These
Minutes approved
February
16, 2017
MINUTES
OF REGULAR MEETING
|
Commissioners Present |
Staff Present
|
||
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair
Montero called the regular meeting of the Shoreline Planning Commission to order
at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Upon roll call by the
Commission Clerk the following Commissioners were present: Vice Chair Montero, and Commissioners Chang, Maul,
Malek, Mork and Thomas. Chair Craft was
absent.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as
presented.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of January 4,
2017 were adopted as written and the minutes of January 5, 2017 were adopted as
corrected.
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT
Christopher
Carter, Shoreline, said he is a
resident of Camp United We Stand, and was present to speak about the amendments
the Commission approved at a previous meeting related to Transitional
Encampments. He recommended the City
define what creates a “Managing Agency.”
For example, is a “Managing Agency” a simple 501c3 or just a group of
outside board members? This information
is very valuable to the encampment, and he does not think it is wise to adopt
the amendments and then get trapped into something they regret tomorrow. He would like the amendments to come back to
the Planning Commission. He questioned
why the Commissioners never visited an encampment before forwarding their
recommendation to the City Council. He
noted that Mayor Roberts visited the encampment just today, and had a great
talk with the residents.
Mr. Carter expressed his belief that the recommended
20-foot setback would hurt many churches who seek to do God’s will. He fears that the City is close to siding
with the “pen-pusher oppressors.” They
need to be careful about how they work their pens; they can hurt or they can
help. The Commission is designed to help
before it hurts, and if the Commissioners were fulfilling their obligation to
help, they would visit the encampments and feedlines. These are times of healing, but when people
use the pen to seek their own healing before seeking the healing of others,
they shorten themselves.
CONTINUED
PUBLIC HEARING: DEEP GREEN INCENTIVE
PROGRAM
Vice Chair Montero reviewed the rules and procedures
for public hearings and then re-opened the public hearing.
Staff
Presentation
Ms. Redinger reviewed that the Deep Green Incentive
Program was initially presented to the Commission on February 18, 2016, with a
presentation by the International Living Future Institute (ILFI). On October 20, 2016, staff presented a draft
ordinance and implementing regulations, and the first public hearing took place
on December 1, 2016. Changes were made
and the hearing was continued on January 5, 2017. Following the January 5th hearing,
additional changes were made and the hearing was continued to January 19,
2017. She reviewed the changes made on
January 5th as follows:
·
The Living
Community Challenge (LCC) was added as an additional program under Tier 1,
alongside the Living Building Challenge (LBC).
·
Built Green Five
Star was added to Tier 3, along with Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) Platinum.
·
An additional
requirement (Salmon Safe Certification) was added to Net Zero Energy Building
(NZEB) Certification. Also, the language
was clarified that Salmon Safe does not currently certify single-family homes,
and the requirement would only apply to multi-family, mixed-use, and commercial
development.
·
The potential
available parking reduction was reduced to 50% for Tier 1, 35% for Tier 2, and
20% for Tier 3.
In addition to the above changes, Ms. Redinger said
the Staff Report notes the following:
·
The Assistant
City Attorney revised the ordinance language to make it more consistent with
how the City generally writes ordinance language.
·
The Commission
may want to slightly amend the language to clarify eligibility for a parking
requirement reduction.
·
The draft
regulatory language (Exhibit A to Attachment A) includes new language to
clarify that any additional units that would be built under the program would
be required to be built to the same certification standards as the primary or
original request.
·
Additional
language was added to incorporate the certification and timeframe terms used in
the Salmon Safe Certification. It
specifically points out that “Salmon Safe” is the name of both the
certification and the certifying organization.
Ms. Redinger recalled that, following the January 5th
hearing, there appeared to be only a few issues remaining for the Commission to
work through. To aid in their continued
discussion, staff can provide more detailed information to clarify what the
bonus potential could look like for each tier (attached versus detached). Staff could also review the map of the
existing 10,000 square foot lots again, recognizing that there could be more
through aggregation. A representative
from Built Green is present to provide additional information about what it
would mean for Five Star and Emerald Star projects to be eligible. They can also visit the ILFI’s case study
website, which has a wealth of information and a high-level summary of the
kinds of projects that are being built throughout the world.
