger Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary LUPB MEMBERS ABSENT: Nicole Fincher, unexcused Greg Worthing, unexcused APPROVAL OF MINUTES Jon Johnson MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to approve the Minutes of July 28, 2003. Motion CARRIED. ADDED ITEMS: None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that at the August 19, 2003 meeting of the Planning Committee, the Stewart Code Amendment was voted on with a recommendation of approval to the Full Council Ms. Anderson stated that staff will be bringing clustering provisions back to the Planning Committee on September 16th as the Committee has requested that the current proposal be separated from the urban separator ordinance. Ms. Anderson stated that the Land Use and Planning Board will hold a retreat on September 8 at 6:00 pm with dinner provided. #SCA-2003-1 BINDING SITE PLAN AMENDMENT Principal Planner Kim Marousek stated that the intent of this amendment is to add a binding site plan ordinance to the Subdivision Code, Chapter 12.04 of the City Code. She stated that there is a binding site plan process in Chapter 12.07 of the City Code covering only condominium properties. This proposal considers industrial or commercial lands as allowed in the state statue and adds additional flexibility in the subdivision process. Ms. Marousek stated that the proposed binding site plan process differs from the standard subdivision process in that industrial or commercial property owners would be allowed to phase in public improvements over time through a development agreement. This would allow flexibility in . how those public improvements such as utilities and roads are installed. Ms. Marousek stated that the standard subdivision generally requires the installation of public improvements up front prior to recording the plat. 0 Ms. Marousek stated that the binding site plan process could apply to a fully developed site if a property owner were interested in subdividing property for the purposes of leasing or selling an existing building. This wog2ld allow those owners to make use of the binding site plan process instead of the traditional plotting process and permit the City to allow property owners to share facilities that may alreadyi be installed, such as parking, ingress or egress easements and landscaping. Ms. Marousek stated that ithis process provides an alternative means for land division while ensuring that public welfare;is met in terms of ensuring that improvements are installed over time. She stated that those condiitions which typically apply to a subdivision would apply to the binding site plan, would be recorded with that site plan, and would be binding on the property. Ms. Marousek stated that stuff has proposed three options: 1. Option A. No Action 2. Option B Accept the binding site plan ordinance as appended 3. Option C Effectively the same ordinance, but applicable only to developed properties Ms. Marousek stated that staff recommends Option B which allows for a binding site plan process for developed and undeveloped properties. She stated that if the Board were to recommend this option, staff recommends that Chapter 12.07 of the condominium binding site plan process be incorporated into the Subdi4ision Code under Chapter 12.04, including a correction for appeals of binding site plans to go before the Hearing Examiner and not the Full Council. Ms. Marousek stated that staff proposes adding the language "fire code" to the approval criteria for binding site plans; such language had been inadvertently omitted. She stated that textual changes in the ordinance, made since the workshop, are italicized. In response to questions rai0ed at the Board workshop, Ms. Marousek stated that property owners may apply to the City for a latecomer's agreement when developing property and would need to meet appropriate requirements. In response to the Board'si inquiry on methods to promote redevelopment over development of vacant properties, Ms. Marbusek stated that Option C was created to allow this process to be available only for developed!properties. She stated that staff does not recommend this option as it does not benefit the commercial and industrial property holders as a whole. Ms. Marousek stated that this ordinance inherently recognizes benefits to redevelopment as the process is much simpler and more flexible than the long subdivision process. Mr. Harmon noted that this ordinance would lo%} er the completion of the binding site plan process to three years. Chair Harmon declared the Public Hearing open. Shaunta Hyde, Boeing Cojnpany, Post Office Box 3707, MC-14-49, Seattle, WA 98124 stated that the Boeing Company'sSpace Center campus has been located in the City of Kent for more than 30 years. Ms. Hyde stated that in 2003 the Kent Boeing site announced that they would be hiring more than 600 people to work in their integrated defense systems programs. Ms. Hyde stated that Boeing is in the process of entitling their campus to allow flexible land use options for future redevelopment. Ms. Hyde voiced support for Option B stating that the adoption of a binding site plan ordinance supports the flexible terms needed to make redevelopment an attractive and economically Viable option for property owners and existing businesses within Kent. Jon Johnson MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to close the Public Hearing. Motion CARRIED. Jon Johnson MOVED and ;David Malik SECONDED to accept #SCA-2003-1 Binding Site Plan Option B with the following amendments: • Incorporate the bindirhg site plan process for condominium property into the subdivision code, • Incorporating textuali changes to state that the appeal process in KCC 12.07.070 must be heard before the Hearing Examiner not the Full Council, and • Incorporating the Fir0 Code into the approval criteria. Motion CARRIED. i #CPA-2002-1 COMPREHEOSIVE PLAN UPDATE CH. 8 CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT Land Use and Planning Board Minutes, August 25,2003 Page 2 of 3 107 Planner William Osborne stated that Kent is updating Chapter 8 Capital Facilities Element of the City of Kent's Comprehensive Plan as required by the State Growth Management Act (GMA). Mr. Osborne displayed a Power Point presentation that summarized proposed changes to the Capital Facilities Element. Mr. Osborne stated that the Capital Facilities Element contains goals and policies for providing public services and facilities in accordance with the Land Use Element. Mr. Osborne stated that this element reflect changes made as a result of information obtained from the School Districts, and Fire Departments indicating that the addendum of suggested revisions submitted by Fire relates to their accreditation effort and Level of Service (LOS) standards. Mr. Osborne