Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 08/19/2003 Planning Committee Agenda • Councilmembers: Tim Clark•Bruce White.Leona Orr, Chair KENT WPS HINGTON August 19, 2003 _ Item Description Action Speaker Time Page 1. Approval of Minutes dated July 15, 2003 YES 1 2. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment Nonconforming Use-#ZCA-2003-4(Stewart) YES Fred N. Satterstrom 20 min 3 r 3. Cluster Housing—Zoning Code Amendment YES Charlene Anderson 20 min 29 #ZCA-2003-2 4. Capital Facilities Element 2003 Annual Update NO Charlene Anderson 20 min 105 #CPA-2003-3 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. PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES July 15,2003 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Chair Leona Orr, Tim Clark, Bruce White The meeting was called to order by Chair Leona Orr at 3:00 P M. Approval of Minutes of June 17,2003 Committee Member Tim Clark moved and Committee Member Bruce White seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the June 17, 2003 meeting. The motion carried 3-0. Countywide Planning Policies-Amendments—King County Council Ordinances Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that in May the King County Council approved the Growth Management Planning Council motions she had previously presented to the Planning Committee in April 2003 (for information only) She summarized Motion's 01-2 and 02-1 through 02-6 Ms. Anderson defined household and job capacities and targets, indicating that as the City of Kent annexes new areas,targets will change. Committee Member Clark expressed his concerns about potential alignment of the 1961h Street Corridor as it relates to Renton's Urban Separator designations provided in one of the motions Ms. Anderson stated that the Countywide Planning Policies provide a framework for cities' comprehensive plans, ensuring that the cities and county's comprehensive plans align with one another The Committee Members discussed the preservation of existing agricultural lands and the purchase of development rights program. Ms. Anderson stated that staff recommends support of the policies with the exception of No. 01- 2 related to removing agricultural lands south of the Green River from Kent's Potential Annexation Area and the urban growth area. Tim Clark moved and Bruce White seconded a motion to adopt the amendments to the King County Ordinances with the exception of Motion No. 01-2. Motion carried 3-0. Tim Clark moved and Bruce White seconded a motion opposing Motion No. 01-2 of the amendments to the King County Council Ordinances. Motion carried 3-0. Administrative Procedures for Code Amendments Community Development Director Fred Satterstrom stated that the Planning Committee had voted, at their June 17, 2003 meeting, in favor of adopting an administrative process for those citizens who wish to petition the City Council for changes to the zoning code. Mr. Satterstrom presented the procedural guidelines that the Community Development Department proposes to implement. He recommended that proposed code amendments be reviewed and prioritized by the Planning Committee on an annual basis, then processed as appropriate through the Land Use and Planning Board and City Council The Committee requested staff use flexibility in determining when to bring proposed amendments to the Committee for review The meeting adjourned at 3:45 P.M. Pamela Mottram, Admin Secretary, Planning Services -- - — --- ----r-- -- ---rr--ter --- ----- --- i 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Director • PLANNING SERVICES KENT Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager WASHINGTON Phone 253-856-5454 Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 DATE. AUGUST 12,2003 TO. CHAIR LEONA ORR&PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM FRED N SATTERSTROM,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR RE- PROPOSED ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT NONCONFORMING USE #ZCA-20034 (STEWART) MOTION: I move to recommend/not recommend approval of#ZCA-2003-4, amending the nonconforming use regulations of the zoning code regarding drive-up banking facilities in the Downtown Commercial zoning district, as recommended by the Land Use&Planning Board SUMMARY: After considering testimony at their July 28" public hearing, the Land Use & Planning Board recommended, by a 6-0 vote, approval of an amendment to allow certain legally established bank buildings with drive-up facilities to be deemed conforming in the Downtown Commercial zoning district The proposed amendment results from an application by Mr. Bill Stewart for a zoning code text amendment which would modify nonconforming use regulations as they pertain to banks with drive-up . facilities (Exhibit A) Presently, drive-up banking facilities are not permitted under DC zoning regulations in the downtown area Existing banks with drive-up facilities that pre-date Ordinance #3050 (July 1992) are considered "grandfathered" and the drive-up use may continue as long as they are not abandoned for a period greater than six months Several of the Board members also encouraged the Planning Committee to review the DC zoning district regulations to review the purpose of the district and assess whether the regulations are discouraging businesses from locating in downtown Kent. As proposed, the Stewart amendment would in effect remove the six-month clause pertaining to discontinuance of the dnve-up use. Any legally established bank building with drive-up facilities in the DC zone which pre-dates Ordinance 3050 would not be deemed nonconforming regardless of the period of discontinuance However, such drive-up facilities would not be able to be expanded BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: In 1989 after a two-year planning effort, the City adopted new goals and objectives for the Downtown Kent area This new plan envisioned a pedestrian-oriented, mixed use core area centered on Meeker Street and First Avenue, with dense commercial, office, and residential use with off-street parking in the surrounding area (The term "pedestrian oriented"should not be confused with a shopping mall, where the street is closed to vehicular traffic A pedestrian-oriented street characteristically has on-street, parallel or angled parking with wide sidewalks, and a continuous building frontage of shops,plazas, and other pedestrian amenities) This plan was later implemented in July 1992 through a series of zoning changes in downtown. The DC zone was established along Meeker Street and First Avenue to encourage a mixed use pattern of retail, office and residential activities and to protect the pedestrian-onentation of the core area The DCE zone was established in the surrounding area to allow the same types of uses but in an urban context characterized by on-site parking TW 4 Later in 1992, the City implemented administrative downtown design guidelines to further refine the character and nature of downtown development permitted by the new zoning A pedestrian plan overlay was implemented as part of these guidelines This overlay designated streets according to their pedestrian orientation Class A streets had the highest pedestrian orientation, that is, they were characterized by continuous building frontag¢, pedestrian amenities such as courtyards or plazas, with little or no interference by driveways 4 vehicular access Class B streets had a reduced level of pedestrian orientation,building frontage may be located at the sidewalk line but may not be continuous, and on-site parking and driveways may be allowed. Some streets in the downtown area were not designated and, therefore,no special pedestrian guidelines applied The bank building owned by Mr Stewart is located at the northeast comer of 2nd Avenue and Gowe Street It is presently zoned PC Both of the adjacent street frontages (Gowe Street and 2°a Avenue) are designated as Class A pedestrhan streets Since the passage of Ordinance #3050 in July 1992, DC zoning has permitted banking uses bait not the drive-up facilities associated with them Any bank with drive-up facilities located in the DC zone since 1992 would be classified as a legal,nonconforming use, as long as the use is not discontinued foie a period greater than six months, (SEE KCC 15 08 100C 5) (Exhibit C) In addition, if a nonconforming 'µse is changed to a permitted use,the code also prohibits the resumption of the nonconforming use, (SEPS, KCC 15 08 100C 6) Both of these conditions apply to the Stewart building. The banking use i rith dnve-up facilities was discontinued in 1998 and, the site reverted to conforming uses Oewelry store and office use) following the exit of the bank Therefore, the grandfather rights which extended to the$rmer bank do not extend to a new user As outlined previously, the proposed code amendment would modify the nonconforming use regulations and extend grandfather rights to drive-up banking facilities in the DC zone which existed prior to Ordinance #3050, regardless of any period of discontinuance The Board recommendation essentially affects two properties in the DC zone the property owned by the applicant and the adjacent existing bank to the east. Several of the Board members also encouraged the Planning Committee to review the DC zoning district regulations to review the purpose of the district and assess whether the regulations are discouraging businesses from I locating in downtown Kent Staff reviewed the proposed code amendment and found that it was exem�t from the State Environmental Policy Act since it relates to procedural requirements FNS\pm S\Permit\Plan\ZONECOQEAMEND\2003\2031838-20034pc doc Enclosures Draft Ordinance,July 21[l staff memo to Board w/attachments,minutes of 7/28/03 public hearing ee Fred N Satterstrom,AICP.,CD Director Charlene Anderson,Planning Manager Parties of Interest Project File#ZCA-20034, 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 section 15.08.100(C)of the Kent City Code, entitled "Nonconforming development—Nonconforming uses." WHEREAS, banks with drive-through facilities in the Downtown Commercial (DC) district established prior to August 1992, are considered legally nonconforming uses under Kent City Code (KCC) 15.08.100, and the drive-through facility use cannot be continued if the use has been abandoned for a period of six(6)or more months;and WHEREAS, for the economic welfare of the downtown core, KCC 15.08.100(C) should be amended to provide that legally established banks with drive- through facilities will not be nonconforming,so long as these drive-through facilities are not expanded;NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Amendment. Section 15.08.100 of the Kent City Code, entitled "Nonconforming development' shall be amended as follows: 1 Nonconforming Development . Amendment KCC 15.08.100 6 Sj C. 15.08.100. Nonconforming development. A. Purpose.; The intent and purpose of this section is to: 1. Ensure reasonable opportunity for use of legally created lots which do not meet current mii mium requirements for the district in which they are located. 2. Ehisure reasonable opportunity for use,maintenance and improvement of legally constructed buildings, structures and site development features which do not comply with current minimum requirements for the district in which they are located. 3. Ebsure reasonable opportunity for continuation of legally established uses which do not conform to use regulations for the district in which they are located. 4. Fincourage the eventual replacement of nonconforming uses having potentially undesirable impacts on conforming uses. 5. E courage the eventual upgrading ofnonconforming buildings,structures and site development features which do not comply with current minimum requirements for the district irk which they are located. B. Applicability. Nonconforming uses, structures, lots or signs are not favored by law and this title, and it is to avoid injustice that this title accepts such elements. To benefit from the protection given to nonconforming development,such use,structure,or sign must have been lawfully established pursuant to a county resolution in effect at the time of annexation which rendered it nonconforming, or it must have been lawfully established priori to the effective date of this chapter or subsequent amendments thereto, or lawfully established prior to the purchase or condemnation of right-of-way by the city of Kent. This seection distinguishes between and defines nonconforming uses, major nonconforming buildings and structures,minor nonconforming buildings and structures, nonconforming "lots of record and nonconforming signs. Different requirements are made applicable to each of these categories. The degree of restriction made applicable to each separate Category is dependent upon the degree to which that category of nonconformance is a nuisance or incompatible with the purpose and requirements of this title. C. Nonconfirming uses. 2 Nonconforming Development Amendment KCC 15.08.100 • 1. Applicability of restrictions. Regulations applicable to nonconforming uses are in addition to regulations applicable to nonconforming structures,lots and signs, and in the event of any conflict the most restrictive provisions shall apply. 2. Expansion of nonconforming uses. No existing building,structure or land devoted to a nonconforming use shall be expanded, enlarged,extended,reconstructed, intensified or structurally altered unless the use thereof is changed to a use permitted in the district in which such building,structure or land is located except as follows: When authorized by conditional use permit,a nonconforming use may be expanded,enlarged, extended,reconstructed, intensified or structurally altered. 3. Change of nonconforming use When authorized by the planning director, a nonconforming use may be changed to a use of a like or more restrictive nature. 4. Extension of nonconforming use. When authorized by the planning director, a nonconforming use may be extended throughout those parts of a building which were manifestly designed or arranged for such use prior to the date when such use of such building became nonconforming, if no structural alterations except those required by law are made therein. 5. Discontinuance of nonconforming use. When a nonconforming use of land or a nonconforming use of all or part of a structure is discontinued or abandoned for a period of six(6)months,such use shall not be resumed,notwithstanding any reserved intent not to abandon such use. Normal seasonal cessation of use, or temporary discontinuance for purposes of maintenance or improvements, shall not be included in determination of the six(6)month period of discontinuance. 6. Reversion to nonconforming use. If nonconforming use is changed to a permitted use,the nonconforming use shall not be resumed. 7. Residential exception to nonconforming use status. Legally established residential uses located in any residential zoning district shall not be deemed nonconforming in terms of density provisions and shall be a legal use. 8. Exception for certain drive-through banking facilities. Legally established bank buildmus with drive-through facilities in the Downtown Commercial 3 Nonconforming Development • Amendment KCC 15.08.100 8 zoning district that existed prior to August 9. 1992, shall not be nonconforming; however,these drove-through facilities may not be expanded beyond that which existed on August 9, 199R,when the City prohibited bank drive-through facilities in DC zones. D. Nonconfojrming buildings and structures 1. Albplicability of restrictions. Regulations applicable to nonconforming structures are in addition to regulations applicable to nonconforming uses,lots and signs, and in the event of any conflict the most restrictive provisions shall apply. 2. Major nonconforming buildings and structures. No major nonconforming $tructure may be expanded, enlarged, extended, reconstructed or structurally altered or changed,nor may any major nonconforming building,structure or lot be occupied ifter discontinuance of change in use, unless the structure, use and associated grounds and development are brought into compliance with use and minimum development star dards of the district in which such structure is located, except as follows: a. Any major nonconforming structure damaged by fire, flood, explosion, wind,1 earthquake, war, not or other natural disaster, may be restored, reconstructed and.used as before;provided,that the work be vested by permit application within one (1)ye,4r of such happening; any restoration or reconstruction not vested by permit apphcatioti within twelve(12)months from the date of the fire or other casualty shall be deemed Abandoned and not allowed to be restored. b. Such repairs and maintenance work as required to keep the structure in sound condition may be made to a major nonconforming structure,provided no such structural alterations shall be made except such as are required by law or ordinance or authlorized by the planning director. 3. Ahnor nonconforming buildings and structures. No minor nonconforming Oructure may be expanded, enlarged, extended, reconstructed or otherwise structurally altered or changed,nor may any minor nonconforming building, structure or lot be occupied after discontinuance or change in use,unless the structure 4 Nonconforming Development Amendment KCC 15.08.100 9 • and associated grounds and development are brought into compliance with the minimum development standards of the district in which such structure is located, except as follows: a. Any minor nonconforming structure damaged by fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, war, riot or other natural disaster, may be restored, reconstructed and used as before;provided,that the work be vested by permit application be completed within one(1)year of such happening; any restoration or reconstruction vested by permit application twelve (12) months from the date of the fire or other casualty shall be deemed abandoned and not allowed to be restored. b. Such repairs and maintenance work as required to keep the structure in sound condition may be made to a minor nonconforming structure,provided no such structural alterations shall be made except such as are required by law or ordinance or authorized by the planning director. 4. Planning director's authority. The planning director may waive specific development standard requirements or impose additional requirements when all the • following criteria are met: a. When owing to special circumstances a literal enforcement of the provisions of this title or other land use regulatory ordinances of the city will result in unnecessary hardship. b. When the waiver of development requirements is in harmony with the purpose and intent of city ordinances and the comprehensive plan. C. When the proposed use,building and development will function without adverse impact upon adjacent property,development in the area or the city as a whole. d. When a conditional use permit is not required. E. Nonconforming lots 1 Applicability of restrictions Regulations applicable to nonconforming lots are in addition to the regulations applicable to nonconforming uses, structures and signs, and, in the event of conflict,the most restrictive provisions shall apply. 5 Nonconforming Development • Amendment KCC 15.08.100 10 2 Nonconforming lots of record a.' Residential districts (1) In any district in which single-family dwellings are permitted, a single-family dwelling and customary accessory buildmgs may be erected on any single lot of record as of June 20, 1973,notwithstanding limitations imposed by other provisions of this title. Such lot must be in separate ownership and not of continuous frontage with othler lots in the same ownership. This provision shall apply even though such lot fails to meet the requirements for area or width that are generally applicable in the district;provided,that yard dimensions and requirements other than those applying to area or width of the lot shall conform to the regulations for the district in which such lot i is located. (2) In all single-family zoning districts,with the exception of the SR-8 zoning district, if two(2)or more lots or combinations of lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership are of record prior to June 20, 1973,and if all or part of the lots do not meet the minimum requirements established for lot width and area, the laud involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this kitle, and no portion of the parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot width and area requirements established by this title,nor shall and division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with width or area below the requirements stated in this title. (3) In the SR-8 zoning district, if two(2)or more single-family zoned lots or conibination of lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage in single ownership are of;record prior to June 20, 1973, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the following minimum requirements established for lot width,lot area and topography, the land involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this title, and no portion of the parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with not width and area requirements established by this title,nor shall any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with width or area below the requirements statjed in this title. 6 Nonconforming Development Amendment KCC 15.08.100 11 (a) Minimum lot area: Four thousand six hundred(4,600) square feet. (b) Minimum lot width: Forty(40) feet. (c) Maximum site slope: Fifteen(15)percent. (4) In any district in which duplex dwellings are permitted, a duplex dwelling and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record as of June 20, 1973,with a minimum area of seven thousand two hundred(7,200) square feet,notwithstanding limitations imposed by other provisions of this title. Such lot must be in separate ownership and not of continuous frontage with other lots in the same ownership. This provision shall apply even though such lot fails to meet the requirements for area or width that are generally applicable in the district;provided,that yard dimensions and requirements other than those applying to area or width of the lot shall conform to the regulations for the district in which such lot is located. b. Other districts. In any other district, permitted building and structures may be constructed on a nonconforming lot of record,provided site coverage, yard, landscaping and off-street parking requirements are met. Such lots must be in separate ownership and not of continuous frontage with other lots in the same ownership prior to June 20, 1973, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the minimum requirements established for lot width and area,the land involved shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this title,and no portion of the parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot width and area requirements established by this title,nor shall any division of any parcel be made which creates a lot with width or area below the requirements stated in this title. F. Nonconforming signs 1. Applicability of restrictions. Regulations applicable to nonconforming signs are in addition to regulations applicable to nonconforming uses, structures and lots, and in the event of conflict the most restrictive provisions shall apply. 