Because the Commission continued the hearing from
January 5th to January 19th, Ms. Redinger reported that staff
has secured new dates to present the amendments to the City Council. As currently scheduled, the City Council will
have a study session on February 27th and March 20th will
be a public hearing and potential adoption.
Ms. Redinger reviewed that the Commission’s work
started with a presentation from the ILFI.
Over time, the program was expanded to incorporate the top tier of other
existing programs. As a potential next
step, the Commission could invite representatives from other organizations such
as Built Green, Salmon Safe and Passive House to explain their programs.
Clarifying
Questions of the Commission
Commissioner Thomas asked if it is correct to assume
that, based on the density bonuses currently proposed, a 10,000 square foot lot
in an R-4 or R-6 zone could be divided into two, 5,000 square foot lots. Director Markle answered that this would not
be allowed, as the minimum lot size requirement would still apply. However, it would be possible in an R-8 zone,
which allows for 5,000 square foot lots.
Commissioner Malek said his understanding is that a
density bonus would allow a 10,000 square foot lot to be subdivided into two
5,000 square foot lots. A property owner
could also aggregate two parcels to equal 10,000 square feet, and then
subdivide the property into two 5,000 square foot lots. Director Markle explained that density and
lot size are two separate standards. The
proposed ordinance would allow for a density bonus, which would allow a second
unit, but they would both be on the same lot.
Commissioner Malek asked if the units would be considered detached,
single-family condominiums. Director
Markle answered that is one option, but they could also be considered zero lot
line development. Commissioner Malek
summarized that the development would be considered two separate homes. Even though the property is not eligible to
be subdivided, the units could be sold separately in some other manner.
Public Testimony
Barbara
Twaddell, Shoreline, said she has
been a resident of Shoreline for 36 years and is concerned about how the
proposed ordinance would impact the numerous 10,000 square foot lots that are
spread throughout the City. She does not
want increased density in all of Shoreline’s neighborhoods. Increasing density in neighborhoods that are
far from transportation hubs, under the guise of being green, is just the
opposite of green. It is basically
endorsing sprawl within the City. She
asked them not to do it. She referred to
a statement made by Ms. Redinger, that half of all emissions comes from
transportation, and noted that adding up to 3,000 green homes far from
transportation hubs will increase rather than decrease greenhouse gases. According to the Federal Highway
Administration, the average household takes about 3,000 car trips per
year. When this is multiplied by
approximately 3,000 new homes spread out in all of the City’s neighborhoods,
there could be approximately 9 million extra trips in Shoreline per year. This increased car travel alone would far
outweigh any green home benefits, and that is why the Growth Management Act
(GMA) specifically tries to dissuade sprawl.
She questioned why the Deep Green Incentive Program is being pushed on
the citizens of Shoreline, who are being asked to sacrifice the quality of
their neighborhoods for a radical, unproven idea that will likely contribute to
increased global warming. Calling it
green does not make it so. She asked
that the City not use the Deep Green Incentive Program to allow double density
in single-family neighborhoods. If the
City wants more green homes built in neighborhoods, other incentives could be
used, such as waiver of fees or decreased property taxes.
Pam Cross,
Shoreline, said she has lived in
Shoreline for a long time, as well. She
commented that, at the end of the day, the intent of a contract is
meaningless. The only thing that counts
is the actual wording of the contract.
She noted that, as proposed, Tier 1 projects would be allowed a density
bonus of 100%, Tier 2 would allow a 75% bonus, and Tier 3 would allow a bonus
of 50%. She explained that the base
density in the R-4 zone is four units per acre, and the base density in the R-6
zone is six units per acre. A developer
who purchases a one-acre lot and certifies under Tier 1 would be allowed to
build at a base density of eight (R-4) or twelve (R-6). She referred to the December 1st
Commission Minutes where a Planning Commissioner questioned how Tier 1 would be
applied in the single-family zones. The
answer was that a good example would be cottage housing, which could allow
twelve units per acre rather than six.