stated that this element contains performance measures for public services tied to the LOS standards. He stated that this element guides when and where services are provided and structures built, incorporating budgeting documents and operating plans for City Departments as well as operating plans for other providers of public services and facilities, including Auburn. Mr. Osborne stated that textual updates recognize distinctions between the Capital Facilities Element, Capital Facilities Plans, Capital Improvement Programs and the Operating Plans of departmental service providers and are incorporated into this element. He stated that population figures and growth projections have been updated in accordance with the rest of the comprehensive plan document. Mr. Osborne stated that staff has expanded language for public services, performance measurements, accreditation efforts, LOS, connection to concurrency and GMA requirements, removing LOS standards tied to capital outcomes which are not reflected in budgeting decisions. Mr. Osborne spoke about specific changes incorporated into this element concerning LOS measures and methodology, goal and policy changes. Mr. Osborne stated that the following maps have been updated: • Figure 8.1 Police Services and Facilities Map • Figure 8.2 Fire and Life Safety Services of Facilities Map • Figure 8.3 Sewer Service Areas Map • Figure 8.4 The Stormwater Drainage Service Areas Map • Figure 8.5 Water Supply Service Areas and Facilities Map • Figure 8.6 Educational Service Areas and Facilities Map Chair Harmon declared the Public Hearing open. Seeing no speakers, Jon Johnson MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to close the public hearing. Motion CARRIED. Jon Johnson MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to accept CPA-2002-1 Ch. 8 Capital Facilities Element with revisions and corrections as recommended by staff including the addition of fire code approval criteria as submitted by the Fire Department and acknowledging the changes to the School District Map. Motion CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT Chair Harmon adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Secretary, Land Use and Planning Board S:1PermitlPlanILUPB120031MinuteS1082503min.doc • Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 25,2003 Page 3 of 3 109 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4100 Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager • WAS-HINGTON- -- Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent,WA 98032-5895 DATE: August 18, 2003 TO: CHAIR RON HARMON AND MEMBERS OF THE LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD FROM: KIM MAROUSEK, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER SUBJECT: BINDING SITE PLAN FOR THE DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL LAND—CODE AMENDMENT SCA-2003-1/KIVA #2032289 LUPB Hearing August 25, 2003 INTRODUCTION: On August 11, 2003 staff presented to the Land Use and Planning Board a draft recommendation to add a binding site plan provision for industrial and commercial properties to the City of Kent Code. The Kent City Code (KCC 12.07) currently has a provision for a binding site plan process for residential condominium developments only. However, the subdivision of commercial and industrial lands can only occur through the traditional platting process according to existing city codes. State law does provide for an alternative division of commercial and industrial lands via the binding site plan process (RCW 58.17.035). BACKGROUND: For properties that are located in commercial and/or industrial zones, the binding site plan process provides an alternative means to legally subdivide land, for sale or lease, without following the standard platting procedures. The binding site plan process allows much greater flexibility through the segregation of parcels than that which can be achieved via a traditional platting process. Through the implementation of a binding site plan ordinance, applicants may more easily phase in public improvements over time. Additionally, integrated commercial or industrial sites can be evaluated as a "whole" for the purpose of underlying zoning regulations. This way, a property owner with a developed business park could more easily segregate parcels for sale or lease without the constraints of the underlying development regulations. The process to create a binding site plan would be similar to the short plat approval process where an application is filed and heard by an administrative committee. Any conditions applied to the binding site plan would be legally "binding" for future owners and would be clearly identified on the face of the binding site plan or other accompanying documents. These improvements could either be "phased" in conjunction with a building permit or required "up front" as with a traditional platting process. The binding site plan process provides another tool and allows additional flexibility within the development community to create legal lots of record within a simplified process. OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff has developed three options for the Board's consideration: Option A—No Action. Under this option, the segregation of industrial and commercial properties would be required to go through the subdivision process as adopted by the Kent City Code. Option B —Binding Site Plan ordinance for all commercial and industrial properties. This option is further outlined in the attached draft ordinance. This would allow the binding site plan process on all commercial and industrial properties, whether developed or vacant. Option C—Binding Site Plan ordinance for developed commercial and industrial properties. This option is virtually the same as Option B; however, it would only apply to developed properties. No vacant parcels could be created under this option. Staff recommends Option 1 which provides the greatest applicability within the commercial and industrial zoned properties) In addition, staff recommends incorporating KCC 12.07 (Binding Site Plans for CondominiuM property) into the subdivision code (KCC 12.04). Staff will be available at the public hearing to further discuss these options and answer any questions. KM\PmS:\Permit\Pl an\Subdiv i si onCbdeAmdments\2003\B SPHrgMemoLUPB-82503.doc Enc: Draft-Code Provisions KCC 12.04.225 cc: Fred N. Satterstrom,AICPa CD Director Charlene Anderson,A]CP,IPlanning Manager Len Olive,PE,Development Engineering Manager Kim Adams-Pratt,Assista&City Attorney Nathan Torgelson,Economic Development Manager Parties of Interest Project File#SCA-2003-1 i i i i LUPB Hearing 8/25/03 Binding Site Plan Ordinance SCA-2003-1 Staff Report Page 2 of 2 111 SCA-2003_l DRAF'1.., ACTION: • • Amend KCC 12.04 to add the following section: Binding Site Plan for Division of Industrial and Commercial Land; and, • Re-locate KCC 12.07 — Binding Site Plan for Division of Certain Land for Condominium, into KCC 12.04 DRAFT CODE PROVISIONS: 12.04.020 Scope. This chapter shall apply to the division of land for sale or lease into two (2) or more parcels and to the modification of lot lines between adjoining parcels. Where this chapter imposes greater restrictions or higher standards upon the development of land than other laws, ordinances or restrictive covenants, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. As provided by RCW 58.17.040, the provisions of this chapter do not apply to: 1. Cemeteries and burial plots while used for that purpose; 2. Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or the laws of descent; 3. Division of land due to condemnation or sale under threat thereof, by an agency or division of government vested with the power of condemnation; 4. Divisions of land into lots or tracts classified for industrial or commercial use when the city has approved a binding site plan for the use of the land; 12.04.25 Definitions. Add the following definitions: "Binding Site Plan" shall mean a scaled drawing which: (a) identifies and shows the areas and locations of all streets, roads, improvements, utilities, open space, and any other matters specified by this chapter; (b) contains inscriptions or attachments setting forth such appropriate limitations and conditions for the use of the land as established by the City through the approval process; and (c) contains provisions which require any development be in conformity with the binding site plan. "Binding Site Plan Committee" shall be a committee consisting of the planning manager, who shall be the chairperson, one member of the land use and planning board, the building official, public works director, and the fire chief, or their designated representative. Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to create an alternative process for subdividing property zoned industrial or commercial for the purpose of sale or lease without the necessity of completing the procedures for platting consistent with RCW 58.17.035. A binding site plan process merely creates or alters existing lot lines and does not authorize construction, improvements or changes to the property or the uses thereon. Within integrated industrial or commercial centers certain zoning standards such as, but not limited to, parking, setbacks and landscaping, may be modified provided the standards for the entire center are met. 1 SCA-200 3-1 DRAFT 4'age 2 of=4 Applicability A. The subject site shall consist of one or more legally created lots; B. The property must be zoned commercial and/or industrial; C. The subject property must consist of wholly developed lots-Option C only. Application Requirements All of the following information shall be included in any application for binding site plan approval. A. At a minimum, the binding site plan application shall include the following information: 1. A map or plan showing the location and size of all new proposed lots; 2. Proposed and exiting structures including floor areas and setbacks; 3. Location of existing and proposed public rights of way, private and public streets and easements; j 4. Location of all existing and proposed open spaces including any required landscaped areas; parking areas and all major manmade or natural features (i.e. streams, creeks, drainage courses, railroad tracks, utility lines, etc.); 5. Layout of an internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation system, including proposed or existing ingress and egress points; 6. Location of existi'ng and proposed fire hydrants to serve the site; 7. Description, location and size of existing and proposed utilities, storm drainage facilities and roads to serve each lot; 8. Expected location' of new buildings and driveways; 9. Letter of water and/or sewer availability, if not served by the City of Kent; 10. Parking calculations to demonstrate that the requirements of KCC 15.05 have been met; 11. The following code data: zoning district; total lot area; total building area; percent of site coverage; total parking and maneuvering area; tt,pe e f eans.,.ueti ana 12. Plans, analysis a} d calculations verifying building code compliance of all existing structures, to incNde, but not limited to, identification of all types of construction and occupancy classifications, allowable area calculations, wall and wall opening protection, and provisions for exiting and accessibility for the disabled. 13. Proposed cross-access and maintenance agreements for parking, circulation, utility and landscaping improvements, if shared; 14. The site plan shall also include the name of proposed development; the legal description of the property for which the binding site plan is sought, the date on which the plans were prepared; the graphic scale and northpoint of the plans;and, 15. The title, `Binding Site Plan" shall be at the top of the plan in large print; B. A recent title report covering all property shown within the boundaries of the binding site plan shall be submitted With the application. C. A plan showing the layout and size of all existing and proposed utilities to serve each lot. D. A phasing plan and timd schedule, if the site is intended to be developed in phases. 113 SCA-200 3-1 DRAFT Page±ol'4 E. A complete environmental checklist, if required by KCC 11.03. F. Copies of all easements, covenants and other encumbrances restricting the use of the site. Review Procedures Applications for a binding site plan shall be reviewed pursuant to KCC 12.07.060 — Binding Site Plan Committee. Binding site plan applications shall be considered Process Il applications,pursuant to KCC 12.01. Approval Criteria A. An application for a binding site plan may be approved if the following criteria are satisfied: 1. Adequate provisions have been made for stormwater detention, water supply, sanitary sewer, drainageways; private and/or public streets; pedestrian access; public and private utilities and other public ways; 2. Each lot shall provide access to a public road and make provisions for connectivity of alleys, pedestrian accessways and other public ways; 3. The binding site plan complies with, or makes adequate provisions to comply with, applicable provisions of the building code, public works standards, and zoning standards. 4. Potential environmental impacts together with any practical means of mitigating adverse impacts, have been considered such that the proposal will not have an adverse effect upon the environment. . 