2. Continuation of nonconforming signs. 7 Nonconforming Development Amendment KCC 15.08.100 12 a. Signs that were legally existing as of the effective date of this title or subsequent amendments thereto that do not conform to the regulations of this title shall be considered nonconforming signs. Nonconforming signs may not be moved, relocated,altered or added to without receiving approval from the planning department. b. No sign permit shall be issued to allow legal signs on property having an illegal or nonconforming sign until such time as the nonconforming or illegal sign is modified to conform to this title. 3. Amortization period. a. Abandoned signs. Abandoned signs must be removed within ninety(90)days.! b. Number and type of signs. The number and type of allowable signs for each occupancy must conform to the regulations of this title. S CTIONZ —Severabdity. If any one or more section,subsections,or Ir- sentences of this l2rdinance 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. S CTION3.—Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty(30)days from and after its passage,approval and publication as provided by law. ! JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JACOIBER, CITY CLERK ! 8 Nonconforming Development Amendment KCC 15.08.100 13 APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, 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. paned by the City Council of the City of Kent,Washington,and approved by the Mayor of the City of Kent as hereon indicated. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P Cmh(kdanwt\Nm nfe=ingDevcloDmem Amendmentsi]doc 9 Nonconforming Development Amendment KCC 1 S 08.100 14 This page intentionally left blank. i 15 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director 7�� PLANNING SERVICES ,Kc N T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager W♦SHINGTON Phone 253-856.5454 Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 July 21,2003 TO. RON HARMON,CHAIR&LAND USE AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR RE: PROPOSED ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT NONCONFORMING USE #ZCA-2003-4(STEWART) FOR LUPB HEARING ON JULY 28,2003 On June 24, 2003, Mr. Bill Stewart made application for a zoning code text amendment which would modify nonconforming use regulations as they pertain to banks with drive-up facilities (Exhibit A). Presently, drive-up banking facilities are not permitted under DC zoning regulations in the downtown area. Existing banks with drive-up facilities that pre-date Ordinance #3050 (July 1992) are considered "grandfathered"and the drive-up use may continue as long as they are not abandoned for a period greater than six months As proposed, the Stewart amendment would in effect remove the six-month clause pertaining to discontinuance of the drive-up use. Any legally established bank building with drive-up facilities in the DC zone which pre-dates Ordinance 3050 would not be deemed nonconforming regardless of the period of discontinuance However, such drive-up facilities would not be able to be expanded Staff reviewed the proposed code amendment and found that it was exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act since it relates to procedural requirements The language proposed by Mr Stewart is as follows: Add a New Section to Section 15 08100(C)(8) "Legally established banks with drive-up facilities existing prior to adoption of Ordinance #3050 shall not be deemed to be nonconforming provided, however, that such drive-up facilities may not be expanded beyond what existed at the time of adoption of said ordinance." Although nothing is mentioned in the proposed language regarding the application to any specific zoning district, it is implicit from Mr. Stewart's letter(attached as Exhibit B) that it is intended to apply only to the DC zone where a former bank building (with drive-up facilities), owned by the applicant, is located. This building was used as a bank from 1983-1998, From 1998 to the present,this building has been used for retail/office purposes and any grandfather rights to drive-up facilities have been lost. Implementation of the proposed code amendment would restore these grandfather rights and allow banking uses with drive-up facilities to locate once again at this location. Background In 1989 after a two-year planning effort, the City adopted new goals and objectives for the Downtown Kent area This new plan envisioned a pedestrian-oriented, mixed use core area centered on Meeker Street and First Avenue, with dense commercial, office, and residential use with off-street parking in the surrounding area. (The term 'pedestrian oriented"should not be confused with a shopping mall, where 16 the street is closed to vehicu�ar traffic A pedestrian-oriented street characteristically has on-street, parallel or angled parking wit wide sidewalks, and a continuous building frontage of shops,plazas, and other pedestrian amemt2esI }, his plan was later implemented in July 1992. through a genes of zoning changes in downtown. The DC zone was established along Meeker Street and First Avenue to encourage a mixed use pattern of retail, office and residential activities and to protect the pedestnan-orientation of the core area The DCE zone was established in the surrounding area to allow the same types of uses but in an urban context characterizJed by on-site parking. Later in 1992, the City implemented administrative downtown design guidelines to further refine the character and nature of downtown development permitted by the new zoning. A pedestrian plan overlay was implemented as part of these guidelines. This overlay designated streets according to their pedestrian orientation. Class A streets I)ad the highest pedestrian orientation; that is, they were characterized by continuous building frontage} pedestrian amenities such as courtyards or plazas, with little or no interference by driveways or vehicular access Class B streets had a reduced level of pedestrian orientation;building frontages may be located at the sidewalk line but may not be continuous, and on-site parking and driveways may be allowed. Some streets in the downtown area were not designated and, therefore,no special pedestrian guidelines applied The bank building owned bylMr. Stewart is located at the northeast corner of 2rid Avenue and Gowe Street. It is presently zoned DC Both of the adjacent street frontages (Gowe Street and 2Id Avenue)are designated as Class A pedestrian streets. Since the passage of Ordinance#3050 in July 1992,DC zoning has permitted banking uses butt not the drive-up facilities associated with them Any bank with dnve-up facilities located in the DC zone since 1992 would be classified as a legal, nonconforming use, as long as the use is not discontinued for a period greater than six months,(SEE KCC 15.08.1000.5)(Exhibit C). In addition, if a nonconforming use is changed to a permitted use, the code also prohibits the resumption of the nonconforming use, (SE#, KCC 15.08 100C.6) Both of these conditions apply to the Stewart building. The banking use with drive-up facilities was discontinued in 1998 and, the site reverted to conforming uses (jewelry store and office use) following the exit of the bank Therefore,the grandfather rights which extended to the fdrmer bank do not extend to a new user As outlined previously, the proposed code amendment would modify the nonconforming use regulations and extend grandfather right$ to drive-up banking facilities in the DC zone which existed prior to Ordinance#3050,regardless of any period of discontinuance. Impacts of Proposed Code Te4t Amendment The applicant indicates that apiother bank is interested in moving into the building at 2"d Avenue and Gowe Street. He states that approval of the code amendment would benefit downtown by adding "...to the growth and vitality of the lore area,besides enhancing the looks of that block of the city."In addition, he states that"...the added cai traffic would not be any more detrimental to downtown with or without a drive-up In fact, it will help the parking situation as dnve-up customers will not need to park." Finally, he offers that it will help the community from an economic standpoint by returning the building to "its highest and best use"and by reducing building vacancies in the downtown. Staff can agree that there will be economic benefits from the proposed code amendment should it be adopted and the new bank occupies the Stewart building The bank will bring a certain amount of customers to the downtown, bath by foot and by automobile, who may also frequent other businesses in the downtown thereby benefiting other merchants However, the proposed code; amendment also compromises years of planning aimed at creating a pedestrian oriented downtown core. As mentioned, this vision was established in the planning goals adopted in 1989 and in the subsequent implementation of zoning and design guidelines in 1992. By permitting the re-establishment of dnve-up banking facilities, Ihere will be an on-going conflict between traffic exiting the drive-up laipes and pedestrians on the 2"d Avenue sidewalk. There is a "blind spot" where the northwest comer of the building meets the sidewalk, this is where cars enter the street after Land Use and Planning Board Hearing July 28,2003 Page 2 of 3 17 • exiting the drive-up lane. In addition to disrupting the pedestrian flow on the sidewalk, this blind spot represents a potential danger to pedestrians as well. Though there may be mitigating measures that can be provided to minimize this nsk should these facilities be re-established. Options Staff has identified several options for the Land Use&Planning Board to consider: A. Do Nothing. This alternative would retain the existing code regulations. The nonconforming use regulations would remain in effect and the bank use with drive-up facilities would not be permitted. B. Revise nonconformmg use regulations as proposed. This alternative would adopt the language proposed by Mr. Stewart (or very similar language), and would modify the nonconforming use regulations pertaining only to the DC zone. This option essentially affects two properties in the DC zone- the property owned by the applicant and the adjacent existing bank to the east. C Allow dnve-up banking facilities in the DC zone This option would change the permitted use section in the Zoning Code and would allow drive-up banking use as an outright permitted use in the DC zoning district. This would expand the opportunity for such facilities beyond that allowed by Option B, by permitting these facilities anywhere in the DC zone (This option would also require changes in the Comprehensive Plan/Downtown Policies due to the conflict between plan policy and development regulations that would result) D. Provide more flexibility in the nonconforming use regulations This option would seek to make the nonconforming use regulations more flexible. For instance, this option might include extending the period of discontinuance beyond 6-months in order to grandfather uses It might also eliminate the reversion clause in the existing code. Modifying the zoning regulations in this general way would affect development in all zones throughout the City, far beyond that proposed by the Stewart amendment. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends no change in the existing zoning regulations The long-range vision of the downtown plan calls for a pedestrian-oriented core with uses and a circulation pattern that are pedestrian-friendly. The retail and office uses in the Stewart building have been in conformance with DC zoning regulations for the last five years. It is possible that the building could be leased or sold in the future for other uses which would also conform to the present zoning restrictions Should the Land Use and Plannmg Board feel that the No Action alternative is too restrictive, the staff would concur that the proposed code amendment is preferable to any of the other alternatives enumerated above. The proposed Stewart amendment addressed an existing situation—that is,buildings with present or prior, legally authorized drive-up facilities — and limits its focus to two properties located adjacent to one another in a corner of the downtown core By limiting its focus, the proposed code amendment also limits its impact on the long-standing,pedestrian orientation of the downtown FNS1pm P\Plammng\ADMiN\stewartamd2 doc cc Fred N Satterstrom,A[CP,CD Director Charlene Anderson,Planning Manager Project File • Land Use and Planning Board Hearing July 28,2003 Page 3 of 3 18 i This page intentionally left blank. i i i 19 Planning Services Location: 400 W.Gowe Mad to:220 4th Avenue South • Kent,WA 98032-5895 KEN T Permit Center(253)856-5302 FAX:(253)856-6412 WAV"I"OTOM PLANNING SERVICES Code Text Amendment FILL OUT IN Public Notice Board Fee...$100 each Application Fee_$1500 SLACK INK ONLY � - Application #: GLCf- '2000 -4 KIVA 0?0 OFFICE USE ONLY E USE Y Application Name: GTn Code Text Amendment Requested: RECEIVEL) 0 AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE J(JN P,s 2003 ❑ AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION CODE GITY OF"T ❑ AMENDMENT TO MOBILE HOME PARK CODE JERMIT CENT ❑ AMENDMENT TO OTHER DEVELOPMENT CODE: (Specify) APPLICANT 1: (mandatory) Name: &W C a!t/A RT Daytime Phone: y2 !3- k 3J- /`r 0 Mailing Address: .2R02z;7 — 11D Add 54 Fax Number. City/State/Zip: ur ) Yfe e Signature: ZKX 9� APPLICANT 2: (mandatory if different from applicant 1) Name: Daytime Phone: Mailing Address: Fax Number. City/State/Zip: Sianature: AGENT/CONSULTANT/ATTORNEY: (mandatory if primary contact is different from applicant) Name: Daytime Phone: Mailing Address: Fax Number: City/State/Zip: Signature: OFFICE USE ONLY: RECEIVED DATEAPPLICATIONRECEIVED: RECEIVED BY: .u., 2` 9(tt13_ • DATEAPPLICATION COMPLETE: COMPLETENESS REVIEW BY: CITY Of F-r-M I I11111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIINI PLANNING S OM 'PSD4015' psd4015 61MI p i or I 20 Add a New Section to : Section 15.08.100(C)(8) Legally established banks with drive-up facilities existing prior to adoption of Ordinance 1 shall not be deemed to be nonconforming provided,however,that such drive-up i facilities may not be expanded beyond what existed at the time of adoption of said ordinance. �EC�1 VJE�iO JUA, f 2oo3 Cf/YUF ''ERMI T CF�u�7 21 Planning Services �a Lj` 400 W.Gowe St. l]�j` 1. Kent Wa.98042 1` 2�03 RE:Zoning and development Code Application Instructions o �5 A. Application enclosed O1T( OF S1G�S B. 1.Add an amendment to Ordinance 3050 dated July 7,1992,section 15.08.100(CX9) 1?��ils 2.We want to change the code so that my existing Bank Building,with existing drive up windows,on 2'd and Gowe street may once again be used as a bank with drive-up facilities.This Bank has had drive-up windows since Pacific First Federal Bank remodeled the building adding a vault that is accessible to the drive-up.This was done in 1983,long before the DC zone was delineated in 1992.Pacific First Federal Bank moved to 0 8t Smith street in 1992 and was purchased by Washington Mutual Bank in 1993.I purchased the Gowe Street building in September 1993 and leased the premises to Cascade Community Bank the I"Day of Oct, 1993. They purchased the former Lincoln Savings and Loan building on 46 and Meeker and moved there in March 1999 which has since become Columbia Bank. In July 19981]eased part of the building to Robert Bonaci for Stewart's Jewelers.This lease and extensions will end the last day of July 2003.In May 19991 also temporarily leased the other part of the building to be used by Sound Transit for office space,for construction of the Sounder Railroad stations.That work is finished and Sound Transit moved out in March 2002.The building has been vacant ever since. I now have an opportunity to sell this building to Frontier Bank,who will only take it if they can use the drive-up J as originally intended.Frontier Bank in now located in rental space in the Kent West Mall near QFC.Frontier Bank is on a month to month lease at this time as their landlord has rented the space to a State agency. They r have been looking for a building to buy for two years,and had just about run out of hope finding it.They have told me they lice Kent and want to stay here but need a drive up facility.I really believe they will be an asset to the core area,and form a solid tax base that can be counted on for many years.They also plan to do an extensive remodel of the building.By allowing this Code change you will be helping to fill a vacancy in the core area,and contribute to the enhancement of the downtown area. 3.Add anew section to:Section 15.08.100(C)(8). Legally established bank buildings with drive-up facilities existing prior to adoption of Ordinance 3050 dated July 7, 1992 shall not be deemed to be nonconforming provided,however,that such drive-up facilities may not be expanded beyond what existed at the time of said ordinance. I believe this wording will only apply to my building and the Wells Fargo branch in the same block, that now has a drive-up.There will be no other changes to the downtown CD ewe. 4. This amendment was placed in this section because there is a code amendment here that changes the residential code in like manor. The purpose of this amendment is to bring a Bank to the core area that will encourage more people to come to the core area and therefore increase everyone's business.The added car fi+ITic n`,1 be anv,new deh.c...entnl tQ de::::tc.... :•'wl1'..'�..:P.tC::t a.'4-4.'..ZT.I.:f"..�.a 4:,:ii 1•.,•l u,- pa k ng situation as drive-up cs omets::'ill n nmd to part. Frontier Bank has 38 branch banks,and has demonstrated a willingness to come to the core area,and is confident,that they will do a thriving business if allowed to do so. If this code change is allowed there will be no environmental change,it will add to the growth and vitality of the core area,besides enhancing the looks of that block of the city.The City is always looking for ways to enhance the downtown area and this is a great opportunity to help do that.I urge you to take this opportunity to contribute to the health and welfare of the CBD and return this building to its highest and best use.We have too many vacant buildings now. re re • � Si�qe�a��4"Cr wrt t i'6�y a 22 15.08,070 1'�� - C Kent City Code (4) No building constkucted within five shall be screened from view of surrounding neigh- hundred(500)feet of the point ororigin of the view bors and shall not be used for habitation. angle and located beneath thit airspace located (Ord.No.3409,§ 48,7-7-98) within the angle shall rise aboveilie lower extent of the vertical angle. 15.08.090 Parking or storage of inoperable C. Exemptions. The planning director may vehicles. waive or modify the view regullations on hillside No more than one (1) vehicle of any kind in development if it is determines} that the intent to inoperable condition not licensed nor legally oper- preserve views cannot be met $y a strict applica- able upon roadway shall be stored or parked on any tion of the requirements,or if one(1)or more of the residentially zoned property for more than thirty following conditions applies: (30) days unless said vehicle is stored in an 1. There is no available char view of the val- enclosed area and hidden from view of surrounding ley from development located tlpslope of the pro- neighbors posed building;or (Ord.No 3409, § 49,7-7-98) 2. The orientation of development located upslope is toward a different view angle than pre- Cross reference(s)-Parking regulations,ch 9 38 scribed in the view developmenk regulations;or 3. The shape or topographt of the lot and lots 15.08.100 Nonconforming development. located upslope make a strict jpplication of the A. Purpose. The intent and purpose of this sec- view requirements unnecessary pr impractical. tion is to: D. Application for variance. If an applicant 1. Ensure reasonable opportunity for use of requests relief from the provisions of this section legally created lots which do not meet current min- through a variance as provided in KCC 15.09.040 imum requirements for the district in which they Prior to public hearing,the applicant shall erect a are located. pole structure outlining the proposed height of the 2• Ensure reasonable opportunity for use, building where it is to be constructed on the pro- maintenance and improvement of legally con- posed site to allow adjacent operty owners to structed buildings, structures and site development assess the view impact of the Proposed variance features which do not comply with current mini- The pole structure shall be in place at least ten(10) mum requirements for the district in which they are days prior to the date of the public hearing on the located. proposed variance. 