Ms. Cross reviewed that per the ILFI’s website, the LBC
Certification Program is constantly evolving in response to feedback from
project teams and progress in the design, construction and manufacturing
industries. Version 3.1 makes the
challenge “more achievable” without sacrificing the rigor or intent of the
program. She said this is a good
reminder not to dismiss Tier 1 out of hand because things will continue to
change as more challenges are made, new products are created, and new methods
are discovered. Although the program
calls for financial penalties for developers if the houses fail to meet certification
requirements, the houses will already be built, creating a permanent penalty
for the neighborhood. She summarized
that twelve houses on an acre of land, which is 43,560 square feet, will be
equivalent to three houses on a 10,000 square foot lot. It is also important to note that the entire
acre does not have to be buildable to qualify for all twelve houses. If part of the land slopes down, which is
common, it would still be considered part of the total acreage and all of the
houses can be built on the level part because other available departures
include setback and lot coverage standards.
Margaret Willson, Shoreline, said
she visited ILFI’s website to research the Petal Certification Program and
submitted written comments prior to the meeting. She also reviewed the latest version of the
LBC (Version 3.1) Program, which is different than the program that was
presented to the Commission in February of 2016. She was shocked to find that ILFI’s agenda is
diametrically opposed to the interest of most of the current citizens of
Shoreline and to the reasons people have for wanting to live in Shoreline
rather than in Seattle. The agenda is
antithetical to preserving the citizens’ habitat, and the Deep Green Incentive
Program, is a foot in the door for a habitat destroying agenda. She reviewed some of the ILFI’s goals, as
specified in LBC Version 3.1:
·
Do away with suburbs (or Shoreline as we know it today). An excerpt from Page 18 reads, “The Challenge promotes the transition of
suburban zones to grow into either new urban areas with greater density or to
create balanced mixed-use villages that can support full lives with minimal car
trips or to be restructured as new rural zones for food production, habitat and
ecosystem services.”
·
Do away with single-occupancy vehicles and perhaps cars
in general. An excerpt from Page 26 reads, “Automobiles, often used as single-occupancy vehicles, have become
integral to our communities when we should depend on people power (walking and
bicycling) as the primary mode of travel and supplemented with shared
transit.”
·
Do away with freeways and parking lots. An
excerpt from Page 62 reads, “When we
accept billboards, parking lots, freeways and strip malls as being
aesthetically acceptable in the same breath we accept clear cuts, factory farms
and strip mines.”
Ms. Willson said she does
not think the people of Shoreline want to do away with suburbs, cars, freeways
and parking lots. She urged the
Commission to remove single-family zones from the Deep Green Incentive Program. If not, they need to at least make it clear
to the citizens of Shoreline that ILFI wants a fundamental transformation of
the current way of living, working and traveling. The proposal should be put to a vote so
citizens can make clear whether they support it or not.
Leah Missik, Seattle, Built Green, Program Manager, explained that Built Green’s highest certification
level (Emerald Star), is listed at Tier 2 in the proposed Deep Green Incentive
Program. Built Green Five Star is listed
as Tier 3. She recalled that she
previously shared some details about the Built Green Program, which is a home
certification program (single-family, townhomes and apartments). It does not certify commercial projects. She recently reviewed Built Green’s 2016
numbers, as well as a recent study of an Emerald Star project in Ballard, which
indicated an excess of energy is being produced by the home. Over a period of 400-days, the home consumed
-410 kilowatt hours, compared to a typical home that consumes roughly 1,000
kilowatt hours each month. The study
also found that the average water use was 20 gallons per person per day
compared to the state’s average of about 67 gallons per person per day. As part of the study, Built Green also
solicited feedback from the homeowners.
Although they were not initially looking for a green home and had to
give up a number of things they originally wanted, they indicated they would
not change a thing now. They have
adapted to the home’s systems, which are comfortable, and they feel they are
part of the neighborhood.