5. Approving the binding site plan will serve the public use and interest and adequate provisions have been made for the public health, safety and general welfare. B. As a condition of approval, the City may authorize sharing of open space, parking, access and other improvements among contiguous properties. Conditions of use, maintenance and restrictions on redevelopment of shared open space, parking, access and other improvements shall be identified on the binding site plan and enforced by covenants, easements or other similar mechanisms. Such agreements or restrictions shall be filed with the King County Assessors Department and run with the property. Such agreements shall be approved as to form by the city attorney prior to filing the final binding site plan. The binding site plan shall contain the conditions to which the binding site plan is subject, including any applicable irrevocable dedications of property. The binding site plan shall contain a provision requiring that any development of the site shall be in conformity with the approved site plan and any applicable development regulations subject to the vesting requirements of this chapter. C. Phasing of Development. Unless otherwide provided for in a development agreement, development permit applications shall be submitted for all structures and improvements shown on the binding site plan within four(4) three (3) years of approval. The Planning Manager may andministratively extend this period by one (1) additional year if requested by the applicant. Permit applications submitted within that f,.... period shall be subject to the vesting requirements of this chapter. If the applicant chooses to develop • the property in a phased development, the applicant must execute a development 1 SCtA-200-1-1 DRAF F agreement with the cit� pursuant to RCW 36.7013.170 et. Seq. This Agreement shall govern at a minimum, the use and development of the property subject to the binding site plan, including: (1) vesting applicable to subsequent permits; (2) the manner in which each phase of the deyelopment will proceed to ensure that the roads and utilities necessary to serve each phase of the development are constructed prior to the development of each pbase; (3) expiration of the agreement and all provisions therein. Final Binding Site Plan Filing of the final binding] site plan shall conform to the requirements set forth in KCC 12.04.210 - Filing the final short plat. Improvements Prior to the issuance of a permit for construction within a binding site plan, all improvements required to adequately serve that portion of the plan for which the permit will be issued shall be installed. Improvements may be bonded for with approval of the public works director. Modifications Modifications of a binding ♦site plan shall follow the procedures set forth in KCC 12.04.225 - Procedures for alteration of type I short subdivision. Vacation A binding site plan may be vacated as a whole only. Vacating a binding site plan releases all conditions and obligations on the parcel associated with such plan. A binding site plan may be vacated by submitting a letter to the Planning Manager indicating an intention to vacate the binding site plan. The letter shall include signatures of all ownership interests within the binding site plan and shall l ecome binding upon its acceptance by the Planning Manager. Vestm A binding site plan application shall be considered under the zoning and other land use control ordinance in effect on the land at the time of submission of the fully complete binding site plan application. Any! vacant or redeveloped lot within an approved binding site plan shall comply with the standards in place at such time as a completed project permit application is filed on that property unless otherwise provided for in a development agreement. S:Term i6P]an\S ubdivisionCodeAmendi�ent\20031BSPdraftcode2.doc i i 115 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director • PLANNING SERVICES K EN T Charlene Anderson,AICP, Manager WASHINGTON Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 TO: CHAIR LEONA ORR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, AICP, CD DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING STUDY -- DCE AREA EAST OF BN RAILROAD TRACKS MOTION: None at this time. For information only. SUMMARY: Councilperson Bruce White has requested consideration of a letter submitted by Mr. Ted Nixon regarding the zoning of certain properties located in downtown Kent. The subject area involves properties currently zoned DCE (DovAitown Commercial Enterprise) lying on the east side of the BN Railroad tracks. A map is attached to his letter which depicts the affected area. Mr. Nixon asserts that the DCE zoning renders many uses nonconforming and generally discourages business expansion and new development. He recommends that certain properties between Smith and Gowe along Central Avenue, and properties along Smith Street between Railroad Avenue and Jason Street be rezoned to GC (General Commercial); and, that other properties east of Central and south of Smith Street which are presently zoned DCE be rezoned to O(Professional &Office). BUDGET IMPACT: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: Mr. Nixon offers an analysis of the existing uses in the DCE area east of the BN Railroad tracks. His map illustrates uses which either conform or do not conform to existing DCE requirements. In his letter, Mr. Nixon asserts that "81% of the developed properties in the study area are nonconforming to the City zoning code." At this point, staff has not had an opportunity to corroborate the analysis. The subject area was rezoned in 1992 from GC to DCE. GC zoning is associated with a more vehicular oriented area while DCE zoning promotes a more pedestrian orientation. In 1992, DCE zoning was applied to the downtown core as well as to this area in order to advance a more walkable, pedestrian- friendly environment. While there may be merit to this zoning study, it is not presently part of the Community Development Department's annual work program. Therefore, as the Planning Committee discusses this study, staff would request that it be considered in light of other priorities and state planning mandates. FNS\pm:S:\Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2003\nixonzoningpc.doc • Enc: 1!14102 letter from Ted Nixon w/attachments cc: Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager Ted Nixon,Campbell/Nixon Architects This page intentionally l�ft blank. i i i i i i i i i i 116 • 12.04.225 Procedure for alteration of a type I short subdivision. A If an applicant wishes to alter a type I short subdivision or any portion thereof,except as provided in KCC 12 04 230,that person shall submit an application to the planning department requesting the alteration The application shall contain the signatures of all persons having an ownership interest in lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions within the subdivision or in that portion of the subdivision to be altered B If the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of the approval of the subdivision, and the application for alteration would result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the alteration of the subdivision or portion thereof C If the alteration is requested to a short subdivision prior to final plat review and signature, a minor alteration may be approved with consent of the planning director and the public works director A major plat alteration shall require consent of the short subdivision committee, after public notice and a public meeting is held The planning department shall provide notice of the application for a major plat alteration to all owners of property within the subdivision, and as was required by the original short plat application The planning director shall have the authority to determine whether the proposed alteration constitutes a minor or major alteration D If the alteration is requested to a short subdivision after final plat review and signature,but prior to filing the final plat with King County, a plat alteration may be approved with consent of the short subdivision committee Upon receipt of an application for alteration,the planning department shall provide notice of the application to all owners of property within the subdivision, and as was required by the original short plat application The notice shall establish a date for a public meeting E if the alteration is requested to a short subdivision after filing the final plat with King County,a minor plat alteration may be approved with consent of the short subdivision committee If the planning director determines that the proposed alteration is a major alteration,then the planning director may require replattmg pursuant to this chapter Upon receipt of an application for alteration, the planning department shall provide notice of the application to all owners of property within the subdivision,and as was required by the subdivision plat application The notice shall establish a date for a public meeting F The short subdivision committee shall determine the public use and interest in the proposed alteration and may deny or approve the application for alteration If any land within the alteration is part of an assessment district, any outstanding assessments shall be equitably divided and levied against the remaining lots, parcels, or tracts, or be levied equitably on the lots resulting from the alteration If any land within the alteration contains a dedication to the general use of persons residing within the subdivision, such land may be altered and divided equitably between adjacent properties G After approval of the alteration, the short subdivision commmttee shall order the applicant to produce a revised drawing of the approved alteration of the short subdivision, which after signature of the chair of the short subdivision committee, the final plat shall be filed with the county auditor to become the lawful plat of the property H This section shall not be construed as applying to the alteration or replatting of any plat of state-granted tide or shore lands (Ord No 3511, § 1 5-16-00) 02002 Code Publishing, Inc Page 1 117 • 420 West Harrison Street Suite 1 2 • • Kent WA 98032 • • • Phone 253 854 2470 • hAX 253 854 2475 • Campbell/Nixon & ssoiat � 4 ■ ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS August 14. 2003 Mr Bruce White Kent City Council Kent. WA Dear Bruce Retention of existing businesses is important to the economy of Kent Zoning that overly restricts business growth or makes the business a non-conforming property puts severe limitations on the busmgses and the property owners it is very difficult to finance projects that are classifield as an existing non-conforming use Because of the zoning code it is illegal to expand an �xistmg non-conforming use Our zoning process needs to take into account the historic4l use and the nature of existing businesses It also should consider the characteristics of the existing businesses and roadways serving these businesses As you requested I ha\,e �ooked at the Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) zoning east of the BN train tracks There are approximately 100 properties in the study area 72 propertiesiepresentmg 81% of the developed properties in the study area are non- conforming to the City Zoning Code See attached map of study area The red color indicates non-conformm properties either by design standards or by non-conforming use The blue color indicates conforming and allowable use E Smith Street and Central Avenue in the study area are part of the state highway system i he area north of Smith fitreet and the area South of Gowe Street along Central Avenue are zoned General Commercial Only the block and a half between Smith and Gowe Street,, is zoned DCE Ali] but 4 of the properties in this area are existing non-conforming uses I recommend the properties between Smith and Gowe along Central be rezoned to General Commercial (GC) 1 further recommend that the properties along Smith Street between Railroad and la$on be rezoned to GC i make these recommendations because these properties are along a busy state highway system that isn't reasonably compatible with a pedestrian oriented business and that the historical land-use is general commercial i 118 I suggest that the most appropriate zoning for the other properties east of Central and south of Smith is probably Office (0) The properties along Railroad Avenue because of the industrial nature of most of these businesses should probably be zoned GC I have talked to Mr Fred Satterstrom the City's Development Director, and he is receptive to a review of the zoning in this area It is my hope and recommendation that you and the members of the Kent Planning Committee and the Kent City Council rezone this area so that the existing business and properties are a conforming and allowable use during this current annual review of the City's Comprehensive Plan Yours ours Ted Nixon AIA Campbell/Nixon & Associates, Inc • Attachments Map Downtown Commercial Enterprise Zone, East of BN Tracks Property Analysis of DC'E Zoning east of BN Tracks 119 r PROPERTY ANALYSIS OF DCE ZONING EAST OF BN TRACKS PARCEL # DESC IPTION ! BUSINESS NAME CONFORMING 0050 WASHINGTON GOLD STORAGE NO 0080 SOUND TRANSIT (PARKING N/A 0105 TORK LIFT PARKING YES 0115 NW ROOF SERVICE NO 1655 MISTY BUILDERS ! NO 1635 DOORMAN NO 1625 TORK LIFT NO 1610 TORK LIFT NO 1585 TEMP PARKING SOUND TRANSIT N/A 1490 HISTORIC BUILDINGS (BETWEEN MEEKER & GOWE) YES 1480 HISTORIC BUILDINGS (BETWEEN MEEKER & GOWE) YES 1470 HISTORIC BUILDINGS (BETWEEN MEEKER & GOWE) YES 1420 HISTORIC BUILDINGS (BETWEEN MEEKER & GOWE) YES 1405 KENT CARE CHIROPRACTIC NO 0815 