3. Ensure reasonable opportunity for continu- (Ord. No. 3469. § 1,8-3-99) ation of legally established uses which do not con- form to use regulations for the district in which 15.08.070 Animals in residential districts. they are located Animals(excluding household pets such as cats 4. Encourage the eventual replacement of and dogs), especially horses,!cows, sheep and nonconforming uses having potentially undesir- goats, shall not be permitted in residential districts able impacts on conforming uses un lots smaller than twenty thousand (20,000) 5• Encourage the eventual upgrading of non- square feet. conforming buildings, structures and site develop- ment features which do not comply with current Lross reterence(s)—Animal control,dh 8 03 minimum requirements for the district in which they are located 15.08.080 Parking,storage 0 habitation of B. Applicability. Nonconforming uses, struc- major recreational equipment. tures,lots or signs are not favored by law and this No more than one(1)unit of a recreational vehi- title,and it is to avoid injustice that this title accepts cle as defined in KCC 15 02.P38 or equipment such elements. To benefit from the protection shall be stored outside an enclosed building or given to nonconforming development, such use, structure on residential property; said equipment structure, or sign must have been lawfully estab- lished pursuant to a county resolution in effect at the time of annexation which rendered it noncon- (Revised 7/02) 15-106 23 Kent City Code 15.08.100 • forming, or it must have been lawfully established ance for purposes of maintenance or improve- prior to the effective date of this chapter or subse- ments,shall not be included in determination of the quent amendments thereto, or lawfully established six (6)month period of discontinuance. prior to the purchase or condemnation of right-of- 6. Reversion to nonconforming use. If a non- way by the city of Kent. This section distinguishes conforming use is changed to a permitted use, the between and defines nonconforming uses, major nonconforming use shall not be resumed. nonconforming buildings and structures, minor 7. Residential exception to nonconforming nonconforming buildings and structures, noncon- use status. Legally established residential uses forming lots of record and nonconforming signs. located in any residential zoning district shall not Different requirements are made applicable to each be deemed nonconforming in terms of density pro- of these categories The degree of restriction made visions and shall be a legal use. applicable to each separate category is dependent D. Nonconforming buildings and structures. upon the degree to which that category of noncon- 1. Applicability of restrictions. Regulations formance is a nuisance or incompatible with the applicable to nonconforming structures are in addi- purpose and requirements of this title. tion to regulations applicable to nonconforming C. Nonconforming uses. uses,lots and signs,and in the event of any conflict 1. Applicability of restrictions. Regulations the most restrictive provisions shall apply applicable to nonconforming uses are in addition to 2. Major nonconforming buildings and struc- regulations applicable to nonconforming struc- tures. No major nonconforming structure may be tures, lots and signs, and in the event of any con- expanded, enlarged, extended, reconstructed or flict the most restrictive provisions shall apply. structurally altered or changed,nor may any major 2 Expansion of nonconforming uses. No nonconforming building, structure or lot be occu- existing building, structure or land devoted to a pied after discontinuance of change in use, unless nonconforming use shall be expanded, enlarged, the structure,use and associated grounds and devel- extended, reconstructed, intensified or structurally opment are brought into compliance with use and altered unless the use thereof is changed to a use minimum development standards of the district in permitted in the district in which such building, which such structure is located,except as follows: structure or land is located except as follows.When a Any major nonconforming structure authorized by conditional use permit, a noncon- damaged by fire, flood, explosion, wind, earth- forming use may be expanded,enlarged,extended, quake, war, riot or other natural disaster, may be reconstructed,intensified or structurally altered restored, reconstructed and used as before; pro- 3. Change of nonconforming use. When vided,that the work be vested by permit application authorized by the planning director,a nonconform- within one(1)year of such happening;any restora- ing use may be changed to a use of a like or more tion or reconstruction not vested by permit applica- restrictive nature. tion within twelve(12)months from the date of the 1. Extension ,f .^.^nco.^.,forrni„g ii_ro When fire or other casualty shall be deemed abandoned authorized by the planning director,a nonconform- and not allowed to be restored. ing use may be extended throughout those parts of b. Such repairs and maintenance work as a building which were manifestly designed or required to keep the structure in sound condition a,aon orl fnr sorb nee nrinr to the title when surh may he made to a maior nonconforming structure. use of such building became.nonco"forming,if no �nrrovirlpd no such structural alterations shall be structural alterations except those required by law made except such as are required by law or ordi- are made therein. nance or authorized by the planning director. 5. Discontinuance of nonconforming use 3 Minor nonconforming buildings and struc- When a nonconforming use of land or a noncon- lures. No minor nonconforming structure may be forming use of all or part of a structure is discontin- expanded, enlarged, extended, reconstructed or ued or abandoned for a period of six (6) months, otherwise structurally altered or changed,nor may such use shall not be resumed,notwithstanding any any minor nonconforming building,structure or lot • reserved intent not to abandon such use Normal be occupied after discontinuance or change in use, seasonal cessation of use,or temporary discontinu- unless the structure and associated grounds and 15-107 (Revised 7/02) L 24 15.08.100 Kent City Code i development are brought into compliance with the ownership and not of continuous frontage with minimum development standards of the district in other lots in the same ownership. This provision which such structure is located,except as follows: shall apply even though such lot fails to meet the a Any minor nonconforming structure requirements for area or width that are generally damaged by fire, flood, explosion, wind, earth- applicable in the district, provided, that yard quake, war, riot or other natural disaster, may be dimensions and requirements other than those restored, reconstructed and used as before; pro- applying to area or width of the lot shall conform vided,that the work be vested bylpermit application to the regulations for the district in which such lot be completed within one (1) year of such happen- is located. ing;any restoration orreconstrudtion vested by per- (2) 1n all single-family zoning districts, mit application twelve(12)months from the date of with the exception of the SR-8 zoning district, if the fire or other casualty shall;be deemed aban- two (2) or more lots or combinations of lots and doned and not allowed to be restored. portions of lots with continuous frontage in single b. Such repairs and maintenance work as ownership are of record prior to June 20, 1973,and required to keep the structure in sound condition if all or part of the lots do not meet the minimum may be made to a minor nonconforming structure, requirements established for lot width and area,the provided no such structural alterations shall be land involved shall be considered to be an undi- made except such as are required by law or ordi- vided parcel for the purposes of this title, and no nance or authorized by the planihing director. portion of the parcel shall be used or sold in a man- 4. Planning director's authority The plan- ner which diminishes compliance with lot width ning director may waive specificldevelopment stan- and area requirements established by this title,nor dard requirements or impose additional require- shall any division of any parcel be made which cre- ments when all the following criteria are met: ates a lot with width or area below the requirements a. When owing to speciil circumstances a stated in this title literal enforcement of the provisions of this title or (3) In the SR-8 zoning district, if two(2) other land use regulatory ordinances of the city will or more single-family zoned lots or combination of result in unnecessary hardship. lots and portions of lots with continuous frontage b When the waiver of development re- in single ownership are of record prior to June 20, quirements is in harmony with the purpose and in- 1973, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the tent of city ordinances and the comprehensive plan. following minimum requirements established for c When the proposed use, building and lot width, lot area and topography, the land development will function without adverse impact involved shall be considered to be an undivided upon adjacent property,development in the area or parcel for the purposes of this title,and no portion the city as a whole. I of the parcel shall be used or sold in a manner d. When a conditional fuse permit is not which diminishes compliance with lot width and required. area requirements established by this title,nor shall E_ Nonconforming lots. any division of any parcel be made which creates a 1 Applicability of restrictions. Regulations lui with width of area below the requirements applicable to nonconforming lolls are in addition to stated in this title. the regulations applicable to nonconforming uses, (a) Minimum lot area:Four thousand six structures and signs,and, in the event of conflict, hundred(4,600)square feet. the most restrictive provisions shall apply. (b) Minimum lot width: Forty(40)feet. 2. Nonconforming lots of rlecord (c) Maximum site slope: Fifteen (15) a. Residential districts. percent. (1) In any district in which single-family (4) In any district in which duplex dwell- dwellings are permitted, a single-family dwelling ings are permitted,a duplex dwelling and custom- and customary accessory buildings may be erected ary accessory buildings may be erected on any on any single lot of record as of tune 20, 1973,not- single lot of record as of June 20, 1973,with a min- withstanding limitations imposed by other provi- imum area of seven thousand two hundred(7,200) sions of this title. Such lot must be in separate square feet, notwithstanding limitations imposed (Revised 7/02) 15-108 25 Kent City Code 15.08.150 • by other provisions of this title.Such lot must be in b Number and type of signs. The number separate ownership and not of continuous frontage and type of allowable signs for each occupancy with other lots in the same ownership.This provi- must conform to the regulations of this title, sion shall apply even though such lot fails to meet (Ord. No. 2905, § 1, 2-20-90; Ord.No. 3122, § 1, the requirements for area orwidth that are generally 6-15-93; Ord. No. 3409, § 50, 7-7-98; Ord No. applicable in the district; provided, that yard 3439, §7, 2-2-99; Ord. No. 3521, § 2, 8-15-00; dimensions and requirements other than those Ord.No. 3600, § 5,5-7-02) applying to area or width of the lot shall conform to the regulations for the district in which such lot 15.08.110 Reduction of lot area. is located. No land may be so reduced in area that it would b. Other districts In any other district,per- be in violation of minimum lot size, yard provi- mitted building and structures may be constructed sions, lot coverage,off-street parking or any other on a nonconforming lot of record, provided site requirements of the zoning district or use coverage, yard, landscaping and off-street parking requirements are met.Such lots must be in separate 15.08.120 Irregular-shaped lots. ownership and not of continuous frontage with On irregular-shaped lots, the average distance other lots in the same ownership prior to June 20, from the building line to the lot line shall be no less 1973, and if all or part of the lots do not meet the than the minimum yard provision; provided, how- minimum requirements established for lot width ever,that no part of the structure shall be located so and area, the land involved shall be considered to that one-half (1/2) the minimum yard provision be an undivided parcel for the purposes of this title, occurs at any point along such averaged alignment. and no portion of the parcel shall be used or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot 15.08.130 Visibility at intersections in width and area requirements established by this residential districts. • title, nor shall any division of any parcel be made On a comer lot in any residential district, noth- which creates a lot with width or area below the ing shall be erected, placed,planted or allowed to requirements stated in this title. grow in such a manner as materially to impede F. Nonconforming signs. vision between a height of two and one-half(2 1/2) 1. Applicability of restrictions Regulations and ten(10)feet above the centerline grades of the applicable to nonconforming signs are in addition intersecting streets in the area bounded by the to regulations applicable to nonconforming uses, street lines of such corner lots and aline joining structures and lots, and in the event of conflict the points along the street lines twenty (20)feet from most restrictive provisions shall apply. the point of the intersection. 2. Continuation of nonconforming signs. a. Signs that were legally existing as of the Cross reference(s)—Traffic code,ch 9 36 effective date of this title or subsequent amend- ments thereto that do not conform to the regulations 15.08.140 Visibility at access points for of this title shall be considered nonconforming automobiles. signs. Nonconforming signs may not be moved, Areas for ingress and egress for automobiles relocated, altered or added to without receiving shall be designed in such a manner that adequate approval from the planning department. visibiiity is ensured. b. No sign permit shall be issued to allow Cross reference(s)—Traffic code,ch 9 36 legal signs on property having an illegal or noncon- forming sign until such time as the nonconforming 15.08.150 Side yard on corner lot or illegal sign is modified to conform to this title. The side yard along a side street on a corner lot 3. Amortization period. shall have a minimum yard of ten (10)feet,except a. Abandoned signs.Abandoned signs must where a larger yard may be required. be removed within ninety(90)days. i 15-109 (Revised 7102) 26 This page intentionally left blank. i j I i i i I i 27 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • Fred N Satterstrom, C D Director PLANNING SERVICES • Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager KE T Phone 253-856-5454 W,iz„,„o,o Fax 253-856-W4 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING JULY 28, 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 Nicole Fincher, Vice Chair Gloria Gould-Wessen, Planner, GIS Coordinator Steve Dowell Kim Adams-Pratt, Asst City Attorney David Malik Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary Deborah Ranniger Greg Worthing LUPB MEMBERS ABSENT: Jon Johnson, Excused APPROVAL OF MINUTES David Malik MOVED and Nicole Fincher SECONDED to approve the Minutes of May 27, 2003 Motion CARRIED ADDED ITEMS: None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Ms Anderson stated that the Land Use and Planning Board is expected to consider Element 8 (Capital Facilities) at their August 25 hearing That leaves only one more element to consider — Chapter 9, Transportation She stated that a workshop will follow the hearing to discuss CPA-2003-2 Impoundment Reservoir Property #ZCA-2003-4 STEWART TEXT AMENDMENT Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that this is a code amendment application proposal by Bill Stewart to modify the nonconforming use regulations of the code pertaining to banks with drive-up facilities in the Downtown Commercial zoning district Ms. Anderson stated that the Downtown Commercial district is Kent's historic core, surrounding Meeker and First, North and South of Meeker from about Railroad to Fourth and along First from approximately Harrison to Titus The area is comprised of approximately 17 acres Ms Anderson stated that nonconforming uses are uses not allowed by current code, but that have been in place as the code has changed She stated that once those uses are discontinued for six months or if the use has reverted to a use that is conforming to the code, one cannot revert to the nonconforming use, which is what happened in the case of Mr L 28 Stewart's proposed site. Ms. Anderson stated this proposal is not site specific and would amend the nonconforming section of the code to provide that legally established bank buildings with drive-up fdcilities in the Downtown Commercial Zoning District that predate Ordinance #3050 would not be deemed nonconforming regardless of the period of time for discontinuance of the us$. She stated that the provision would not allow expansion of that use. Ms. Anderson stated that;the City adopted the Downtown Plan in 1989, the Comprehensive Plan in 1995 and the Downtown Strategic Action Plan (DSAP) in 1998 which all support a pedestrian oriented downtown core Ms. Anderson stated that the DSAP refers to a mixed use core, dense commercial, office and residential, continuous building frontages, pedestrian amenities, parking parallel or angled on the streets, and management of potential conflicts between pedestrians and automobiles Ms. Anderson summarized the following options outlined in the staff report A Do Nothing, B. Revise nonconforming use regulations as proposed by Mr Stewarf, C Allow dnve-up banking facilities outright in the DC zone, D. Provide more flexibility in the nonconforming use regulations overall. Ms. Anderson stated that staff recommends no change to the existing code, Option A — to maintain the pedestrian loriented downtown core with uses in a circulation pattern that promotes pedestrian-friendly activities and is in compliance with the existing comprehensive plan designations She stated that the uses in the Stewart Building have been conforming for five years and could be sold or leased to other conforming uses. Ms Anderson stated that if the Board feels that this recommendation is too restrictive, then staff believes that Mr. St4wart's proposal, Option B would be preferable to the other options proposed i Chair Harmon declared thO Public Hearing open Bill Stewart, 28203 1600' Ave. SE, Covington, WA 98042 stated that he has owned the property under discussion on the corner of Second and Gowe since 1992, leasing it to Cascade Community Bank at that time Mr. Stewart stated that when the bank left in 1998, he leased part of the building to Bonaci Jewelers and part of the building to Sound Transit for office space, never realizing this six month grandfather clause was in the code Mr. Stewart stated that he has submitted a code change request so that his building with existing drive-up facilitiesi might be re-established as a Frontier Bank, which currently has a thriving business with 38'branches Mr Stewart introduced Mr Dennis Schnell, Senior Vice President with Frontier Bank Mr. Stewart stated that establishing a bank in the core area will encourage more people to travel to the area, therefore, boosting everyone's business. Mr. Stewart stated that a drive-up facility would not increasd traffic flow or impact parking, due to the nature of a drive-through facility. He stated that this code change would not effect any environmental changes, rather would add to the vitality acid growth of the core area and enhance that block of the city Steve Dowell MOVED and Nicole Fincher SECONDED a motion to recommend adoption of #ZCA-2003-4 Stewart Zoi ing Code Text Amendment Option B, moving this on to City Council. Motion CARRIED Unanimously. Board members Harmon Ranniger, Fincher and Malik voiced their support for Option B and encouraged the Planning Committee to revisit the DC zone in the future. Ms Anderson stated that this amendment will Oo to the Planning Committee either August 19 or September 16 and is expected to go beforo the Full Council on October 7, due to the sixty day notification requirement to the State df Washington. Land Use and Planning Board Mingtes July 28,2003 Pang 9 nf7 29 • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager w"'"'".70" Phone 253-856-5454 Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 DATE: AUGUST 12, 2003 TO: CHAIR LEONA ORR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER SUBJECT: CLUSTER HOUSING—ZONING CODE AMENDMENT #ZCA-2003-2 MOTION: I move to recommend/not recommend approval of#ZCA-2003-2, providing for cluster subdivisions in single family residential zoning districts per Option C of the staff report, including amendments recommended by the Land Use & Planning Board encouraging shared driveways and supporting complimentary housing features, and making no change to the existing clustering provisions in areas designated as Urban Separators SUMMARY: After considering testimony 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 complimentary housing features, and delete any change to existing clusterin1 provisions in Urban Separator areas. The proposed code revisions resulted from a March 18` 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 14th 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 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 L 30 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 �onmg district, require a minimum lot size of 2,500 square feet and a 30-foot minimum lot wldfh, restrict the number of units in a cluster and require cluster separation, and have a 500% common open space requirement beyond that of any sensitive area. Design review is not requ#red 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 4 was stated that the idea was to keep the cluster of units as far away from sensitive areas as pos$►ble 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 amendment1have been adequately addressed in the C►ty's Comprehensive Plan EIS. CA1pm S 1Pcrrmt\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\20031203 1 04 5-2003-2pc doc Enc: Draft Ordinance,July 21 staff memo to Board w/attachments,minutes of 7/28/03 public hearing cc Fred N Satterstrom,AI�P,CD Director Charlene Anderson,AI P,Planning Manager Parties of Interest Project File#ZCA-2003�2 Planning Conur►ittee Meeting August 19,2003 Page 2 of 2 31 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES KEN T Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager W A 6 H.x O T O M Phone 253-856-5454 Fax- 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 DATE: JULY 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 18th 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 14th 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, • ----- - -------- ------ 32 LUPB Hearing 7/28/03 Cluster Housing ZCA-2003-2 Staff Report Page 2 including, for example, maiimum 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 resource, environmentally critical areas, and historic preservation. It also provides for more efficie�lt provision of infrastructure, including opportunities for water conservation. OPTIONS &RECOMMENDATION- 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 determin0tion, 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 28'h hearing to further discuss the issue. CA\pm:S:\Permit\Plan\ZONECODEAMEND\2003\2031045-2003-2ph doc Eric: Options for Code Provisions Development Options Matrix P.0 Minutes 10/23/95 P.C.Minutes 1/16/96 Staff Memoranda to P.C'dated 9/28/95, 1 1/21/95 R 111"6 cc• Fred N Satterstrom,AIgP,CD Director Charlene Anderson,AI ,Planning Manager Parties of Interest Project File#ZCA-20032 i 33 • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE of the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, amending Chapter 12.04 and Section 15.04.180 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 i 34 i WHEREAS, after providing appropriate public notice, the City held a public hearing oil 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 scheduldd 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 deamed appropriate;NOW THEREFORE, TIE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY 6RDAIN AS FOLLOWS: S CTION 1. -Amendment Section 12.04.263 of the Kent City Code is amended as follows: Sei% 12.04.263 Clustering. A. [Outside Urban Separator areas], Tthe purpose of the cluster development option is as fol ows• 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; tq preserve more usable open space, agricultural land, tree cover, recreation areas and scenic vistas,• and to expand the opportunity for the development of affordable hpusme without increasingthe a development's overall density. Development standards and review criteria are intended to ensure that lots are 2 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 35 • 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. BA. All Type I short subdivisions 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. Cluster subdivisions are also allowed in SR-1 SR-2 SR-3 SR-4.5 SR-6 and SR-8 zone districts subject to the regulations below. CB. 