Ms. Missik reviewed another
Emerald Star Project in Issaquah Highlands, which is a 10-unit townhome
project. She noted that one of the
homeowners in the project now sits on Built Green’s Executive Committee. The owners are really happy with their homes,
which are performing as modeled with net zero energy and about a 70% reduction
in water. She summarized that there are
a few outstanding Emerald Star Projects, and they deserve to be rewarded. The homeowners who live in them are very
happy and well-integrated into their neighborhoods. From an environmental perspective, the homes
are functioning just as expected.
Continued
Commission Deliberation and Recommendation
Vice Chair Montero referred to Shoreline Municipal
Code (SMC) 20.60.630(E)(3)(a), which includes a new sentence. Ms. Redinger said this sentence addresses Ms.
Twaddell’s concern that it is not clear whether or not additional units granted
under a density bonus would be required to conform to the same standards as the
original project. Assistant City Attorney
Ainsworth-Taylor reminded the Commission that there is a motion on the table
(from the last meeting) to recommend adoption of Ordinance 760, and several
amendments were made to the original motion.
Any additional changes since the Commission’s last meeting must be moved
and voted on separately.
Ms. Redinger also pointed out that new language was
added to SMC 20.50.630(F)(5) based on the Commission’s previous action to add
Salmon Safe Certification to the program.
Assistant Attorney Ainsworth-Taylor recalled that, as part of the
Commission’s previous action, Ms. Redinger was given direction to incorporate
the Salmon Safe Certification into all sections of the code as needed. However, for clarification, the new language
could be specifically noted by the Commission.
COMMISSIONER
MORK MOVED THAT THE LANGUAGE IN SMC 20.50.630(E)(3)(a) BE AMENDED BY ADDING AN
ADDITIONAL SENTENCE AT THE END TO READ, “ANY
ADDITIONAL UNITS GRANTED WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE BUILT TO THE SAME GREEN
BUILDING STANDARD AS THE FIRST.” COMMISSIONER
THOMAS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Commissioner Chang questioned how the proposed change
would be impacted by the Commission’s recommendation relative to density
bonuses. Commissioner Mork explained
that the new language simply requires any additional units granted to be built
to the same green building standard, and density bonuses are a separate issue. Ms. Redinger agreed and clarified that even
if the Commission recommends to remove the density bonus as an option in the
R-4 and R-6 zones, it could still be an option for R-12, R-24, and R-48 zones
that still have a density limit.
THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Redinger reviewed a density table, which applies
the potential density bonuses associated with the three tiers to both detached
and attached unit development. She
reminded them of the rule that allows a developer to round up for attached
projects, but not for detached projects.
She explained that all three tiers allow a developer to obtain a second
unit without rounding up if the units are detached, but a detached unit project
would not be allowed to round up beyond two units. As an example, she reviewed that under Tier
1, a full LBC Project on a 10,000 square foot lot would allow 2.75 units. For a detached project, that would only
equal two units, but for an attached project it would equal three units because
rounding up would be allowed.
Ms. Redinger explained that, although the density
table is intended to represent possibilities, it is also important to talk
about probabilities. It would be very
concerning if the program were utilized by every eligible parcel, but it is
important to understand that, from a market perspective, there are no Tier 1
projects presently in Shoreline, and only a handful in Seattle and the entire
world. However, if the Commission is
concerned about how the program could impact single-family residential
neighborhoods, it could simply remove that option for single-family zones. Another option would be to put a limit on the
number of projects that could be built in the single-family zones.
Vice Chair Montero asked how ownership would work on a
10,000 square foot lot with two detached units.