OLD KENT STATION NO 0806 OLD KENT STATION NO 0799 OLD KENT STATION NO 0720 KENT GYPSUM NO 0710 KENT GYPSUM NO 0695 KENT GYPSUM NO 0670 KENT GYPSUM NO 0250 106 EAST TITUS YES 0236 CNC DIVERSIFIED NO 0220 ALL EUROPEAN AIUTOWERK NO 0215 ALL EUROPEAN AIUTOWERK NO 0200 KIRBY SERVICE CENTER NO 1840 TOWN & COUNTRY PARKING N/A 1855 TOWN & COUNTRzY PARKING NO 1865 APARTMENTS NO 1880 PARKING N/A 1915 ARBY'S NO 1315 LABOR READY NO 1325 LABOR READY NO 1340 RESIDENCE NO 1295 TACO BELL NO 1280 SARA'S COFFEE SHOP NO 1275 PARKING N/A 1505 JACK IN THE BOX NO 1515 REIMAN GLASS BUILDING YES 2103 RESIDENCE NO 2110 VACANT NIA 0005 KENT JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL NO 2020 ADVANTAGE TIRE NO 1945 VACANT N/A 1955 VACANT N/A 1965 VACANT NIA 1980 LAUNDROMAT NO 0305 WENDY'S NO 0290 WASHINGTON AWARDS ATHLETICS NO 0312 J&J SIGNS EXPRESS / HIGH TECH COMPUTERS NO 0310 PANLASIGUI PRO 5PERTY (RESIDENCE) NO 120 • PROPERTY ANALYSIS OF DCE ZONING EAST OF BN TRACKS PARCEL # DESCRIPTION / BUSINESS NAME CONFORMING 9320 KENT SENIOR CENTER YES 1215 KENT MULTI CARE YES 1145 MEDICAL CLINIC NO 1180 MEDICAL CLINIC NO 1170 RESIDENCE NO 1360 RESIDENCE NO 1365 RESIDENCE NO 1380 RESIDENCE NO 9183 STATE FARM INSURANCE (RESIDENCE) NO 0040 623 TITUS(RESIDENCE) NO 0030 RESIDENCE NO 0025 617 TITUS (RESIDENCE) NO 0015 615 TITUS (RESIDENCE) NO 0010 611 TITUS (RESIDENCE) NO 0005 120 S KENNEBECK(RESIDENCE) NO 9126 STAFFORD SUITES NO 9120 RESIDENCE NO 9036 STAFFORD SUITES NO 9120 RESIDENCE NO 9119 RESIDENCE NO 9104 RESIDENCE NO 9102 RESIDENCE NO 9100 RESIDENCE NO 0500 RESIDENCE NO 0490 RESIDENCE NO 0520 RESIDENCE NO 0451 CHURCH OF CHRIST SCIENTIST YES 0450 TITUS MANSION APARTMENTS NO 0895 QWEST BUILDING YES 0910 RESIDENCE NO 0930 COMMUNITY GARDENS N/A 0990 UNITY CHURCH (STATE & GOWE) YES 0970 RESIDENCE NO 0950 RESIDENCE NO 1005 DENTIST NO 1025 RESIDENCE NO 1015 DENTIST NO 1035 RESIDENCE NO 0610 THRIFT STORE NO 0815 SIAM MUK THAI RESTAURANT YES 0650 APARTMENTS NO 0850 VACANT (PARKING) NIA 0860 THRIFT STORE NO 0825 CENTRAL & MEEKER AUTO STEREO STORE (FOR LEASE) NO SPEED PRINTING NO VIRGINIA SALOON YES MEXICO ZAPATAERIA YES 1245 KENT DERMATOLOGY YES • 1225 STYLE MAKERS SALON YES y Vw j �r Al f•1 by .¢ A •wu.•t F. . � n• ��• L vw tiwr• .w w VIA s > r S ' i w D'Y YA J ? MVMn'./rY w Q W �{ � •��1 ,11� \ � J l t O � r � I r♦ w y A��{. w y� x T Y tr ♦ t i U QUJ I L ,x7- A Ldl 'Lip emu• ��'�. :� � • I> i. M1rV > �� �� � ' { f sj] �':, M1 t r 'I ♦ \♦ J. i >.Y.Y.W.YI�YYY.YOJVVWIWW 1V • rJ >S �i P jrQ$ y JCS ry "�✓ 4tiv AA ld UJ �,•1�� t. .rrs -5 '^` J` e., ��6 � r . fAa e E t 1 ( er er wr A,r r S FIE t 'E � . }- �' � " of F ♦ . ;.' one � " T< ) •T C., F- Y l[1 l •Yy>OCA+IVX}+S�' 1 Y� Y 1Y C �+]`� •�IiA�A�1• T` •M•T•. az�Iw � Y I L F. }.T �.: •Yy.�a.lPiYY.upWWL.4`��~�1; Y �• %k T r7 y ( YO F I f 1 L - w E ,1*Pin Y Y � ♦ i I Ld ( w< ( 4 {LL ro f = ILd E T Err1 .M � - —• © dust ' ? � > ^ifs vi1 y� ".NJ Ir^ i .e"'' t - 4J` '♦^'! WE Rl UJI I F di I > t• y I }��1,,..tt •�� k F b- rf La1' - E W s r r r � ---. sui h F as T 3 L ♦ ,� 1 r 6 z 37 l�� M• {1 8 P. S'7 1:� `e, 1^•. f' '♦.. r� s. DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE ZONE EAST OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD TRACKS PLANNING COMMITTEE 9/16/03 LEGEND: 105 CITY PARKS C=CHAIN LINK FENCE ® EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE S=BUILDING SETBACK ISSUES M EXISTING CONFORMING STRUCTURE U=EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USE CI MUNICIPAL PARCELS(EXEMPT FROM DCE DESIGN GUIDELINES) IF PARCEL NOT COLORED,NO STRUCTURE IS PRESENT • PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING PACKET Planning Committee Agenda • Councilmembers: Tim Clarke Bruce White*Leona Orr, Chair KENT September 16, 2003 WASHINGTON 3:00 p.m. Item DescriRtion Action Speaker Time Page 1. Approval of Minutes dated August 19,2003 YES 1 2. Cluster Housing Zoning Code Amendment YES Charlene Anderson 20 min 3 #ZCA-2003-2 3. Binding Site Plan- Subdivision Code Amendment YES Kim Marousek 20 min 77 #SCA-2003-I 4. Proposed Zoning Study-DCE Area East of Burlington Northern Tracks NO Fred Satterstrom 20 min 115 • S.TermitWlanlPlanning Committee120031Agendas191603Agenda-PC.doc • Unless otherwise noted,the Planning Committee meets at 3:00 p.m.on the 3`d Tuesday of each month. Council Chambers East,Kent,City Hall,220 4th Avenue South,Kent,98032-5895: For information please contact Planning Services at(253)856-5454. Any person requiring a disability accommodation should contact the City Clerk's Office at (253) 856-5725 in advance. For TDD relay service call the Washington Telecommunications Relay Service at 1-800-833-6388. • • 115 • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director .400 PLANNING SERVICES KENT Charlene Anderson, AICP, Manager W n 5 H I N G T O N Phone:253-856-5454 Fax: 253-856-6454 Address: 220 Fourth Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032-5895 DATE: SEPTEMBER 9,2003 TO: CHAIR LEONA ORR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM,AICP,CD DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PROPOSED ZONING STUDY -- DCE AREA EAST OF BN RAILROAD TRACKS MOTION: one at this time. For information only. SUMMARY: Councilperson Bruce White has requested consideration of a letter submitted by Mr. Ted • Nixon regarding the zoning of certain properties located in downtown Kent. The subject area involves properties currently zoned DCE (Downtown Commercial Enterprise) lying on the east side of the BN Railroad tracks. A map is attached to his letter which depicts the affected area. Mr.Nixon asserts that the DCE zoning renders many uses nonconforming and generally discourages business expansion and new development. He recommends that certain properties between Smith and Gowe along Central Avenue, and properties along Smith Street between Railroad Avenue and Jason Street be rezoned to GC (General Commercial); and, that other properties east of Central and south of Smith Street which are presently zoned DCE be rezoned to O (Professional &Office). BUDGET IMPACT: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: Mr. Nixon offers an analysis of the existing uses in the DCE area east of the BN Railroad tracks. His map illustrates uses which either conform or do not conform to existing DCE requirements. In his letter, Mr. Nixon asserts that"81% of the developed properties in the study area are nonconforming to the City zoning code." At this point, staff has not had an opportunity to corroborate the analysis. The subject area was rezoned in 1992 from GC to DCE. GC zoning is associated with a more vehicular oriented area while DCE zoning promotes a more pedestrian orientation. In 1992, DCE zoning was applied to the downtown core as well as to this area in order to advance a more walkable, pedestrian- friendly