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, etEand so forth, unless otherwise modified by this chapter. DE. 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 shall be required in the • SR-1 zoning district within urban separator areas and may be allowed in SR-1, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts. 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 zomng 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 not located within Urban Separator areas maybe reduced by twenty-five percent of the minimum lot size for the underlyingzoning oning district.-is two thousafia five,,.,ndfoa (2,500) feet—. - Within Urban Separator areas, the minimum lot size of individual building lots 3 Amendment to KCC IZ04 • Cluster Developments 36 within a cluster j subdivision is two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, however, buffers and critical areas, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5), as amended, shall not be included in determining lot size, Phew lots created by any subdivision action shall be chdstered m groups not exceeding eight (8)units,-Tbere+flay-more than one (1) cluster will be allowed per project, and separation between cluster groups shall be a minimum of one hundred twenty (120) feet. 6. Lot width. The minimum lot width for individual building lots in a cluster subdivision shall be thirty (30) feet, [Outside Urban Separator areas]. T-the hearing examine,+ may allow a shared driveway easement to be included in the minimum lot width of irregular lots, sniallef than re,,uked within the provided the total driveway width is no greater than twelve(12) feet. 7. Other development standards. Development standards other than lot size and lot widthi shall be the same as are required within the zoning district in which the cluster reside]itial development is located. Design review is required for cluster development projects routside Urban Separator areasl using the review criteria in KCC 15.09.045(�),Multifamily design review. 8. A&tional approval Criteria for cluster development projects outside Urban Separator areas.l a. ' The proposed cluster development project shall have a beneficial effect }ipon 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 ep istmg or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive plan. b. I 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. 4 Amendment toKCCIZ04 Cluster Developments 37 • 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 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. The proposed cluster development protect 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 adiacent common areas. Buildings shall be related by common materials and roof styles, but contrast shall be provided throughout the site by the use of vaned materials, architectural detailing,building scale and orientation. • f. Building design shall be based on a unified design concept, particularly when construction is in phases. 98, Common open space a. The common open space in a cluster subdivision shall be a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the nonconstrained area of the parcel— for land partially or completely within Urban Separator areas. The nonconstrained area of the parcel includes all areas of the parcel, minus buffers and critical areas, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5). as amended_ and buffers. _ The remainder of the nonconstrained area of the parcel shall be the buildable area of the parcel. The common open space in all other cluster subdivisions shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25)percent of the entire parcel, whether or not the area is constrained by critical areas or buffers. b. Parkin areas,reas, public right of way, maneuvenng areas, roads, storage areas driveways, and yards within individual lots shall not be included in common open space 5 Amendment to KCC I2.04 • Cluster Developments j 38 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 c{ nnectivity 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 Ostas. cxznoas-asaa"F[i`a--vcrxxcr.r shall-net rw=used in ..............,,..b ...4 size a eemmon a spaee FeqwrearnefflAs elflus* ubdi. ^ All natural features (such a$ streams and their buffers, significant stFands 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 i residents of the development. f. Ownership of Sueh common open spaces may be retained unleF—eNN%ershi�--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. S CTION 2. Amendment. Section 12.04.578 of the Kent City Code is amended as follows. SOc. 12.04.578. Clustering 6 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 39 A [Outside Urban Separator areas7. Tthe purpose of the 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 adhering to the Planned density of the zone. BA. All Type II short subdivisions 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. Cluster subdivisions are also allowed in SR-I, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4.5, SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts subject to the regulations below. CR. 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, etEand so forth, unless otherwise modified by this chapter. DE. 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 shall be required in the SR-1 zoning district within urban separator areas and may be allowed in SR-I. SR-2, SR-3. SR-4.5, SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts. 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. 7 Amendment to KCC IZ04 . Cluster Developments 40 4. Permitted density. The maximum number of dwellmg 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. Loft 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 not located within Urban Separator areas may be reduced by twenty-five percent of the minimum lot size for the ;underlying zoning district. Within Urban Separator areas, the minimum lot size of individual building lots within a cluster subdivision is two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet; however, buffers and critical areas, as defined in RCW �6.70A.030(5) as amended, shall not be included in determining lot sib- lalnew lots)created by any subdivision action shall be clustered in groups not exceeding eight (8) units,: T-lbere may be more than one (1) cluster will be allowed per project, and separation between cluster groups shall be a minimum of one hundred twenty (I20)feet. 6. Lot width. The minimum lot width for individual building lots in a cluster subdivision shall be thirty (30) feet. [Outside Urban Separator areas.? Tthe hearing examinee may allow a 4welve "" &e 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. OMer 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 p_roiects [outside of Urban Separator areas) using the review criteria in KCC 15.09.045&),Multifamily design review. 8. Additional approval Criteria for cluster development proiects !outside Urban Separator areas.7 a. The proposed cluster development project shall have a beneficial effect �pon the community and users of the development, that would not 8 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments i i 41 • normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development, and it shall not be detrimental to existing or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive plan. b. 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 mcorporated into the design to benefit the development and the community. d. 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 intepjlated 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 when construction is in phases. 9$_ Common open space a. The common open space in a cluster subdivision shall be a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the nonconstrained area of the parcel: for land partially or completely within Urban Separator areas. The nonconstrained area of the parcel includes all areas of the parcel, minus buffers and critical areas, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5), as euFfently and he-Feina ftv_ amended., The 9 Amendment to KCC IZ04 Cluster Developments 42 i remainder of the ponconstramed area of the parcel shall be the buildable area of the parcel. The com�tr on open space in all other cluster subdivisions shall be a minimum of twenty-five (21) percent of the entire parcel whether or not the area is constrained by critical areas ok buffers. b. j Parking areas, public right of way, maneuvering areas, roads, storage areas dri, eways and yards within individual lots shall not be included in common opens ace. C. 1 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 opon 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 standsl,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 ope> 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. Ownersbip of Sxeb-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 appro�al of the city of Kent. 10 Amendment to KCC IZ04 Cluster Developments I 43 • SECTION 3. Amendment. Section 12.04.778 of the Kent City Code is amended as follows: Sec. 12.04.778. Clustering A. [Outside Urban Separator areas 1 Tthe purpose of the cluster development option is as follows: to permit greater flexibility in design and discourage development sRrawl• 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 adhering to the planned density of the zone. BA. All subdivisions 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. Cluster subdivisions are also allowed in SR-1 SR-2 SR-3 SR4.5 SR-6 and SR-8 zoning distncts subject to the regulations below. CB. 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, ete and so forth, unless otherwise modified by this chapter. DE. The provisions of KCC 12.04.745 through 12.04.770, as well as other applicable portions of this chapter, shall apply unless specifically excepted. In addition, the following standards shall apply to clustered subdivisions: 1. Location The cluster residential development shall be required in the SR-1 zoning district within urban separator areas. and may be allowed in SR-1. SR-2, SR-3 SR-4.5, SR-6 and SR-8 zoning distncts. 11 Amendment to KCC IZ04 Cluster Developments 44 2. Permitted uses The cluster residential development option shall include only single-family residential uses..., as defined in KCC 15.02.115. 3. Mlnimum 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 p4rcel as a whole for the zoning district in which it is located. 5. Lo't size. In the interest of encouraging flexibility in site design and the preservation iof open space, the minimum lot size of individual building lots within a cluster Subdivision in single family residential zoning districts not located within Urban Separator areas may be reduced by twen -five percent of the minimum lot size for the Vnderlying zoning district. is twe thousand five hun&ea (2,500) square Within Urban Separator areas, the minimum lot size of individual building lots wttbin a cluster subdivision is two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, however, bj ffers and critical areas, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5), as amended, shall npt be included in determining lot size,— 1>lnew lots created by any subdivision action shall be clustered in groups not exceeding eight (8) units,- Here Amore thiin one (1) cluster will be allowed per project,— and $separation between cluster groups shall be a minimum of one hundred twenty (120)feet. 6. Lot width. The minimum lot width for individual building lots in a cluster subdivision shall be thirty (30) feet. [Outside Urban Separator areas,] Tthe hearing examine( may allow a twelve "" feet—shared driveway easement to be included in the minimum lot width of irregular lots, smaller then r-equifea within the. di ♦ t i 1 ich the 1 to 'd tint development is legated provided�.ri�t—:i7'-v�x=c-�, �a�.c e.a��vi—i���o�.�naa--cam .� o . proyided the total driveway width is no greater than twelve(12)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 (outside Urban Separator areas) using the review criteria in KCC 15.09.045(C),Multifamily design review. 12 Amendment to KCC IZ04 Cluster Developments 45 8. Additional approval Criteria for cluster development protects !outside Urban Separator areas l 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 detrimental to existing or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive plan. b. 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 usingtechniques chniques 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. The proposed cluster development protect 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 matenals 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 when construction is in phases. 98. Common open space 13 Amendment to KCC IZ04 Cluster Developments I 46 a. The common open space in a cluster subdivision shall be a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the nonconstrained area of the parcel— for land partially or completely within Urban Separator areas. The nonconstrained area of the parcel includes all areas of the parcel, minus buffers and critical areas, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5), as etirEently and heftinaftef amended_, and bR&r-s- The remainder of the Inonconstramed area of the parcel shall be the buildable area of the parcel. The common open space in all other cluster subdivisions shall be a minimum of twenty-five W) percent of the entire parcel, whether or not the area 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 sp#ce. 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 ol*n spaces as well as existing or planned public parks and trails, and maintains scenic ivistas. d. Gfitteal amas and- buffers shall not be used in deteEmining le size Ad eeFAFAqa open - e e o entsin a eltis4er- subdivisien. All natural features (such as streams and their buffers, significant stfands 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, agriculturajl areas, or resource lands; impairs scenic vistas and the connectivity between the opei space provided by the clustered development and adjacent open 14 Amendment to KCC IZ04 Cluster Developments 47 spaces; degrades wildlife habitat; and impairs the recreational benefits enjoyed by the residents of the development. f. Ownership of Sueh—common open spaces may be retained imiler ev,nershtp--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 4. -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. 15 Amendment to KCC IZ 04 Cluster Developments 48 6. Porches and private shared courtyard features may be built within the front building setback Hine. 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 requiremgnts 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 sidei 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 4RT-16 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. Structured for feeding, housing, and care of animals, except household pets, shall be set back fifty(50)feet from any property line. 13. Additional setbacks for the agriculture general AG zoning district. a. Stfuctures for feeding, housing, and care of animals shall be set back fifty(50) feet from any property line. 16 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 49 . b. Transitional conditions shall exist when an AG district adjoins a 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. 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. 17 Amendment to KCC 1204 Cluster Developments 50 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 alloiwed shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet when the lot is greater than one Q1) acre. 20. The follo4ving uses are prohibited: a. The removal of topsoil for any purpose. b. G>,,jade and fill operations; provided, that limited grade and fill may be approved as neeged to construct permitted buildings or structures. i 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 manner consistent with agricultural uses. d. Dlumping or storage of nonagricultural solid or liquid waste, or of trash,rubbish or[noxious materials. i 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 permitted structure and shall be completely fenced. 22. Mobile some park combining district, MHP. The standards and procedures of the city mobile home park code shall apply. General requirements and standards for mobile hom$park design,KCC 12 04 055, mobile home parks, Ch. 12.05 KCC. 18 Amendment to KCC IZ04 Cluster Developments 51 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 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: 19 Amendment to KCC IZ04 . Cluster Developments 52 a. Fir$ 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. Emorgency 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 extenor 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 lanais 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 required to be clustered, subject to the provisions of Ch. 12 04 KCC, entitled "Subdivisions." Cluster subdivisions are also authorized in SR-I, SR-2, SR-3, SR- 4.5, SR-6, and SR'8� zoning districts. The density in a cluster subdivision 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 zoning district in which it is located. The common open space in a cluster subdivision shall be a minimum of fifty (50) percent of they nonconstrained area of the parcel: for land partially or completely within Urban Separators areas. The nonconstrained area of the parcel includes all areas of the paiicel, minus buffers and critical areas, as defined in RCW 36 70A.030(5), as eeFFently and heFema fie_ amended,and bu fefs. The remainder of the nonconstrained area of the parcel shall be the buildable area of the parcel. The common open s}�a e in all other cluster subdivisions shall be a minimum of twe=- 20 Amendment to KCC IZ04 Cluster Developments i 53 five (25)percent of the entire parcel whether or not the area is constrained by critical areas or buffers. a Parking areas, public nght of way, maneuvering areas, roads, storage areas driveways and Yards within individual lots shall not be included in common open space b. —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. Gritieal areas md buff buffefs shall not be d in a g lot size an' r. —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 epen d. 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. e. —Ownership of Sueh—common open spaces may be retained andei eyAxefskip-by the owner or subdivider, conveyed to residents of the development, conveyed to a homeowners association for the benefit of the residents of the 21 Amendment to KCC 1204 Cluster Developments 54 development, conveyed to the city with the city's consent and approval or conveyed to another party union approval of the city of Kent. The minnhlum lot size of individual lots within a clustered subdivision in single family residential zoning districts not located within Urban Separator areas may be reduced > v twenty-five percent of the minimum lot size for the underlying zoning district, and the minimum lot width is thirty (30) feet. Within Urban Separator areas, the minimum lot size of individual building lots within a cluster subdivision is twb thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, and the minimum lot width is thirty (30) feet; however, —buffers and critical areas, as defined in RCW 36.70A.030(5), ai amended, shall not be included in determining lot size. 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 mmunuin two thousand five hundred (2,500) square foot lot size. Within Urban Separator:areas, N11ew lots created by any subdivision action shall be clustered in groups not exceeding eight (8) units,- There may be more than one (1) cluster will be allowed per project,-. and&separation between cluster groups shall be a minimum of one hundred twenty (120) feet. Sight-obscuring fences are not permitted along 4luster lot lines adjacent to the open space area. Outside Urban Separator areas, 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. Development standards other than lot size and lot width shall be the same as I are required within the zoning district in which the cluster residential development is located. Designs review is required for cluster development proiects---Qhtm develeflMOR4 i9feieets shall be evaluated outside Urban Separator areas using the review criteria efin KCC 15.09.045(C), Multifamily design review. The cluster development project outside Urban Separator areas also shall comply with the following additiogal approval criteria: 22 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 55 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 detrimental to existing or potential surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive plan. b. 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. Usual 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 techniques such as separation of building_grouns, 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 rn oiect. e. The proposed cluster development project shall promote vanM 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 ja-gfgu !a:shall be related by common matenals and roof styles but contrast shall be provided throughout the site by the use of varied matenals architectural detailing, building scale and orientation. f Buildiniz design shall be based on a unified design concept, particularly when construction will be in phases. 23 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments 1 56 32. For multit'amily 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 separatio6 shall be established through the Uniform Building Code(UBC). UCTION S. - Effect 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. S CTION 6. —Severabihty. If any one or more section, subsections, or sentences of this Ordinance are held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such decision shall noti affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance and the same shall remain in full force and effect. S CTION 7. —E,dective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty dais(30)days from and after its passage as provided by law. JIM WHITE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRENDA JA6513ER, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: TOM BRUBAKER, CITY ATTORNEY 24 Amendment to KCC 12.04 Cluster Developments i 57 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. (SEAL) BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK P�inlYJcdnvme'CluperDevelopmenb doc 25 Amendment to KCC 12.04 • Cluster Developments 58 This page intentionally left blank. i i i i 59 • Cluster Housm, 7/21/03 12.04.263 Clustering. 