Commissioner Malek said his understanding is that there would still be
two homes owned by separate people. A
condominium arrangement would be the most common approach for Shoreline, and
the arrangement would address such things as maintenance for the common areas,
shared driveways, etc. The detached
units could be developed to appear as separate homes to fit in with the
character of the neighborhood, but he felt that immersing a number of attached
units into single-family zones could distort the character of the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Malek referred to the map provided by
staff to illustrate the 3,200 existing lots that are 10,000 square feet or
greater. He noted that approximately 750
of the lots are located in The Highlands and Innis Arden and would be exempt
because the existing homeowner association rules provide an additional level of
control. Another 1,000 lots would not be
eligible for a density bonus because of topography, zoning, etc. That leaves about 1,600 lots that would be eligible
for a density bonus, which is about 11% to 12% of the total housing stock in
Shoreline. He summarized that this is a
significant number that could alter the character of existing neighborhoods. Shoreline is known for tree canopy and trying
to preserve its suburban character.
Density of this kind is innocent and may be justified for ILFI programs,
but the proposed ordinance does not include a system for putting the brakes
on. He said he agrees with the concerns
raised by citizens and felt that density should be addressed as a standalone
issue. He has concerns about allowing a
density bonus in single-family zones as part of the program. It could be added at a later time, if
needed.
Commissioner Maul pointed out that there is not a huge
amount of interest in deep green construction because it is costly and
difficult, and he does not foresee a mad dash to develop this high-level
product on all of the eligible lots in Shoreline. The City needs to be forward thinking and
recognize that the world is changing.
The GMA is intended to address concerns about urban sprawl, which is not
a valid concern for Shoreline because of its close proximity to Seattle. He said he can support the proposed
ordinance, but perhaps they should limit its application to ten homes as a
safety net. He felt it would be a
positive move to allow developers to try a few projects to see if the concept
catches on. He does not see that it
would denigrate the R-4 and R-6 neighborhoods.
Commissioner Chang said she would hate if one of the
few deep green projects was located next door to her. Although it would be a good experiment, the
project would still appear as two single-family homes next door, regardless of
whether they are green or not. She does
not like the idea of pushing an experiment of density into single-family
neighborhoods. The density should remain
where it is currently zoned to be. She
recommended that the density bonus option be removed from single-family
neighborhoods. She recalled that the
Commission’s previous discussion only included the possibility of two units
with Tier 1, but according to the density chart provided by staff, it would
also be a possibility in Tier 2 and Tier 3, which are easier to achieve. While it has been suggested that the
probability is low of getting multiple Tier 1 developments in Shoreline, she
recalled that the builder of the Bullitt Center indicated that the density
bonus is particularly intriguing.
Commissioner Thomas also voiced concern about how the
density bonus provision could impact single-family neighborhoods, and she would
be more in favor of applying the ordinance as a pilot program. Perhaps an element of the pilot program could
be a neighborhood meeting requirement to help alleviate concerns. She is particularly concerned that a Tier 3
project on a 14,522 square foot lot could result in three units. She said she has heard very little community
support for allowing density bonuses in single-family residential zones. If the ordinance moves forward, it should be
done as a pilot program in single-family residential zones, and additional
criteria could be added to provide neighborhood safeguards.
Assistant City Attorney Ainsworth-Taylor explained
that, in Washington State, the opportunity for the public to speak on the
development and vision of the community is when the zoning and development
regulations are created. The courts are
pretty solid that, once a project meets the zoning and development standards,
neighborhood dissatisfaction cannot bring it to a halt. Adding criteria that requires the
neighborhood to agree to a proposed project is contrary to Washington State
law.
Commissioner Chang noted that density is only one of
the incentives outlined in the proposed ordinance. In addition to the fee waiver, she asked
staff to share some of the other incentives that are offered in the proposed
program. Ms. Redinger said the proposed
ordinance outlines options for requesting departures to meet the certification
for setbacks, lot coverage, etc. As
stated by the builder of the Bullitt Center, developers of LCC and LBC projects
are less likely to request a density bonus, but density bonuses would be a more
meaningful incentive for the lower tiers.
She recalled that the Commission first raised concern about the density
bonus in December, and Chair Craft had commented that he was not interested in
removing the density bonus from the ordinance because it would be the most meaningful
incentive for single-family zones. She
felt that the likelihood of it being used in single-family zones is relatively
low even though it would be more meaningful and more possible for a Tier 3
project.