environment. While there may be merit to this zoning study, it is not presently part of the Community Development Department's annual work program. Therefore, as the Planning Committee discusses this study, staff • would request that it be considered in light of other priorities and state planning mandates. FNS1pm:S:\PermitlPlan\ZONECODEAMEND120031nixonzoningpc.doc Enc: 8/14/02 letter from Ted Nixon w/attachments cc: Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager 'red Nixon,Campbell/Nixon Architects • 11. ti 12.04.225 Procedure for alteration of a type I short subdivision. A If an applicant wishes to alter a type I short subdivision or any portion thereof,except as provided in KCC 12 04 230,that person shall submit an application to the planning department requesting the alteration The application shall contain the signatures of all persons having an ownership interest in lots, tracts, parcels, sites or divisions within the subdivision or in that portion of the subdivision to be altered B If the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed at the time of the approval of the subdivision, and the application for alteration would result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants providing that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to accomplish the purpose of the alteration of the subdivision or portion thereof C If the alteration is requested to a short subdivision prior to final plat review and signature, a minor alteration may be approved with consent of the planning director and the public works director A major plat alteration shall require consent of the short subdivision committee,after public notice and a public meeting is held The planning department shall provide notice of the application for a major plat alteration to all owners of property within the subdivision,and as was required by the ongmal short plat application The planning director shall have the authonty to determine whether the proposed alteration constitutes a minor or major alteration D If the alteration is requested to a short subdivision after final plat review and signature,but prior to filing the final plat with King County, a plat alteration may be approved with consent of the short subdivision committee Upon receipt of an application for alteration, the planning department shall • provide notice of the application to all owners of property within the subdivision,and as was required by the original short plat application The notice shall establish a date for a public meeting E if the alteration is requested to a short subdivision after filing the final plat with King County,a minor plat alteration may be approved with consent of the short subdivision committee If the planning director determines that the proposed alteration is a major alteration,then the planning director may require replatting pursuant to this chapter Upon receipt of an application for alteration, the planning department shall provide notice of the application to all owners of property within the subdivision,and as was required by the subdivision plat dpplication The notice shall establish a date for a public meeting F The short subdivision committee shall determine the public use and interest in the proposed alteration and may deny or approve the application for alteration If any land within the alteration is part of an assessment district, any outstanding assessments shall be equitably divided and levied against the remaining lots, parcels, or tracts, or be levied equitably on the lots resulting from the alteration If any land within the alteration contains a dedication to the general use of persons residing within the subdivision, such land may be altered and divided equitably between adjacent properties G After approval of the alteration, the short subdivision commttee shall order the applicant to produce a revised drawing of the approved alteration of the short subdivision, which after signature of the chair of the short subdivision committee, the final plat shall be filed with the county auditor to become the lawful plat of the property H This section shall not be construed as applying to the alteration or replatting of any plat of state-granted tide or shore lands (Ord No 351 t, §3, 5-16-00) 02002 Code Publishing, Inc Page 1 • 117 • 430 West Harrison Street Suite lOZ • Kent WA 98032 • • • • Phone 253 854 2470 • • [AX 253 854 2475 • Campbell/Nixon & Associal+es Ah, ■ ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS August 14, 2003 Mr Bruce White Kent City Council Kent. WA Dear Bruce Retention of existing businesses is important to the economy of Kent Zoning that overly restricts business growth or makes the business a non-conforming property puts severe limitations on the businesses and the property owners it is very difficult to finance projects that are classified as an existing non-conlonning use Because of the zoning code it is illegal to expand an existing non-conforming use Our zoning process needs to take into account the historical use and the nature of existing businesses It also should consider the characteristics of the existing businesses and roadways serving these businesses AS you requested I have looked at the Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) zoning east of the BN train tracks There are approximately 100 properties in the study area 72 properties iepresenting 81%of the developed properties in the study area are non- conforming to the City Zoning Code See attached map of study area The red color indicates non-confirming properties either by design standards or by non-conforming use The blue color indicates conforming and allowable use E Smith Street and Central Avenue in the study area are part of the state highway system 1 he area north of Smith Street and the area south of Gowe Street along Central Avenue are zoned General Commercial Only the block and a half between Smith and Gowe Street,, is zoned DCE. All but 4 of the properties in this area are existing non-conforming uses 1 recommend the properties between Smith and Gowe along Central be rezoned to General Commercial (GC) I further recommend that the properties along Smith Street between Railroad and lason be rezoned to GC I make these recommendations because . these properties are along a busy state highway system that isn't reasonably compatible with a pedestrian oriented business and that the historical land-use is general commercial • • 118 I suggest that the most appropriate Toning for the other properties east of Central and south of Smith is probably Office (0) The properties along Railroad Avenue because of the industrial nature of most ol'these businesses should probably be zoned GC I have talked to Mr Fred Satterstrom the City's Development Director,and he is receptive to a review of the