12 04 578 12 04 778 Purpose 'the purpose of the clustei development option is to pentnt greater flexibility in design and discourage development sprawl, facilitate the economical and efficient provision of public services, provide a more eflicient use of land in harmony with its natural characleristics, preserve more usable open space, agricultural land, tree cover, recreation areas, or Scenic vista~, and expand the opportunity for the developmcirt of affordable housing without uicreasmg the development's overall density Development standaicls and review entena are Intended to ensure that lots are consistent with the desired character of the zone, allowing lots to vary ni size and shams provided the manned intensity of the zone is adhered to A. All (Type I) (Type II short (subdivisions) 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._('luster subdivisions also may be autlionzed in SR-1. SR-2, SR-3, SR-4 5, SR-6 and SR-8 zonine districts. 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, etEand so forth, unless otherwise modified by this chanter. C. The provisions of(KCC 12.04.235 through 12.04.255) (KC'C 12 04 545 through 12 04 570) (KC'C 12 04 745 through 12 04 770), 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 vnc 11) short(subdivisions): 1. LoLution. The cluster residential development shall be required in the SR- I zoning district within urban separator areas. Cluster residential developinent also may be authorized in SR-I, SR-2, SR-3, SR-4 5, SR-6 and SR-8 zoning districts • 1 60 Clustcl I lousri ; Zoning Cori Anmidmcnt 7/21/01 Page 2 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 6e no greater than the number of dwelling units allowed for the parcel asil a whole for the zoning district in which it is located. 5. Lot size Option A: Same as in �rban Separator Areas. 5. Lot sire. In the interest of encouraging fiexibility in Site designi and the preservation Of open space the minimuht lot size of individual building lots within a cluster subdivision is twlo thousand fire hundred (2,500) square feet. New lots created by any Fsubdivision action shall be clustered in groups not exceeding ei«ht (8) units. There may be more than one (1) cluster per Project Separation jbetween cluster groups shall be a minimum of one hundred twenty (1241� feet. Option 13:- (No change ter Urban Separator Areas) Other than Urban Separator Areas: 5. Lot sire. In the interest of encouraging flexibility in site design and the preservation of open space, the mininl1w,-IM slim }m ` arm-u--cn °-+�ic'i-�*l'kbc#+F+sl'Hn--r, '�cr-civvzm=ac`iThve handie-S s a e�there 1s no minimum lot svc �%ith1n a clu"tel subdivision in single fauni�y residential zoning districts not located Kithin Urban Separator areas. ! 1 14 Is not o . Option C: (No change to Urban Separator Areas) Some restrietio:a h other than Urban Separator Areas: 5. Lot size. In the interest of encouraLying flexibility iij site design and the preservation of open space, the vn;nit vim lilt cife ;el indiviilnnl huildi k:B, :N` d s*c I 61 C'lustet Ilouvng- Zonme Code Amendmatt j!aM I'a�3 subdi3vision in single fainfly residential zoning districts not located within Urban Separator areas may be reduced by 25'%i of the minimum lot size for the underlying zoning district. 6. Lot width. Options A, 13 and C: -Fl �b a e-ltister—sttydi y (?0mot The nuntmunl lot width for individual budding lots in it cluster subdivision shall he thnty (30) 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. f)csign review is re uired for cluster development projects Cluster development piolects shall be evaluated using the review criteria of KCC 15 00 045(C) Multifamily design review R. Additional approval cnleria n The pionosed cluster development protect shall have a beneficial effect anon the community and users of the development, which would not normally be achieved by traditional lot-by-lot development and shall not be detrimental to carstint of potential surrowidmr, land uccs its defined by the compteltensiseplan b The proposed cluster development protect shall be compatible with the evrstinri land use or property that abuts or is dnectly across the street ftoni the ,ubiect property Compatibility includes but is not limited to apparent s17e scale mass and atchitectwal design c Unusual and sensitive enviroiimental features of the site shall be preserved inauitained and utcor7aortted into the design to benefit the development and the community d The proposed cluster development nroicct shall provide areas of openness by using techniques such as separation of building groups, and use of well-designed open space and landscapmrT Opcn space shall be intesiated wdhna the cluster development nrorecl rather than he an i�nlaled element of the protect e 't he proposed cluster development pi oleci shall promote variety and innovation m site and buildrngy destgn, and shall include architectural and site fentim,,; flat nrnmole eornmmnity inforictinn anrf a r rccihllliv cnrh 'tc norrhes rir•_�n�l�h icionZl �rnr�le ec ci�t r�..,•,1L-ch•.,ll y. r . li.,cent I I ay:> anu uulu�-�u� • 62 Qtistci I lousini;--7,omn >>C� Amcndmcnt 7;21/03 '�-4 common areas Building~Iin wroups shall be related by common ❑rlterlals and roof sales, but contras[ shall be provldcd throughout the site by the use of varied_matenals, arehite6tiral detaihna,, building, scale and orientation f Ruilding desi shall be based on a unified design conccnt painculaily when constiuctjon will be m phases 89. 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 for land -)arually pi completely within Urban Separators, and a minimum of twenty-five (25) percent of the +xx'e Ife parcel, in critical areas �r nonconstrained, for all other sinalc family residential area~. Parking areas, public rights of wav, maneuvering areas, roads, storage dCr,� and vards -r ithin individual lots shall not be included in common openspace. The nonconstrained area of the parcel includes all 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 the manner that best connects and increases protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, connects and protects area wildlife habitat, creatos connectivity between the open space provided by the clustering and other adjacent open spaces as well as existing or planned public parks and Oalls, and maintains scenic vistas. Within Urban Separator areas, Ccnticpl 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 rand rock outcropping), as well as sensitive areas (such as steep slopes and wetlands and their buffers) shall be preserved. Future development of the jcommon 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, agricultufal areas, or resource lands; impairs scenic vistas and the connectivity between the open space provided by the clustered development and arhacent nnan enarPe• dearaAes wildlife kni it'* 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 subdivldjer, conveyed to residents of the development, rnn�ravad to a hnmen,i,nor�� seeoctatton fcr the ho.,ni:. Futi,...,....a,...... c.w.. ' �J v yyllylll.VL y 1VJ,Vy11 LJ Vl 411y i i 63 Clustei I lousing Zoning Code Amendmcnl • 7111/01 Pae q-5 5 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. 3 55 1, § 5, 3-20-01 15.04.180 Agricultural and residential land use development standard conditions. (NOTE• Reference applicable note #31 onh,for clustering issue belore LU&PB.) 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 avgrPgltP side yard of thirty (ZQl feet chall ha prnyida i, A .-Hu.-im of ten (10) feet shall be provided for each side yard. On a comer 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; Inn\UPi/Pr rvnarrll Pee of Int • 64 Cluslcl Housing -Zonm>,CoN Amendment 7/21/03 I�a�c 6 (30) feet. For multifamily townhouse developments that attach three (3) units or less, in the MR-T12 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 fifty(50)feet from any property line. 13. Additional setbacks 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 property,line. b Transitional conditions shall exist when an AG district adjoins a residential district containipg a density of two (2) dwelling units or more per acre or a proposed residential area indicated on the city comprehensive plan Such transitional conditionIs shall not exist where the separation includes an intervening use such as 9 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 Khali be provided. c. Setbacks, Green River Iodustnal 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 comprehensible 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)feFt. 15. The distance between principal buildings shall be at least one-half(1/2) 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 limitatinnc shall not apply to hams and ci_lnc; inroinrled� 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 a`idifi�ngl fnni�f lrwil.i�„n n,,,l,r 65 C'lusici Housing-Zoning Code Amendment 7/211 PPage7 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 prohibited: 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 permitted 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 rrigtn�t nr one hitnrirrrl (]QQl feet Of a erngta_fgm1.Ar .yirh in one hiwnilra,Ml (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. 2'7 Aiiinimwm 1Ct crew 'P. i't th^ ^a, C.J 1.a.,-A., A !Q [nn\ .. 4r + F ' • Va�a. VNJNa •Y N'IMUU `V,JVVj J�UYLV 1VVL 1VL • i 66 Clustci liousiii , Zoning Coda Amendment 7alio3 Paec 8 the first two (2) dwellingj units, and three thousand five hundred (3,500) square feet for each additiolnal dwelling unit. 28. The following zoning i�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, 0,0-MU,NCC,CC, GC,DC or DCE. 29. All multifamily townbouse developments in the MR-T zone shall be condominiums only. A dondommium plat shall be filed and recorded pursuant to Chapter 64.32 iRCW 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 ithe 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 CityI of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map, dwelling units shall be required to be clustered, subject to the provisions of Ch. 12.04 KCC, Subdivisipns. Clustei subdivisions also may be authoived in SR-1 SR-2 SR-3. SR 5 SR-6 and SR-8 -ronin(= distracts The density in a cluster subdivision 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 zoning di4rict in which it is located. The common open space its a cluster subdivision shall be a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the nonroi[lctrained area of the tnarrel fnr ]qnrl wiriigtty nr completely within Urban 'epaiators, alld a nVtlllhlllll Of t­eiity-five (25) percent of the parcel, in critical areas�or nonconstrained, for all other single family residential areas The nnnrnncfrain?il area Of ih parr-ol innh,.ieU III .'..rea.� �f the p3reel, ,,,,,..., 67 Clusiei I IousmS -Zonmg Code Amendinent . Eag- 3 Ya�!c 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. Within Urban Separator areas, C=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 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. 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. ]Option A: Same as in Urban Separator Areas. The minimum lot size of individual lots i0thin a clustered subdivision is two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, and the minimum lot Nidth is thirty (30) feet. In the event that common open space prohibits deg elopment of one siny-le-family residence on the parcel, the common open space will be reduced by the amount necessary to meet the minimum two thousand five hundred (2.5110) Cn11Are fnnt Int Qi?P, New Intc erP'_A_tPd her inni subdivision action shall be clustered in 1roups not exceedim., eight (8) units. There may be more than one (1) cluster per proiect. Separation between cluster croups Shall be a minimum of one hundred otenty 020) PPP} Ciaht_nhcrn r:nrt fPnrnc nr. nnf nPrmi}}-A nL,nrt ri nclm• 1,.+ lino. • 68 Custer IIoubutg -7.oningCod�Amcndmcnt 7/21/03 Paec 10 adjacent to the open spa area. Option 8: (No change 0 Urban Separator Areas) Other than Urban Separator Areas: There As no minimum tot size of individual lots within a clustered subdivision in jsinple family residential zonin;! districts not located within Urban $eparator areas is two thousand r -, III d-ed (2,500) sqtiaie +rail, an'. !the minimum lot width is thirty (30) feet. in Elie re-adence an the pareel , eoniman open space .fill d by ♦w , Yh .11 h � amobblit ,e ... to ,,,eO 4he .,....,.flit..,, twe thoki and C. e h. ndied (2,400) sgibi%j:e fiat of size New lois eleated b any sLibdivision action ?i:ul4--t9lz b MInIflitinj of eii-I i,•.... refi4v 20) f;eet Sight-obscuring fences are not permitted along cluster lots lines adjacent to the open space area. Option C: (No change to Urban Separator Areas) Some restrictions in other than Urban Separator Areas: The minimum lot size of individual lots within a clustered subdivision in single family zoning districts not located within Urban Separator areas may be reduced bV 25'%/ of the minimum lot size for tf a underlving zoning district. Parking areas. public rights of wav, iianeuvering areas,roads, storage areas, and yards within individual lots shall not be hicluded in common open space. The minimum lot width is 30 feet. Sight-obscuring feuc-es are not permitted along cluster tot lines adjacent to the open space area.] Development Standards other than lot s17e and lot width shall be the same as are requried within the '.7onim= district in which the cluster residential development is located Oesign review is required fix cluster development projects Cluster development piotects shall be evaluated using the ievie%N, criteria of KCC 15 09 0 5 C Multifianifly design ievieNN The cluster development proiect ak shall comply with the follomm), additional approval criteria T a The proposed clustei development protect shall have a beneficial efferr Inl,)n 1hr, rnm mpmlly ttinA perlc r f th 1Fi alnnmr l u.hirh , .ntil i rint 17orrnall)� be achiel ed hytr,dit,onal iot-by-lot development and shall not be detrimental to existing or'potential surrounding land uses as defined by the comprehensive plan i 69 Clusici I lousuig -Zoning Code Amendment • t'jgc I I �c 1 b The poposed 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 sire, scale, mrtiti and architectinal 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 clustei development protect shall provide aieas of openness by using tcchn�ic ues such as separation of building groups, and w c of well-deliec1 open sauce and landscaping Open space shall he integrated within the cluster development project rather than be an isolated element of tilePlodect c 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, such as porches, de- emphasized garages. sidewalks/walkways and adlacent common areas Buildings in_gioups shall be related by common materials and roof style but contrast shall be provided throughout the site by the use of vaned materials, architectural detailmir, buildim* scale and oiientation f Building design Shall be haled on a unified design concept partuulaily when construction will be in phases 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, 8-17-99; Ord. No. 3523, § 2,9-19-00;Ord.No. 3551, § 13, 3-20-01; Ord.No. 3600, § 3, 5-7-02) i 70 This page intentionally, left blank. 71 • .. o o � 4 h UU m O r F N C O r rQl � 0� �° � � G 'O+ ❑ u ry n U N O O r C C 4 Y N O � e E I v Y y eb� 3 0 a o o w z z >. a � w 7210 s 72 b cr v� c ry z . (n ?• vi LID V a � PLO ° 0 04 N 4 Rom-. N V1 N U U VxO P. JVO N 5: 0 0 m CA lc+. A _ _ Imo -, J _ - n Y N 0 0 0'O O Q. h r .•• z z V y = A � C � Mies ma° nOd3 a 72 This page intentionally;left blank. 73 CITY OF Jim White,Mayor CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES January 16,1996 Planning Committee Members Present: Cily Attomey's Office Leona Orr,Chair Laurie Eveiich Tim Clark Jon Johnson Other City Staff Kristen Langler,PW Planning S 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 �n`T^ E F,4ivff'L Y 1(E�1D$NTIAL CLUSTER&ZERO LOT LINE]DEVELOPMENT 70NW CODE & cl TnnrVISIO t CODE ,aME'n1FiMENTS#ZCA;95-21#SCA-95-1 (L. Phillips) Planner Linda Phillips outlined the pending iccums=z:.air,g we Single Family Residential Cluster &Zero Lot Line Develnpment?�r;:ng 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. • 74 Planning Committee Minutes January 16, 1996 Page 2 Affgrdability-Sixty perdent(60%)of Kent's current population is under the age of 35. Median income increased from$20,407 in 1980 to$32,341 in 1990(a 58%increase),where housing prices increased 100%from 1980 to 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 Safety There are concerns regarding what the minimum safe and viable street widths are specifically foir Kent. The question was asked whether narrow streets would allow enough maneuvering and risibility in Kent. Parking -The following hues were discussed: a Enforcing restricted parking and no parking areas a Providing west parking on a common lotto reduce street parking a Curbs-standard vs.rolled(possiblity of sidewalk parking) Sidewalks r 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 curb to curb with sidewalks on both sides of the street and no on- street parking. 2. The standard residential street is a 32 foot wide curb to curb roadway with sidewalks e n both sides of the street,on street parking provided on both sides of the street which allows for approximately 16 feet for two way accea-rwr vehicle. The 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 park> g on both sides of the street;there is only enough width for travel in one direlction 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 its designed around the ability of a fire truck to enter local access streets wi*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. 75 • 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 ladder 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 neat schools. Chair Orr added that sidewalks should be required in the multi-family developments. #Cu a 96 1 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCO EORATE THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN OF THE KENT & FEDERAL WAY SCHOOL DISTRICTS (L.Evezicb) Kent School District representative Fred High requested that the Committee consider the next step involved in implementing the school impact fees-adopting the school districts capital facilities plan into the Comprehensive plan. Mr. High presented elements of the Kent School Districts 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 continu;na o.nth rw*t. iy Cc�tcu i'ur the Federal Way school districts. At this time the Feder Way khool 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 impart 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 heating on January 30, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. 76 i i This page intentionally left blank. i 77 • CITY OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT - (206)859-3390 Jim White,Mayor MEMORANDUM JANUARY 16, 1996 MEMO TO: LEONA ORR, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE FROM: LINDA PHILLIPS,PLANNER SUBJECT: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES-CLUSTER AND ZERO LOT LINE #ZCA-95-2 AND#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 local needs. LP/mp:a:ccpcI 16.mem Attachments _r• T:;rrr Laurie Plannino nirvrtnr T f n_u__ n7-_�. rrea oa11a57um,i Manning 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 ` 1,. 80 CITY OF WrR4WIT - - - - - - CITY OF KENT Jim White,Mayor PLANNIN (206)859-3390 MEMORANDUM November 2l, 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##SC, A-95-1) The Planning Commi$sion,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 reconumendtd 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 4ttempt to facilitate review of the recommended additions and revisions,the recommendations are presented.in approximate code format. This format is intended for d:,sc,:-sion only;not ai; the iumi 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*elated codes maybe necessary for the n„_rlrwMsP of cross re I�rcu%A;ug al,u integrating new or rev'ised 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 accojpnmodate 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 punning and housing goals with predominantly single family housing,since approximately 68%of the existing housing in Kent is multifamily housing. Two residential development patterns,discussed in this memo,cluster and zero lot line development,have been used in other jurisdictions to provide opportunities to meet housing goals while maintaining the character of single family neighborhoods. In addition,cluster development provides opportunities to presgrve open space for commum is,and recreation,natural resources, 81 Single Family Residential Cluster and Zero Lot Line Development(4ZCA-95-2 and#SCA-95-1) November 21, 1995 Page 2 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. 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. LP/mp:a:ccpcl l21.mem Attachments cc: Jim P.Barris,Planning Director Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager 82 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. #-ZCA 95 2 &#S!t A-95-1 CLi1STERlDEVELOPMENT-(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 obligajdon 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 R1-7.2 zoning code district. This proposal would make 5,000 square feet the smallest lot size in the Ordinance. Ms.Phillips discut sed 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 100%. 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 he 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 rr.d thele wwdd be no prubirm wilit locating buildings five feeit apart. Another issue wu 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 e vt,,C'�.,.-k.1 ,vie'lG YLew. It wsis i i 50 co file and takes about thirty days to process. A condition t use permit appiic�r ion is then filed at a cost of$500. The conditional use permit process takes about two months and!requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. This requirement is not meant to be use$ to deny the use, but allow public input and apply conditions to make the use compatible with burrounding 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 thaat have been developed under King County and Bellevue's reduced sheet standards. The cluster development provisions will still work without reduced street standards. However, #ZC,A-95-10 M1-C�mendmenf 3 83 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 reducing the street standards 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 provision of common recreation space,and whether or not that would need to be provided in addition 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 Department 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 Stringham 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 additional information needed,they are simply issues that have not been resolved by the Commission. Commissioner Stringham further questioned the issue of reduced street standards. Ms. Phillips clarified that cluster development 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 Dable 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 street standards would remain the same. At this time there is not a proposal to reduce street standards. Com ss o Mack n'.—MIn that n..a.A f lu T. .7 1 would L Tn2 G'neI•' ,.rYYCi ViY.JYed YtYV Wly reYYbJI lOr Y V1W1tW LVu�,.,g uivc,Opmcnt iVowu,l3vP, a public hearing through a 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 Maclsaw 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 some 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. 4 - -- — 84 ' Planning Commissionjlvlinutes October 23, 1995 Commissioner Dahle questioned what the cost was to hold a public hearing. Ms.Phillips explained that the Planning De0artment has not evaluated the actual cost, although there is a lot of time devoted for research of d reporting for a public hearing. Commissioner Dahle questioned if the cost of the hearing is add$d to the fee for development. Mr. Satterstrom agreed that it would cost something to go tbrou4h the public hearing process because it will add time. Cluster developments are generally more thon 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 prrpose 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 jclarified that there would not be a vast amount of money involved in each individual land develo�mcnt. 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 Macls�ac 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 reed that the Commission needs to remember that the Planning Commission has already recomm ded 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 Flowed by the Comprehensive Plan. Some optional flexibility is already allowed,for example,Oe 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 Plot width". Commissioner Stringliam 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 Drice and when VMI r m_po .t> ..- ___ r.,.........,..� ..,u..,., uc uwct uuugs you have to deal with-mitigation fees, conditional use pert fees, and all the traditional delays, it just makes the problem worse. He agrees that we need td avoid any time delays as time is money in the construction business. Commissioner Stringliam 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 Stringharn questioned why we should now require a public hearing for lots five to eight in size, what efit 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 UCA-95-10M1-CAmen�mew 5 NZCA-9S-I Chwer n&.!�1 ! ---�— -- - -- - i 85 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 14 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 to 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 asking questions to Ms.Phillips. Chair Morrill opened the public hearing. Mr.Paul Morford,P.O.Box 6345,Kent,WA 98064. Mr.Morford addressed the water problem and the site coverage. He has a piece 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 st^ndardc 1'ZS a big-Sue and irit u`n:j%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 Rent is on small lots. The last time he tried to voice his opinion on not having a minimum lot size and then was a lot 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 Commons,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 neighbors are notified during the short plat process and can speak at the short plat #ZCA-95-10MJ-CAmendment 6 __ 86 Planning Commissipn 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 Dahlje questioned what to do with small children 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 living. Each time you make the lot size bigger or the process more cumbersome,you plush the families into apartments. Commissioner Nuss questioned Mr. Morfordes comparison of apartment living and cluster developments. Tom SharA 11126$E 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.i Sharp questioned whether we actually wanted the in-fill. Commissioner St4gham asked staff what percentage of the Comprehensive Plan relies on in-fill and redevelopment o 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 in-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 501 foot lot width that goes a long way in offering a subdivision alternative. As mentioned before I 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 subdivisior,L A small portion of the capacity is dependent on cluster development. This is another way in which peoplt;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 dial he think they got that finite in the n-a ysise Chair Morrill closets public hearing. C[1mr111_cci0 il�lkl� �a umcntw tuc Cvtuuuaaion has no objection to 5,000 square foot lots. Howevcr, `ire wa 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 Parkes involvement in the cluster development process. Ms.Phillips explained that the only time that the Parkes Department would become involved in a development differently than thgy 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 Parkes Department could waive the fee #IZCA-95-10 MI-CAmje ent 7 87 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 fee in lieu would be used for neighborhood parks. Chair Morrill stated that three years ago all parks 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 enough 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 finther clarification of the fee in lieu and how it applies here with the cluster development Ms.Phillips explained that it only becomes an issue if the entire 20% that is reserved for cluster open 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 again 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 does 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 subdivision 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 in lieu 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 be tuC fen is only paid if someone decides not to provide the open and/or park space. Commissioner 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 sauare feet to 3,000 square feet so there would be at least 2,000 square feet given vp for some type of open space. Ms. Phillips explained that the 201/o must be recreation space not just open space. It can not be wet or sloped to qualify. Mr. Satterstrom 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 multifamily 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-95-10M1-CAmendment _ 8 _- ----__ -- ----- 88 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 to single family. Th6 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. i Chair Morrill indica*d 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 Nus�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. Shy believes that the 3,000 square foot lot sizes are too small and she would like to focus rather on gtpality rather than quantity. Commissioner Maclsaac 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 ebildren,our grandch:tdren especially,are not going to be able w afford any land of single family house and they are going to be forced into some kind of a ghetto situation unless we do something about cutting 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 :,,-,, :s ya55cu uL i tai was an American dream for everyone of us to have a single family hose. We are the responsil le 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 Kept a whole lot to focus on quality. 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-I0 MI-CAmo dmer t 9 i 89 Planning Commission Minutes - 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 per 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 at 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 houses closer/tighter. An example of this would be property with steep slopes, and through clustering they could have ten housed crammed together. Commissioner Dahle questioned the price of$139,500 as being affordable. She also stated that the children need more of a yard to play. Commissioner Epperly explained that the average home in Kent sells for$190,000. Commissioner Siringham questioned why if the fee in lieu is mute in cluster housing why is it even in there. Mr.Satterstrom 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 Stringham 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 neighhnrhnnd when appr�vi:.g s»b�ivisions. 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 Heineman voiced his concern for the 3,000 square foot minimum. He suggested that a 4,200 square foot minimum could be a compromise. It would allow for some basic modification of the basic R1-5.0 in a cluster development. 90 Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 Commissioner Stringham asked if there were any staff comments on Commissioner Heineman's comments. Ms.NIlips commented that the smallest lot size that has already been recommended by the Planning C mmission 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 RI-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 wails. 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 Nubs 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-yery nice homes with attached walls. He believes allowing common wails is a good idea. Commissioner Da4le 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 Dable commented that it is still multifamily; i Commissioner Nuss stated that the houses back East are a lot different when compared to what we have locally. Chats Morrill commented that it would be possible to build with common walls and still make nice looking neighborhood. Commissioner Ma4Isaac questioned Mr.Ruth's concept and wondered if attaching walls would give the residents a big lack yard. Mr.Satterstrom explained that he had not discussed specific concepts with Mr.Ruth. NUL, Satterstrom stated that Mr.Ruth indicated that he wouldn't benefit from cluster dcVcivywGJItb wiu'70M LIK; U10Wmi"vi wunmun walis. Commissioner Stringham voiced his concerned with adding additional items to the Ordinance at such a late date aftor such a long deliberation. He suggested that if Mr.Ruth wanted to pursue the addition to the Ord�nauce that he should go to the City Council with his concerns. Commissioners MacIsaac and Nus�agreed. Commissioner DWe questioned if developers could build common wall structures with a nonconforming pe¢mit. Commissioner Stringbam explained that common walls could only be built #ZCA-95-10 MI-C Amendment 1 i 91 Planning Commission Minutes 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. Commissionet 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 tenor 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 Stringham explained that ten or more units is a full subdivision Commissioner Epperly MOVED to accept staff s 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. Be 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 less than one acre. Motion failed. Commissioner Stringham 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 the 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 Maclsaac. 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 fain fnr a lack of a SECOND. Commissioner Stringham recommended for each Commissioner to explain their stand. Chair Morrill agreed. Commissioner Pattison explained his total opposition to cluster housing. IsCommissioner MacIsaae feels that the proposal is too restrictive to be used. #ZC4-95-10 Ml-CAmendment 12 i 92 i Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1995 Commissioner Heinoman suggested to table this issue. Chair Morrill agree. He felt more input was still needed. Commissioner MacI�6ac questioned if there was public input early on. Ms.Phillips explained that the Planning Department held two separate forms. They received input from both developers and residents. Commissioner Mac,Rsaac voiced his concern with not coming to a decision after all this time. Commissioner Nuss�agreed with Commissioner Pattison to table the issue. Commissioner Macl�aac questioned how the Commission could receive more input Commissioner Epperly suggested al subcommittee. Commissioner Stream MOVED to continue the cluster housing Ordinance to an unspecified date so that the Commiss on can get finther research and request that staff seek written information from the development coinmunity to use as a comparison. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Mar-Isaac requested staff comments on motion. Mr. Satterstrom explained that there has already put a lotlmore time on this project than anticipated. The calendar for the rest of the year is already full and ifthe 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 isdt any state mandated time f*e. Commissioner StriARham withdrew his motion. Commissioner Heineman withdrew his second. Commissioner Strpngha n MOVED to forward the cluster housing Ordinance without recommendation ensuring that staff includes all of the Commissions comments from this hearing 1 '!t 11 Fl1.'' n..,l e s il. ♦ .n.n FC .7 l�nm•n�nninnn�u�inumnn cErnrm>rn wl•� M1VLlb ••1W 1.11 VL 41M Y111Y11WL1YYW Y1M• ••Y1V V4W W. VVyy)uJV)V�.vl Y.�u.wl Yli✓. motion. Commissioner Maolsaac voiced his concern with the Commission deadlocking issues. He was concerned that the t ommission might not be doing their job if they can't come to an agreement on issues. Commissio tier Heineman agreed it might be time to cut this one loose. Motion carried i #ZCl-93-10 M1-CA*ndmenr 13 93 Planning Commission Minutes - October 23, 1995 Commissioner Stringham voiced his concern with the nonconforming use issues. King County allows some time for the owner to rebuild. He MOVED to request staff to draft a code amendment that would allow a similar set of circumstances in the City of Kent for those areas that are newly annexed. Chair Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Epperly 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.Harris c:\users\doc\m inutes.925 #ZCA-95-10 MI-CAmendmem 14 94 CITY of t V\Ltffl'T . CITY OF KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT (206) 859-3390 +�vncu� MEMORANDUM August 28, 1995 MEMO TO: Chairman Kent Morrill and Planning Commission Members FROM: LindaiPhillips, Planner RE: Cluster and Zero Lot Line Development - #ZCA-05-2 and #SCA-95-1 A major issue addressed in the Kent Planning Goals and Comprehensive Plan is the provision of a variety of housing opportunities to accommodate expected population growth within Kent Isgrowth boundary in the next two decades. City residents and elected and ap ointed officials have expressed a preference for meeting growth lanning and housing goals with predominantly single family housing,; since approximately 681c 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, natlural 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. lni 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 intehded for discussion only; not as the final legal ordinance tormat and code language which would be eventualiy drafted and reviewed by the City Attorney for the final adoption. Other changes too the related codes may be necessary for the purpose of cross referencing and integrating new or revised sections with existing codes} 1 , i 95 DRAFT - For Discussion Purposes Only CLUSTER ZONING CODE SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS 8/28/95 RECOMMENDED NEW ZONING CODE SECTIONS AUTHORIZING CLUSTER SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS: (Underline indicates existing zoning code sections. The zoning code does not contain existing cluster provisions, so the major portion of this recommendation represents a new Zoning Code section.) The following sections are recommended to be added to the Kent Zoning Code, Chapter 15.02. Definitions, Chapter 15.04. Single- family residential districts, and Chapter 15.08 . General and Supplementary Provisions: Section 15.02, Definitions Sec. 15.02.071 Cluster Housing Development. Cluster Housing is a residential site design which complies with underlying zoning in respect to overall density, permits clustering of residential lots on a portion of the property, or clustering of more than one residence on a single property, provided that a minimum area of land, usually in open space, is reserved for permanent preservation or common use by homeowners within the development . Detached housing may be clustered on the buildable part of the tract in a number of ways such as housing on small and large lots, and zero lot line site plan design. Sec. 15.02. 581. Zero Lot Line Development Zero lot line development is a method of site planning which allows each single family detached house to be built directly adjacent to one side lot line, subject to provisions of this title. As a result, one larger, more usable side yard is created on the 41 'A Sec. 15.04 .02,G. Conditional uses. 1. Conditional uses are as follows: General conditional uses as listed in section 15. 08 . 030. 2. Cluster development of more than 4 residences, with the exception of cluster development in a proposed subdivision for which a public hearing is required by Title 12, Chapter 12. 04, Subdivisions. 1 96 Cluster and Zero Lot Line Development August 2 8, 1995 As discussed in toe August 14th Planning Commission workshop, staff also requests corilsideration 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 preglented at the August 28th public hearing. 2 . Preparation lof a public information manual which would contain recommendedl design principles and conceptual designs for residential ! cluster development. The _manual should be prepared by !the Planning Department in coordination with the Public Work$, Parks, and Fire Departments. 3 . Provision of common recreation space within cluster development$. Staff recommends that common playground space be provided in cluster developments of more than four residences, if more than 25% of the individual lots are less than 7200 siquare 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:PCO28 .MEM i 2 97 DRAn- • Vor Discussion Purposes Only CLUSTER ZONING CODE SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS 8128195 Sec. 15.08.350. Cluster Housing Development - Authorized. The intent of cluster housing development is to provide an alternative development pattern which will provide opportunities to preserve open space, natural resource areas, envirmmentally sensitive areas, and/or historic and archeological sites while permitting development to occur at the densities designated on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Cluster housing development may be permitted in the following single family zoning districts. A-1 Agricultural R-A Residential agricultural R1-20 Single-family residential R1-12 Single family residential R1-9.6 Single-family residential R1-7.2 Single family residential R1-5.0 Single family residential Single family cluster housing development may be permitted in the following multifamily residential zoning districts subject to the minimum lot size, maximum density, and development standards specified in this chapter for cluster housing in the R1-5. 0 district: MR-D Duplex multifamily residential MR-G Garden density multifamily residential MR-M Medium density multifamily residential MR-H High density multifamily residential Sec. 3-5.08.360. Same-Permitted uses. Except as provided in this chapter, uses permitted in cluster developments shall be as outlined in section 15.04 .020, Single family residential district. (note: recommended cluster prov.,=C.i,s, provided in this chapter, include development cf more than one single family uwelling per lot where adequate land area is available - underlying zoning specifies 2 dwelling per lot) Sec. 15 .08.370, Same-Development Standards for cluster development in single family zoning districts. A. Minimum site area. Minimum site area shall be one (1) acre. B. Minimum lot size, maximum density, maximum site coverage, 2 i 98 i DRAFT For Discussion Purposes Only CLUSTER ZONING CODE SECTION RECOMAZENDATIONS 8/28/95 impervious area coverage, density, minimum yard requirements, and height may be found on the chart in section 45.08.390 of this Chapter. Except as provided in this cha ter, the development standards of the underlying zones sh 11 apply. To provide appropriate development standard for lots which may vary in size, the following provisions apply: 1. Individual lots in the R3-7.2 and R7-9.6 districts which are less than 6500 square feet in area shall be pubject to the applicable provisions of the Rl- S.O 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. i 4. Resp.dences may be clustered on a single parcel at the' permitted density of the underlying zone. Except for zero lot line development, separation between residences must be 10 feet or as required by ' the Kent building code and Fire Department stapdards, whichever is greater. C. Zero lot line provisions in cluster housing-Zero lot line development may be permitted within cluster subdivisions and deveilopments subject to the provisions of Section 15.08.306. 15 . 08 .380 Same-Required open Space vpei, space;, alea as , yuiyvse. 1. A miinimum of twenty (20) percent of the gross land arela, 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 yyyy ),�� 99 �R FT For Discussion Purposes Only CLUSTER ZONING CODE SECTION RECOMMENDATIONS 8128195 recreation. d. To provide a common green or open space feature which provides a community focus. e. Preservation of historical and archeological resources. 2. The open space parcel shall be recorded by the Ring County Department of Records on the face of the short plat or subdivision plat. Open space on undivided parcels shall be recorded with a protective open space easement agreement. B. Open Space, ownership and maintenance. Area preserved as open space shall be owned and maintained as follows: a. If the open space is under one (1) ownership, it shall be maintained by the ownership. b. If the open space is held in common ownership by all the owners of the development, a homeowners association shall be responsible for maintenance of . the common open space. C. A maintenance agreement which runs with the land of the residential lots within the cluster subdivision, or with the land in one ownership shall be recorded to insure perpetual maintenance of the open areas, private streets, and utilities within the development. d. Under certain circumstances, ownership of the open space may be assumed by the City as a park or public open space. Sec. 15.08.385 . Same. Apnlirati=.^_ 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 dPr; sion procedures shall be determined by Section 15.09.030. Conditional use permit. CLUZC. 3 4 100 15.08.390 Same, Densities and Dimensions Chart PROPOSED DENSITIES AND DIMENSIONS CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT AGIRESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE A-1 RA RI-20 RI-12 R1.96 R1-72 R1-5.0 PERbTTTTEDDENSITY IDU/A 1DU/A 2DU/A 3DU/A 45DU/A 6DU/A 8DU/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH KING COUNTY 35 35 NA NA NA 30 30 KENT EXISTING 100 100 70 70 10 70 50 KENT PROPOSED 35 35 35 3S 35 30 30 MIN.STREET SETBACK KING COUNTY 30 30 NA NA NA 10 10 KENT EXISTING 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 KENT PROPOSED 20 20 10 10 30 10 10 Average Average Average Average Average Average' Average MIN.INTERIOR SETBACKS KING COUNTY 10 10 NA NA NA 5 5 KENT EXISTING S-15 S-15 S-5 S-5 S-5 S-5 S-5 R-20 R-20 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8 R-8 KENT PROPOSED 10 10, 5-5 SS-S S-5 5 S R4 R4 R-8 &N XUy"I HEIGHT KING COUNTY 35 35 NA NA NA 35 35 KENT EXISTING 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 KENT PROPOSED 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 MAX.BLDG.COVERAGE "KING COUNTY 15% 15% NA NA NA sn% 4;5g •KE14T EXISTING 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 40% i iavi vuW ai/i� - ,JG:a• .3G%,- '45% 45% MAX.IMPERVIOUS SURFACE *KING COUNTY 20% 20% NA NA NA 70% 75% KENT EXISTING NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 'KENO PROPOSED 40% 40% 1 40% 50% 60% 70% 75% MINIMUM LOT SIZE KING COUNTY NA NA NA NA NA NA NA KENT EXISTING 43.450 SF 43,450 SF 20,000 SP 12,0W SF 9.600 SF 7.200 SF 5,000 SF KENT PROPGSED 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 11,000 SF 6,500 SF SAO SF 4 200 SF 3,000 SF 101 • , ar Discussiop ftii•��osas Uriy SUBDIVISION CODE-CLUSTER RECOMMENDATIONS 8/28/95 RECOMMENDED NEW SUBDIVISION CODE SECTION TO AUTHORIZE CLUSTER SUBDIVISIONS: (The subdivision code does not currently contain cluster subdivision provisions. Most of the following recommendations relate to new Subdivision Code sections. Existing sections are indicated by underlining.) Sec. 12 . 