Toning in this area It is my hope and recommendation that you and the members of the Kent Planning Committee and the Kent City Council rezone this area so that the existing business and properties are a conforming and allowable use during Ibis current annual review of the City's Comprehensive Plan Yours ruly Ted Nixon AIA Campbell/Nixon & Associates, Inc Attachments Map Downtown Commercial Enterprise Zone, East of BN Tracks Property Analysis of DCE Zoning east of BN Tracks . • 119 • PROPERTY ANALYSIS OF DCE ZONING EAST OF BN TRACKS PARCEL# DESCRIPTION /BUSINESS NAME CONFORMING 0050 WASHINGTON GOLD STORAGE NO 0080 SOUND TRANSIT PARKING N/A 0105 TORK LIFT PARKING YES 0115 NW ROOF SERVICE NO 1655 MISTY BUILDERS NO 1635 DOORMAN NO 1625 TORK LIFT NO 1610 TORK LIFT NO 1585 TEMP PARKING SOUND TRANSIT NIA 1490 HISTORIC BUILDINGS (BETWEEN MEEKER & GOWE) YES 1480 HISTORIC BUILDINGS (BETWEEN MEEKER & GOWE) YES 1470 HISTORIC BUILDINGS (BETWEEN MEEKER & GOWE) YES 1420 HISTORIC BUILDINGS (BETWEEN MEEKER & GOWE) YES 1405 KENT CARE CHIROPRACTIC NO 0815 OLD KENT STATION NO 0806 OLD KENT STATION NO 0799 OLD KENT STATION NO 0720 KENT GYPSUM NO 0710 KENT GYPSUM NO 0695 KENT GYPSUM NO • 0670 KENT GYPSUM NO 0250 106 EAST TITUS YES 0235 CNC DIVERSIFIED NO 0220 ALL EUROPEAN AUTOWERK NO 0215 ALL EUROPEAN AUTOWERK NO 0200 KIRBY SERVICE CENTER NO 1840 TOWN & COUNTRY PARKING N/A 1855 TOWN & COUNTRY PARKING NO 1865 APARTMENTS NO 1880 PARKING N/A 1915 ARBY'S NO 1315 LABOR READY NO 1325 LABOR READY NO 1340 RESIDENCE NO 1295 TACO BELL NO 1280 SARA'S COFFEE SHOP NO 1275 PARKING N/A 1505 JACK IN THE BOX NO 1515 REIMAN GLASS BUILDING YES 2103 RESIDENCE NO 2110 VACANT N/A 0005 KENT JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL NO 2020 ADVANTAGE TIRE NO 1945 VACANT N/A 1955 VACANT N/A 1965 VACANT NIA 1980 LAUNDROMAT NO 0305 WENDY'S NO 0290 WASHINGTON AWARDS ATHLETICS NO 0312 J&J SIGNS EXPRESS/ HIGH TECH COMPUTERS NO 0310 PANLASIGUI PROPERTY (RESIDENCE) NO • • 120 • PROPERTY ANALYSIS OF DCE ZONING EAST OF BN TRACKS PARCEL # DESCRIPTION / BUSINESS NAME CONFYES ORMING 9320 KENT SENIOR CENTER YES 1215 KENT MULTI CARE NO 1145 MEDICAL CLINIC NO 1180 MEDICAL CLINIC 1170 RESIDENCE NO 1360 RESIDENCE NO 1365 RESIDENCE NO 1380 RESIDENCE NO 9183 STATE FARM INSURANCE (RESIDENCE) NO 0040 623 TITUS (RESIDENCE) NO 0030 RESIDENCE NO 0025 617 TITUS (RESIDENCE) NO 0015 615 TITUS (RESIDENCE) NO 0010 611 TITUS (RESIDENCE) NO 0005 120 S KENNEBECK(RESIDENCE) NO 9126 STAFFORD SUITES NO 9120 RESIDENCE NO 9036 STAFFORD SUITES NO 9120 RESIDENCE NO 9119 RESIDENCE NO 9104 RESIDENCE NO • 9102 RESIDENCE NO 9100 RESIDENCE NO 0500 RESIDENCE NO 0490 RESIDENCE NO 0520 RESIDENCE NO 0451 CHURCH OF CHRIST SCIENTIST YES 0460 TITUS MANSION APARTMENTS NO 0895 OWEST BUILDING YES 0910 RESIDENCE NO 0930 COMMUNITY GARDENS NIA 0990 UNITY CHURCH (STATE& GOWE) YES 0970 RESIDENCE NO 0950 RESIDENCE NO 1005 DENTIST NO 1025 RESIDENCE NO 1015 DENTIST NO 1035 RESIDENCE NO 0610 THRIFT STORE NO 0815 SIAM MUK THAI RESTAURANT YES 0650 APARTMENTS NO 0850 VACANT (PARKING) NIA 0860 THRIFT STORE NO 0825 CENTRAL & MEEKER AUTO STEREO STORE (FOR LEASE) NO SPEED PRINTING NO VIRGINIA SALOON YES MEXICO ZAPATAERIA YES 1245 KENT DERMATOLOGY YES 1225 STYLE MAKERS SALON YES /y• S w v' < d 9< O 00' t IN •J r 22YA 3 OJ Al t.1 au IN 1.1 S/ .4 , „I fir' ✓ vw AY R .-w w < w / y AY XO )♦ r. a (�� �• � R + \i v f I` YMUvwW s ♦� � w. w w w 3 wQ I) 3 ♦i ♦+ 4R dSL RP VA y } I : Jaw ♦ 1 %NI~. hb iM • j C{��{'. A V R f •• .aWAvnwu..�) n I' • O' as x ? .�_ �,�'? Ate/ •rl` �♦ Ld "MA C W J ♦ v v f typ♦,,O,A..0 ♦• M,•r, oui j [ 1 ' - ' S •V1A v7iY ' ti S au I AZ r ,< i., !L 'Nix,i` .mot 5 S��.'� dZ(- µv � ♦I w w w OK I Fa .�• 'S 04 ,O � v' 411[ O y �.f♦ f Q 1 rim IN IN �•Y !i :� JMA � 1 • r a : YA aA �. < '4'vt if a+:"i r.w L E�INA F. E .A '19 ''CG 4 S r 1 j 5s' +7�♦ ass• w .w•••ap.uR•.aoAU L A.w•aA �T_� ��,su�• � f A I. r I I 1 b A LA ............. r I 'N I� r— yes." i: III �..e y L—<' —E-47 EU 14 w LIU rl -T--Earl Ld F,I Nei ui 4; r __j r t*4 uj Lo in 17 Q; rn z D E 3TV Z VP DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE ZONE EAST OF BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD TRACKS PLANNING COMMITTEE 9/16/03 LEGEND: R3 CITY PARKS C=CHAIN LINK FENCE N EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE S=BUILDING SETBACK ISSUES M EXISTING CONFORMING STRUCTURE U=EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USE E3 MUNICIPAL PARCELS(EXEMPT FROM DCE DESIGN GUIDELINES) IF PARCEL NOT COLORED,NO STRUCTURE IS PRESENT SEP. - 10' 03 (WED) 15: 30 KENT PLANNING TEL: 253 856 6454 P. 001 'SACTION REPORT Transmission Transaction (s) completed NO. TX DATE/TIME DESTINATION DURATION PGS. RESULT MODE 840 SEP. 10 15:29 253 872 6611 0" 00' 29" 002 OK N ECM • 50FU3A037N:1SM0.ANIWab1!d 'V911-990-99Z TWO 3Sd3`Id `SaQVd 314111V 3A133311 ION OQ nook dl '1.33HS IMOO SIHI JNIan-13NNSNOW-7-3AGOM alf1OHS noA :iapuag 7bu?hij33 ;� � �7v,uu ,r7 :all avj 1Hvr?(� �ul j :Ol • o- lyb ;Oleo 10014S AGA03 uoissiWSUB��, xed SEP. -10' 03 (WED) 15:31 KENT PLANNING TEL:253 856 6454 P. 001 NSAGTION REPORT Transmission Transaction (s) completed NO. TX DATE/TIME DESTINATION DURATION PGS. RESULT MODE 841 SEP. 10 15 :30 253 437 6016 0" 00' 33" 002 OK N ECM • �opZ13AQ7Xt/.�ISWlIQdINiYY4V4d `tiStiS-996'88Z �la� 3S"ld 'S3Jbd 3HJ. TIV 3A1333N ION 00 BOA di '133HS Zf3A00 SIHI JNlan-iONI `(MEWd a 3AI3)32f (r1n0HS noA Japues day }��yS aan00 uoissruasuea,L xe.q Mottram, Pamela From: Mottram, Pamela 40t: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 3:22 PM Ted Nixon (ten @cn-architects.com); Jeff Barker Qeffreybarker@seattlepi.com); Kelly Snyder (ksnyder@rothhill.com); M. Simmer(msimmer@projectdimensions.com); MaryAusburn (mausbu@puget.com); Mary Simmons (MSimmons@ci.kent.wa.us); Pam Cobley (pcobley@rothhill.com); Puget Sound Energy(gnomen@puget.com); Shaunta Hyde (shaunta.r.hyde@boeing.com); Wickstrom, Don; Cameron, Renee; Crawford, Ed; Garrett Huffman; Gill, Gary; Givens, Rosalie; Hodgson, John; Laurent, Dena; Lopez, Barbara; Schneider, Jim; Senecaut, Kathleen; Sprotbery, Kevin; Vinson, Brett Subject: Planning Committee AGENDA- 9/16/03 I have attached the P.C. Agenda: 91603Agenda-PC.d oc(40 KB) Thank you. Par4eLa A. mottra vu AoMA!n, strattve secretary PLQ VUA w sewEces phone: 25s-gsh-s�s� e-vU_aL�: pw�o:traw�@ci.l2ewt.wa.us • • 1 Mottram, Pamela From: Snyder, Kelly[kSnyder@rothhill.com] t: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 3:22 PM Mottram, Pamela ubject: Out of Office Auto Reply: Planning Committee AGENDA- 9/16/03 I am currently away from the office and will return on Monday, September 15th. If you need assistance before then, yyou may call me on my cell phone at 206-229-6342 or please contact Scott Goss or Pam Cobley at 425-869-9448. Thanks Kelly Snyder Roth Hill Engineering Partners, LLC 1