04.050 . Definitions. . . . . Cluster subdivision shall mean a residential subdivision which complies with underlying zoning in respect to overall density, but permits clustering of residences, provided that a minimum area of land is reserved for permanent preservation or common use by homeowners in the development. Detached housing may be clustered on the buildable land subject to the provisions of Title 15. Sec . 12 .04.486 . Cluster Subdivisions • A. Cluster subdivisions shall be permitted, subject to the provisions of Title 15, Kent Zoning Code. Zoning Code provisions include minimum lot size, and maximum density. C. The following standards shall apply to cluster subdivision. In addition the regulation of sections 12.04.430, 12 .04 .440, 12.04 .470 and 12.04 .480 shall apply unless specifically excepted. (regarding streets, curbs and sidewalks, installation of utilities, storm drainage, water system, and electrical hookups, the language of 12 . 04 .485. Zero lot line subdivisions could be used or included by reference. If the Public Works Department agrees to specific street standards for cluster develepments, a new Seci.ion B.I. Streets, Curbs and Sidewalks would be a drafted and added to the section) Section 12 04 490 Parks and open space requirements . A Approval of all subdivisions located in either si,-,ole-family residential or multifamily residential zones as defined in title 15 zonincr, shall be contincrent upon the subdivider' s dedication of land or providing fees in lieu of dedication to the city. as necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of development upon the existing park and recreation service levels. This requirement shall not apply to lots of forty-three thousand five hundred (43 , 500) square feet or larger in size planned unit developments or subdivisions of four (4) or less lots, or cluster subdivisions which provide twenty (20) percent or more of the total land area for recreational open space. CLUMM.REC 102 #ZCA-2003-2 CLUSTER MOUSING AMENDMENT Ms. Anderson stated that On March 18, 2003 the Planning Committee requested staff analysis of clustering as a developr}lent option for residential development Ms Anderson stated that!staff brought some code revisions to the April 14th Land Use and Planning Board Workshopi 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 clustering 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 hoot 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 criteria for clustering subdivisions. Ms. Andersen stated that the current proposal includes a provision for design review as well as changos to the subdivision ordinance Ms Anderson stated that staff recommends Option C. s. Anderson referred to the staff report while summarizing the options, which referenced subdivision Code as well as Zoning Code Sections Ms Anderson brought the Single Family �esidential 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 Harmony Ms Anderson stated that her focus has been not to change urban separators, reiterating that'jdesign 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 Kira 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. ' i Land Use and Planning Board Minule� July 28,2003 Page 3 of 7 I 103 6 Ms. Ranniger stated that she supports cluster zoning as a housing option but voiced her opinion that the urban separator 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 urban separators at all by excluding the provision for purpose, the additional approval criteria and 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 iR Fedf3s shall be related by common materials as this is saying if you have a series of clusters, every group must be different, contradicting the sentence in 8.f which states that common materials 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 be 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 design as well as allow for diversity. Ms. Anderson stated that shared driveways require an easement 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 counted 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 lot width 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 staffs recommendation. Nicole Fincher MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to close the Public Hearing Motion Carried. Deborah Ranniger MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to accept #ZCA-2003-2 Cluster Housing Amendment Option C with the following amendments- 1 —Adding under 8 e"shared driveways in the list of architectural and site features" 2—Deleting in that same section the word "in groups"for the last sentence 3 -Adding a statement under "Lot Widths" that states `the Heanng 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" 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 ___ P ..rid L47 _ 104 lI Ms. Anderson stated that khe Cluster Housing amendment will follow the Stewart amendment to the Planning Committele on either August 19 or September 16 with the potential Council meeting on October 7, reloted 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 COMPREHCNSIVE PLAN UPDATE— CH.4-LAND USE ELEMENT Planner, Gloria Gould-Wksen stated that four LUPB workshops have been held on Chapter 4 Land Use Element, statilhg 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 �roposed text and map changes. She stated that the intent of the Land Use Element is ty guide the character of the City's development patterns and implementation phase whore development of regulations can be written She stated that the Land Use map will show vlhere development can occur and text will show when it can occur Ms. Wessen stated that toe Land Use Element contains textual changes that reflect our new boundaries, utilize the Cemsus 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 ordinahce 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 bolundary has been clarified and defined by using Kent's Downtown Action Plan. Ms Wesserl 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 cottagea 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 ptivate 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 Manufacturmg/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 land manages setbacks and landscaping to protect environmentally sensitive areas. 1 3. A policy ensures ultimodal forms of transportation and supports minimizing parking adjacent to public Iransit 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 p��e a..f 7 -_ --T -- ---�---�-- ------ - —— 105 • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Director PLANNING SERVICES KENT Charlene Anderson,AICP,Manager WASHINGTON Phone 253-856-5454 Fax 253-856-6454 Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 DATE: AUGUST 12,2003 TO: CHAIR LEONA ORR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: CHARLENE ANDERSON,AICP,PLANNING MANAGER THROUGH: MAYOR JIM WHITE SUBJECT: CAPITAL FACILITIES ELEMENT 2003 ANNUAL UPDATE MOTION: None required—for information only SUMMARY: In 1995,the Kent City Council established school impact fees as a means of mitigating the additional demand and need for school facilities created by new growth and development, The Kent and Federal Way School Districts so far have been the only school districts to submit capital facilities plans and the only school districts for which the City currently collects school impact fees This year,however, the City expects the Auburn School District to submit a capital facilities plan because the impoundment reservoir property is located within the Auburn School District The school distracts are required to submit for annual Council review their updated capital facilities plans Based on the recently adopted Ordinance No 3650,the City Council will hold the public hearing on the school district plans at the same time as the public hearing for the budget,i e, September 16,2003 BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: One of the planning goals under the Growth Management Act(RCW 36 70A 020) is to ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development are adequate and timely to serve the development without decreasing current service levels below minimum standards, The Act(RCW 36 70A 070) also requires the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan to inventory existing capital facilities, forecast future needs and provide for financing of those facilities RCW 82 02 050 authorizes cities planning under the Growth Management Act to impose impact fees on development activity as part of the financing for public facilities needed to serve new growth and development As a result,KCC 12 13 080 provides for imposition of school impact fees on behalf of any school district which provides to the City a capital facilities plan, the plan is adopted by reference as part of the Capital Facilities Element of the Kent Comprehensive Plan The school districts are required to submit for annual Council review their updated capital facilities plans(KCC 12 13 060&070) CA1pm S\Pernut\PlanlConipPlanAmdments120031capfac2003annual doc Enc RCW 36 70A 020&070,RCW 82 02 050,KCC 12 13 060-080 cc Fred N Satterstrom,AICP,CD Director Charlene Anderson,AICP,Planning Manager Parties of Interest Project File Chapter 36.70A.020 RCW - The Washington State Legislature Page 1 of 2 107 f ti.Y 01 w Legislature Home About Us E-Mall Lists Search Help RCW TITLES >> TITLE 36 >> CHAPTER 36 70A>>SECTION 36 70A 020 Print Version 36 70A 011 << 36 70A 020 >> 36 70A 030 RCW 36.70A.020 Planning goals. The following goals are adopted to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations of those counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36 70A 040 The following goals are not listed in order of priority and shall be used exclusively for the purpose of guiding the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations (1)Urban growth Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner (2) Reduce sprawl Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low- density development (3)Transportation Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans i (4)Housing Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock (5) Economic development Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state,especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences Impacting economic development opportunities,and encourage growth in areas experiencing Insufficient economic growth, all within the capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities (6) Property rights Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions (7)Permits Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability (8)Natural resource industries Maintain and enhance natural resource-based Industries, including productive timber,agricultural, and fisheries industries Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands,and discourage Incompatible uses (9)Open space and recreation Retain open space,enhance recreational opportunities,conserve fish and wildlife habitat,increase access to natural resource lands and water,and develop parks and recreation facilities • (10)Environment Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life,including http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=section&section=36.70A.020 8/11/2003 Chapter 36.70A.020 RCW - The Washington State Legislature Page 2 of 2 108 air and water quality, and the avail4bility of water. (11)Citizen participation and co rdmation Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination b6tween communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts (12) Public facilities and services Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adegluate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards (13) Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands,sites, and structures, that have historical or archaeological significance [2002 c 154§1,1990 1st ex s c 17§21 I http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/l,ndex.cfm?fuseactlon=section&section=36.70A.020 8/11/2003 Chapter 36.70A.070 RCW The Washington State Legislature Page 1 of 5 109 tl la II60„ Legislature Home About Us E-Mad Lists Search Help RCW TITLES >>TITLE 36>> CHAPTER 36 70A>>SECTION 36 70A 070 Print Version 36 70A Ou0 << 36 70A 070 >> 36 70A 080 RCW 36.70A.070 Comprehensive plans—Mandatory elements. The comprehensive plan of a county or city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36 70A 040 shall consist of a map or maps, and descriptive text covering objectives, principles, and standards used to develop the comprehensive plan The plan shall be an internally consistent document and all elements shall be consistent with the future land use map A comprehensive plan shall be adopted and amended with public participation as provided in RCW 36 70A 140 Each comprehensive plan shall include a plan,scheme,or design for each of the following (1)A land use element designating the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of land,where appropriate,for agriculture,timber production, housing,commerce, industry, recreation,open spaces, general aviation airports, public utilities, public facilities,and other land uses The land use element shall include population densities, building intensities, and estimates of future population growth The land use element shall provide for protection of the quality . and quantity of ground water used for public water supplies Where applicable,the land use element shall review drainage,flooding, and storm water run-off in the area and nearby jurisdictions and provide guidance for corrective actions to mitigate or cleanse those discharges that pollute waters of the state, including Puget Sound or waters entering Puget Sound (2)A housing element ensuring the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods that (a) Includes an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs that identifies the number of housing units necessary to manage projected growth, (b)includes a statement of goals, policies, objectives, and mandatory provisions for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, including single-family residences, (c) identifies sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to, government-assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing, multifamily housing,and group homes and foster care facilities,and (d)makes adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. (3)A capital facilities plan element consisting of (a)An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities, (b)a forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities; (c)the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities, (d)at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and (e)a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element,capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent Park and recreation facilities shall be included in the capital facildies plan element (4)A utilities element consisting of the general location, proposed location, and capacity of all existing and proposed utilities, including, but not limited to, electrical lines,telecommunication lines, and natural gas lines • (5)Rural element Counties shall include a rural element including lands that are not designated http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=section&section=36.70A.070 8/11/2003 Chapter 36.70A.070 RCW - The Washington State Legislature Page 2 of 5 110 for urban growth, agriculture, forest`or mineral resources The following provisions shall apply to the rural element (a)Growth management act goals and local circumstances Because circumstances vary from county to county, in establishing patterns of rural densities and uses, a county may consider local circumstances, but shall develop a jvntten record explaining how the rural element harmonizes the planning goals in RCW 36 70A 020jand meets the requirements of this chapter (b)Rural development The rural element shall permit rural development,forestry,and agriculture in rural areas The rural element shell provide for a variety of rural densities, uses, essential public facilities, and rural governmental services needed to serve the permitted densities and uses In order to achieve a variety of rural densities and uses, counties may provide for clustering, density transfer, design guidelines,conservation easements, and other innovative techniques that will accommodate appropriate rural densities and use$that are not characterized by urban growth and that are consistent with rural character (c)Measures governing rural de elopment The rural element shall include measures that apply to rural development and protect tho rural character of the area,as established by the county,by i Containing or otherwise controlling rural development, (u)Assuring visual compatibility of rural development with the surrounding rural area, (iii) Reducing the inappropriate donversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development in the rural area, (iv) Protecting critical areas, as provided in RCW 36 70A 060, and surface water and ground water resources; and (v) Protecting against conflicts with the use of agricultural,forest,and mineral resource lands designated under RCW 36 70A 170 (d) Limited areas of more intensive rural development Subject to the requirements of this subsection and except as otherwise specifically provided in this subsection (5)(d), the rural element may allow for limited areas of more iintensive rural development, including necessary public facilities and public services to serve the limited area as follows (i) Rural development consisting of the infill,development, or redevelopment of existing commercial,industrial,residential,Or mixed-use areas,whether characterized as shoreline development,villages, hamlets, rural activity centers,or crossroads developments A commercial, industrial, residential,shoreline, or axed-use area shall be subject to the requirements of(d)(iv)of this subsection, but shall not be subject to the requirements of(c)(ii)and (w)of this subsection An industrial area is not required to be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population, (ii)The intensification of development on lots containing,or new development of,small-scale recreational or tourist uses, includinig commercial facilities to serve those recreational or tourist uses, that rely on a rural location and setting,but that do not include new residential development.A small- scale recreation or tourist use is not required to be principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population. Public services and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to serve the recreation or tourist use and shall be provided in a manner that does not permit low- density sprawl; (w)The intensification of development on lots containing isolated nonresidential uses or new development of isolated cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses that are not principally designed to serve the existing and projected rural population and nonresidential uses,but do provide job opportunities for rural residents. Rural counties may allow the expansion of small- http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/Index.cfm?fuseaction=section&section=36.70A.070 8/11/2003 i Chapter 36.70A.070 RCW - The Washington State Legislature Page 3 of 5 111 scale businesses as long as those small-scale businesses conform with the rural character of the area as defined by the local government according to RCW 36 70A 030(14). Rural counties may also allow new small-scale businesses to utilize a site previously occupied by an existing business as long as the new small-scale business conforms to the rural character of the area as defined by the local government according to RCW 36 70A 030(14). Public services and public facilities shall be limited to those necessary to serve the isolated nonresidential use and shall be provided in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl, (iv)A county shall adopt measures to minimize and contain the existing areas or uses of more intensive rural development, as appropriate, authorized under this subsection Lands included in such existing areas or uses shall not extend beyond the logical outer boundary of the existing area or use,thereby allowing a new pattern of low-density sprawl Existing areas are those that are clearly identifiable and contained and where there is a logical boundary delineated predominately by the built environment, but that may also include undeveloped lands if limited as provided in this subsection The county shall establish the logical outer boundary of an area of more intensive rural development In establishing the logical outer boundary the county shall address(A)the need to preserve the character of existing natural neighborhoods and communities,(B)physical boundaries such as bodies of water,streets and highways,and land forms and contours, (C)the prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries, and (D)the ability to provide public facilities and public services in a manner that does not permit low-density sprawl, (v) For purposes of(d)of this subsection,an existing area or existing use is one that was in existence, (A)On July 1, 1990, in a county that was initially required to plan under all of the provisions of this chapter, (B)On the date the county adopted a resolution under RCW 36 70A 040(2),in a county that is planning under all of the provisions of this chapter under RCW 36 70A 040(2), or (C) On the date the office of financial management certifies the county's population as provided in RCW 36 70A 040(5), in a county that is planning under all of the provisions of this chapter pursuant to RCW 36 70A 040(5). (e)Exception This subsection shall not be interpreted to permit in the rural area a major industrial development or a master planned resort unless otherwise specifically permitted under RCW 36 70A 360 and 36 70A 365 (6)A transportation element that implements, and is consistent with,the land use element (a)The transportation element shall include the following subelements, (i)Land use assumptions used in estimating travel, (n)Estimated traffic impacts to state-owned transportation facilities resulting from land use assumptions to assist the department of transportation in monitoring the performance of state facilities,to plan improvements for the facilities, and to assess the impact of land-use decisions on state-owned transportation facilities, (iii) Facilities and services needs, including (A)An inventory of air,water, and ground transportation facilities and services, including transit alignments and general aviation airport facilities,to define existing capital facilities and travel levels as a basis for future planning This inventory must include state-owned transportation facilities within the city or county's jurisdiction boundaries, (B)Level of service standards for all locally owned artenals and transit routes to serve as a gauge http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=section&section=36.70A.070 8/11/2003 Chapter 36.70A.070 RCW - Tiie Washington State Legislature Page 4 of 5 112 to judge performance of the systemi These standards should be regionally coordinated, (C) For state-owned transportation facilities, level of service standards for highways, as prescribed in chapters 47 D6 and 47 80 RCW,to gauge the performance of the system The purposes of reflecting level of servile standards for state highways in the local comprehensive plan are to monitor the performance of toe system,to evaluate improvement strategies,and to facilitate coordination between the county's�r city's six-year street, road, or transit program and the department of transportation's six-year investment program.The concurrency requirements of(b)of this subsection do not apply to tran;portation facilities and services of statewide significance except for counties consisting of islands w iose only connection to the mainland are state highways or ferry routes. In these island counties, stc to highways and ferry route capacity must be a factor in meeting the concurrency requirements in (b l of this subsection, (D)Specific actions and requiretnents for bringing into compliance locally owned transportation facilities or services that are below an established level of service standard, (E) Forecasts of traffic for at least ten years based on the adopted land use plan to provide information on the location,timing,land capacity needs of future growth, (F)Identification of state and local system needs to meet current and future demands Identified needs on state-owned transportati n facilities must be consistent with the statewide multimodal transportation plan required under Ohapter 47 06 RCW, (w) Finance, including' (A)An analysis of funding capability to judge needs against probable funding resources, (B)A multiyear financing plan biased on the needs identified in the comprehensive plan,the appropriate parts of which shall seive as the basis for the six-year street, road, or transit program required by RCW 35 77 010 for cities, RCW 36 81 121 for counties, and RCW 35 58 2795 for public transportation systems.The multiyeear financing plan should be coordinated with the six-year improvement program developed 6y the department of transportation as required by RCW 47 05 030; (C)If probable funding falls short of meeting identified needs,a discussion of how additional funding will be raised, or how landuse assumptions will be reassessed to ensure that level of service standards will be met, (v) Intergovernmental coordination efforts, including an assessment of the impacts of the transportation plan and land use asssumptions on the transportation systems of adjacent jurisdictions, (vi) Demand-management strategies (b)After adoption of the comprehensive plan by jurisdictions required to plan or who choose to plan under RCW 36 70A 040, locail jurisdictions must adopt and enforce ordinances which prohibit development approval if the development causes the level of service on a locally owned transportation facility to decline bellow the standards adopted in the transportation element of the comprehensive plan,unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development These strategies may include increased public transportation service, nde ishanng programs,demand management, and other transportation systems management strategies For the purposes of this subsection (6)"concurrent with the development"shall mean that improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development,or that a financial commitment is in Oiace to complete the improvements or strategies within six years (c)The transportation element described in this subsection(6),and the six-year plans required by RCW 35 77 010 for cities, RCW 316 81 121 for counties, RCW 35 58 2795 for public transportation systems, and RCW 47 05 030 forlthe state, must be consistent http://www.leg.wa.gov/RC\N/index.cfm?fuseaction=section&section=36.70A.070 8/11/2003 Chapter 36.70A.070 RCW - The Washington State Legislature Page 5 of 5 113 J (7)An economic development element establishing local goals, policies, objectives, and •provisions for economic growth and vitality and a high quality of life The element shall include. (a)A summary of the local economy such as population,employment, payroll,sectors, businesses, sales, and other information as appropriate; (b)a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the local economy defined as the commercial and Industrial sectors and supporting factors such as land use, transportation,utilities, education, work force, housing,and natural/cultural resources, and(c)an identification of policies, programs, and projects to foster economic growth and development and to address future needs A city that has chosen to be a residential community is exempt from the economic development element requirement of this subsection. (8)A park and recreation element that implements,and is consistent with,the capital facilities plan element as it relates to park and recreation facilities The element shall include (a) Estimates of park and recreation demand for at least a ten-year period, (b)an evaluation of facilities and service needs; and(c)an evaluation of intergovernmental coordination opportunities to provide regional approaches for meeting park and recreational demand (9) It is the intent that new or amended elements required after January 1,2002, be adopted concurrent with the scheduled update provided in ROW 36.70A 130 Requirements to incorporate any such new or amended elements shall be null and void until funds sufficient to cover applicable local government costs are appropriated and distributed by the state at least two years before local government must update comprehensive plans as required in ROW 36 70A 130 [2002 c 212§2,2002 c 154§2,1998 c 171 §2,1997 c 429§7,1996 c 239§1 Pnor 1995 c 400§3,1995 c 377§1,1990 1st exs c17§7j NOTES: Reviser's note: This section was amended by 2002 c 154§2 and by 2002 c 212§2,each without reference to the other Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under ROW 1 12 025(2) For rule of construction, see ROW 1 12 025(1) Prospective application— 1997 c 429§§ 1-21: See note following ROW 36 70A 3201 Severability--1997 c 429: See note following ROW 36 70A 3201. Construction —Application --1995 c 400: "A comprehensive plan adopted or amended before May 16, 1995, shall be considered to be in compliance with ROW 36 70A 070 or 36 70A 110, as in effect before their amendment by this act, If the comprehensive plan is in compliance with ROW 36 70A 070 and 36 70A 110 as amended by this act This section shall not be construed to alter the relationship between a county-wide planning policy and comprehensive plans as specified under ROW 36 70A 210 As to any appeal relating to compliance with ROW 36 70A 070 or 36 70A 110 pending before a growth management hearings board on May 16, 1995,the board may take up to an additional ninety days to resolve such appeal By mutual agreement of all parties to the appeal,this additional ninety- day period may be extended"[1995 c 400§4] Effective date --1995 c 400: See note following ROW 36 70A 040 http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=section&section=36.70A.070 8/11/2003 Chapter 82.02.050 RCW - The Washington State Legislature Page 1 of 2 114 Legislature Home Alyout Us E-Mad Lists Search Help RCW TiTLF-S>> TITLE 82 >> CHAPIIER 82 02»SECTION 82 D2 050 Print version 82 02 040 << 82 02 050 >> 82 02 060 RCW 82 02.050 Impact fees --Intent--Limitations. (1) It is the intent of the legislature (a)To ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new growth and development, (b)To promote orderly growth and development by establishing standards by which counties, cities, and towns may require, by o dinance,that new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new facilities needed to serve new growth and development, and (c)To ensure that impact fees afire imposed through established procedures and criteria so that specific developments do not pay arbitrary fees or duplicative fees for the same impact (2) Counties,cities, and towns that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36 70A 040 are authorized to impose impact fees on development activity as part of the financing for public facilities, provided that the financing for system improvements to serve new development must provide for a balance between impact fees and ether sources of public funds and cannot rely solely on impact fees. (3)The impact fees (a)Shall only be imposed for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development, (b)Shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development,and (c)Shall be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development (4) Impact fees may be collected and spent only for the public facilities defined in RCW 82 02 090 which are addressed by a capital facilities plan element of a comprehensive land use plan adopted pursuant to the provisions of RCW36 70A 070 or the provisions for comprehensive plan adoption contained in chapter 36 70, 35 63,or 35A 63 RCW After the date a county,city,or town is required to adopt its development regulatiorlis under chapter 36 70A RCW, continued authorization to collect and expend Impact fees shall be contingent on the county,city, or town adopting or revising a comprehensive plan in compliance]with RCW 36 70A 070,and on the capital facilities plan identifying (a) Deficiencies in public facilities serving existing development and the means by which existing deficiencies will be eliminated within a reasonable period of time, (b)Additional demands placed bn existing public facilities by new development, and (c)Additional public facility improvements required to serve new development http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW index.cfm?fuseaction=section&section=82.02.050 8/11/2003 Chapter 82.02.050 RCW - The Washington State Legislature Page 2 of 2 115 If the capital facilities plan of the county, city,or town is complete other than for the inclusion of those elements which are the responsibility of a special district,the county, city, or town may impose impact fees to address those public facility needs for which the county,city,or town is responsible [1994 c 257§24,1993 sp s c6§6,19901stexs c17§43] NOTES: Severability—1994 c 257: See note following RCW 36 70A 270 Effective date --1993 sp.s. c 6:See note following RCW 36 70A 040 Severabiiity—Part,section headings not taw--1990 list ex.s.c 17: See RCW 36 70A 900 and 36 70A 901. SEPA RCW 43 21 C 065 • • http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index,cfm?fuseaction=section&section=82.02.050 8/11/2003 116 Title 12: Planning and Land development - City Code - City of Kent, Washington Page 7 of 15 12.13.050 Interlocal agreement between the city and district. As a condition of the city's authorization and adoption of a school impact fee ordinance, the city and district shall enter into an interlocal agreement governing the operation of the school impact fee program, and describing the relationship and liabilities of the parties thereunder. (Ord. No. 3260, § 1, 12-19-90 12.13.060 Submission of district capital facilities plan and data. A. On an annual basis, the di$trict shall submit the following materials to the city council: 1. The district's capital facilities plan (as defined in KCC 12.13 010 herein) and adopted by the school board; 2. The district's enrollment projections over the next six (6) years, its current enrollment and Ithe district's enrollment projections and actual enrollment from the previous year; 3. The district's standard of service; 4. The district's overall capacity over the next six (6) years, which shall take into account the available capacity from school facilities planned by the district but not yet built and be a function of the district's standard of service as measured by the number of students which can be housed in district facilities; S. An inventory of the district's existing facilities. B. To the extent that the dist�ict's standard of service identifies a deficiency in Its existing facilities, the district's capital facilities plan must identify the sources of funding other than impact fees, for budding or acquiring the necessary facilities to serve the existing student population in order to eliminate the deficiencies within a reasonable period of time. C. Facilities to meet future demand shall be designed to meet the adopted standard of service. If sufficielnt funding is not projected to be available to fully fund a capital facilities plan which meets the adopted standard of service, the district's capital facilities plan should document the reason for the funding gap, and identify lair sources of funding that the district plans to use to meet the adopted standard of.service. D. The district shall also subrrpit an annual report to the city council showing the capital improvements which were serviced in whole or in part by the impact fees. E. In its development of the financing plan component of the capital http://www.ci.kent.wa.us/CiNCode/PlanningAndLandDevelopment.htm 8/11/2003 ' 117 Title 12: Planning and Land Development - City Code - City of Kent, Washington Page 8 of 15 • facilities plan, the district shall plan on a six (6) year horizon and shall demonstrate its best efforts by taking the following steps: 1. Establish a six (6) year financing plan, and propose the necessary bond issues and levies required by and consistent with that plan and as-approved by the school board consistent with RCW 28A.53.020, 84.52.052 and 84.52.056 as amended; and 2. Apply to the state for funding, and comply with the state requirements for eligibility to the best of the district's ability. (Ord. No. 3260, § 1, 12-19-95) 12.13.070 Annual council review. On at least an annual basis, the city council shall review the information submitted by the district pursuant to KCC 12.13 060(A) herein. The review shall occur in conjunction with any update of the capital facilities plan element of the city's comprehensive plan. (Ord. No. 3260, § 1, 12-19-95) 12.13.080 impact fee program elements. A. Impact fees will be assessed on every new dwelling unit in the district for which a fee schedule has been established. B. Impact fees will be imposed on a district by district basis, on behalf of any school district which provides to the city, a capital facilities plan, the district's standards of service for the various grade spans, estimates of the cost of providing needed facilities and other capital improvements, and the data from the district called for by the formula in KCC 12.13.140. Any impact fee imposed shall be reasonably related to the impact caused by the development, and shall not exceed a proportionate share of the cost of system improvements that are reasonably related to the development. The impact fee formula shall account in the fee calculation for future revenue the district will receive from the development. The ordinance adopting the fee schedule shall specify under what circumstances the fee may be adjusted in the interests of fairness. C. The impact fee shall be based on the capital facilities plan developed by the district and approved by the school board, and adopted by reference by the city as part of the capital facilities element of the comprehensive plan for the purpose of establishing the fee program. (Ord. No. 3260, § 1, 12-19-95) 12.13.090 Fee calculations. A. The fee shall be calculated based on the formula set out in KCC 12.13.140. http://www.ci.kent.wa.us/CityCode/PlanningAndLandDevelopment.htm 8/11/2003 I Planning Committee 220 4 h Ave. South,Kent,98032 PLEASE SIGN IN DATE: ( �� C �_cj(J - l�Q AwnioC Name Address Phone Number A,7 y�ry T ` e-j A S ���� Mottram, Pamela From: Mottram, Pamela Monday, August 18, 2003 10:14 AM Ted Nixon (ten@cn-architects.com); Jeff Barker Qeffreybarker@seattlepi.com); Kelly Snyder (ksnyder@rothhill.com); M. Simmer(msimmer@projectdimensions.com); Mary Ausburn (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; Steve Dowell (E-mail); Crystal Nicole Fincher (E-mail); David Malik (E-mail); Deborah Ranniger (E-mail); Greg Worthing; Jon Johnson (E-mail); Ron Harmon Cc: Anderson, Charlene Subject: Amended Agenda for 8/19/03 Planning Committee It has been noted that the Agenda for tomorrow's Planning Committee contained an error. Please note that the "Cluster Housing" item has been changed to YES under Action . Q� 81903Agenda-PC.d oc(38 KB) Thank you. Paw_60 A. Mottrgwv. Aolm wistratCve secretaru� 'a vw�wg services °: 253-866-5-?64 c- alL: �wottrgw_@c�.'2ewtwa.us • 1 • Planning Committee Agenda Councilmembers: Tim Clark.Bruce White•Leona Orr, Chair KENT WAS MINGTON August 19, 2003 Item Description Action Speaker Time Page 1. Approval of Minutes dated July 15, 2003 YES 1 2. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment Nonconforming Use-#ZCA-2003-4 (Stewart) YES Fred N. Satterstrom 15 min 3 3. Cluster Housing—Zoning Code Amendment YES Charlene Anderson 15 min 29 #ZCA-2003-2 4. Capital Facilities Element 2003 Annual Update NO Charlene Anderson 15 min 105 #CPA-2003-3 • 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. Mottram, Pamela From: Hyde, Shaunta R [shaunta.r.hyde@boeing.coml t: Monday, August 18, 2003 10:16 AM Mottram, Pamela Object: Out of Office AutoReply: Amended Agenda for 8/19/03 Planning Committee sorry i was unable to read your e-mail . I am currently out of the office for week of Aug. 18-22 on vacation. If you have an emergency, please leave me a message on my cell phone 206-856-6444, otherwise I will be sure to get back to you as soon I return. Thanks. • • i -- --- - •_ . Fax Transmission Cover Sheet Date: 8-ler0 J To: Rq � Fax: Sender:r-?q M YOU SHOULD RECEIVE Z. PAGIE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET, IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL 253-856.5454. `s - car,., �\��_cTn PMOMINWORM81FAXC0VERAcc • WO3 N AO Z00 ..92 .00 .0 9T09 L£b £SZ 9£: 01 8T 'OfIV LZL 300W ,LlaSE'd 'SOd NOI.LVZlnO NOI,LVNI.LS30 3WI,L/3.LV0 }(,L 'ON palaldmoo (s) u0l ;OesuvaL u0lssiwsuuJ,L ,L2lOd3T1 NOLLOVSN 100 'd VSb9 998 £SZ :'I3.L ONINNV'Id .LN3N L£:OT (NOW) £0 .81- '0nV v AUG. -18' 03 (MON) 10:35 KENT PLANNING TEL: 253 856 6454 P. 001 NSACTION REPORT Transmission Transaction (s) completed NO. TX DATE/TIME DESTINATION DURATION PGS. RESULT MODE 726 AUG. 18 10: 34 253 437 6016 0" OD' 35" 002 OK N ECM • 30P*U3A03XV"WW04%NIWCM:cf noA dl '.LRaHS NRA03 SIHJ. JNIOn-1 NI {S}3�Wd d Z RA1933H crinoHS noA \�A �J(Luepuag c'- OA } g act ip�J� � ��,�� , :elf mea 4004S aGnaC) UOISSIWSUejl XB j Fax Transmission Cover Sheet Date: &.I(481 C)E To: Fax: j`1-2 - Coal Re: ' �pnrL1'l1 4-\ Sender:�-M YOU SHOULD RECEIVE PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL 253.856-6454. vn- P:W DMlMW0RMSIFA)(C0VER.dcc W03 N MO Z00 110£ .00 .0 1199 ZL8 £SZ 6Z :OT 81 'O(ld SZL 300IN .L'7f1S3m 'SOd NO I,Ld21fl❑ NO I,LVN I,LS30 3WI,L/21v(l X.1. 'ON pa;aldwoo (S) uol ;ousuvaLL uolsSIMSUVaLL .L2[Od321 NOILLOVSN 100 'd bSb9 998 £8Z:131 ONINNtl'Td IN3N 0£:OT (NOW) £0 .8I- 'Ofltl Planning Committee Agenda Councilmembers: Tim Clark.Bruce White•Leona Orr, Chair KEN August 49, 2003 WASHINGTON Item Description Action Speaker Time Page 1. Approval of Minutes dated July 15, 2003 YES 1 2. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment Nonconforming Use-#ZCA-2003-4 (Stewart) YES Fred N. Satterstrom 15 min 3 3. Cluster Housing—Zoning Code Amendment YES Charlene Anderson 15 min 29 = #ZCA-2003-2 4. Capital Facilities Element 2003 Annual Update NO Charlene Anderson 15 min 105 #CPA-2003-3 Unless otherwise noted,the Planning Committee meets at 3:00 p.m. on the 3rd 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. Mottram, Pamela From: Mottram, Pamela Thursday, August 14, 2003 4:13 PM Ted Nixon (ten @cn-architects.com); Jeff Barker Qeffreybarker@seattlepi.com); Kelly Snyder (ksnyder@rothhill.com); M. Simmer(msimmer@projectdimensions.com); Mary Ausburn (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 for the August 19, 2003 Meeting I have attached the Planning Committee Agenda for your use: Q=7—\ 81903Agenda-PC.d oc(38 KB) Thank you. PnvvtLa A. MottK2w, iEGlmLv,,,Strntiva 56cvetPKU PL Rvi V',wq Service-' p V,o we: 25z-85-0-54 54 e-wiGt%L:pwottrGtvu@cl.l2evLtwa.us 1 Mottram, Pamela From: Mottram, Pamela Thursday, August 14, 2003 4:32 PM Steve Dowell (E-mail); Crystal Nicole Fincher(E-mail); David Malik (E-mail); Deborah Ranniger(E-mail); Greg Worthing; Jon Johnson (E-mail); Ron Harmon Subject: Planning Committee Agenda for the 8/19/03 meeting I have attached the Agenda for the upcoming Planning Committee meeting: ©=7—\ 81903Agenda-PC.d oc(38 KB) Thank you. FGivveLa A. MottravU- ttd vti Cw%stratCve Secveta r� FLawvw�,g sew%ces P h o we: 253-856-5"464 e-vnci%I.: pvuot'.rcty�@ci,.leev.z.wci.us Mottram, Pamela From: Mottram, Pamela t: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 12:12 PM Jacober, Brenda ubject: Planning Committee Distribution for July 15, 2003 I have attached the distribution list for the July 15, 2003 Planning Committee. QI\ PC-Distribution0715 03.doc(59... Thank you. pRVA'1p .4. Mot`YR V fFdvuCwi trat%ve SearetRY� P[Rv�,mLC q Ser✓ices FhDv�e: 253-256-5454 e-vV_RLI,: �]W�OttYRW�@CL.i2etnt.WR.i,ts 1 Fax Transmission Cover Sheet • Dater To: {� �q C'auTtltc Fax: Re: PcYlnl ['f� VYIfV�� clq or eljgI63 Sender:�� YOU SHOULD RECEIVE PAGE{S}, INCLUDING THIS COVER SWEET, IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL 253-856.6464. • MADMIN1 ORMWAMOVER.doe W03 N NO Z00 ,.BZ ,00 .0 TT99 ZLB 29Z 6Z: 60 ST 'DnV TTL 300W 111AS3M SOd NOI.LVNaQ N0IIVNIIS30 3Wl,L/3.LVO X.L ON P8181dwoo (S) uolloeSuPjj uolSSlwSucay .LNOd321 N0ll0VSNVN,L 100 'd PSb9 998 £2Z :131L ONINNVId ,LN3N 0£ : 60 ( lMd) £O .91- '0nV Fax Transmission Cover Sheet Date.: 8-f s-Ufol-tcr , -Q5 rv�To: , � 1 t i ck& c=, I S Fax: �� Re: J Sender.' YOU SHOULD RECEIVE PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS CDVER SHEET. IF YOU 130 NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL 253-850.5464. P.U►dMI N 1F0itM5kFAXCOV PR.d,,c hSCI9 000 9Z9L£b6 82 :60 SI 'OCItl ZIL 300W .L'7CIS3s 'SOd Noliv na NOlIVNIIS30 3WII/31tl0 X1 'ON (s) a$ed a0jaa Puas-a-d :TI02IN3 uolsslulsue.l,l, ,L?IOdsu NOI,LOVSNtlHIL 100 'd b9b9 998 £SZ:131 ONINNVId IN3}I 6£ :60 ( INd) £0 ,9T- 'OCIV