Commissioner Mork reminded her colleagues that the
City’s initiative calls for reducing greenhouse gases by 50% by 2030. They will not reach that goal by addressing
transportation, only. They need to think
of other ways to make it happen. It is very difficult to find builders who are
competent in deep green development, and she felt it appropriate for the City
to offer incentives to attract interested developers. She noted that there are few deep green
projects in the Puget Sound area and even worldwide, and she would love
Shoreline to be a showcase. She
summarized that deep green development is very costly and she does not see it
as a high probability in Shoreline, but she would like the City to do what it
can to attract this type of development.
Commissioner Chang pointed out that “residential”
refers to both multi-family and single-family residential zones. Although the density bonus is not available
in the Mixed-Use Residential Zones, there are height bonuses and other
incentives. By providing incentives,
particularly in the station areas, the City would be contributing to
significant improvements in greenhouse gas emissions.
Assistant City Attorney Ainsworth-Taylor suggested the
Commission could utilize the same approach that was used in SMC
20.50.630(E)(3)(b) and add “not applicable in single-family zones” at the end
of SMC 20.50.630(E)(3)(a).
Commissioner Malek asked if it would be reasonable to
return the ordinance to staff to develop it in such a way to create a pilot
that has limits to its application. He
agrees that density should not be allowed to go unchecked or taken advantage of,
but it would be unfortunate to not have a program in place. The City needs to be forward thinking,
particularly when there are 236 people moving to the Puget Sound Region every
day. He voiced concern that the City may
end up having the decision made for it.
COMMISSIONER
CHANG MOVED TO AMEND SMC 20.50.630(E)(3)(a) BY ADDING “NOT APPLICABLE IN SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES” AFTER THE COLON IN THE
FIRST SENTENCE.
Director Markle clarified that the Comprehensive Plan
calls single-family zones “Low-Density Residential,” and they go up to six
dwelling units per acre. “Medium-Density
Residential” goes up to twelve dwelling units per acre. The motion on the floor would apply to just
to R-4 and R-6 zones.
THE MOTION
FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Assistant City Attorney Ainsworth-Taylor voiced
concern that transferring the program from a permanent regulation program to a
temporary pilot program would change the entire scope of the proposal before
them. She would not recommend approval
of a pilot concept without allowing additional public comment.
Commissioner Malek asked if it would be possible for
the City to revisit the ordinance down the road if there are no applications
for deep green building and the City wants to add other types of incentives or
bonuses. Assistant City Attorney
Ainsworth-Taylor answered that the Development Code can be amended at any time,
and new incentives programs could be added at a later time. Commissioner Malek asked if it is possible to
add language to the ordinance that would trigger review at some point in the
future. Assistant City Attorney
Ainsworth-Taylor answered that, occasionally, a sunset or revision clause can
be built into a regulation, but this option was not advertised as part of the
proposed ordinance. However, the City
Council has an opportunity for additional public comment on the proposal, and
they are free to change the Planning Commission’s recommendation to include a
sunset or revision clause or implement a pilot program.
Commissioner Thomas said she is particularly concerned
about the ability to develop three units on a 10,000 square foot lot. She would not be opposed to allowing a density
bonus as long as there is also a minimum lot size requirement of 5,500 or 6,000
square feet. Assistant City Attorney
Ainsworth-Taylor cautioned that lot size and density are different. The density bonus would allow two structures
on one lot, but creating two separate lots would require a subdivision and the
properties would have to meet the minimum lot size requirement of the zone. Ms. Redinger summarized that a lot in an R-6
zone would have to be 14,400 square feet in order to be subdivided.
Commissioner Thomas said she does not have a problem
with allowing a density bonus so a 10,000 square foot property can accommodate
two units, but she is more concerned about allowing three units on that same
property. It could result in homes being
developed on very small spaces and changing the character of the single-family
neighborhood. Commissioner Malek agreed
and suggested that the density bonus concept should be discussed further with
more community input. In order to move
the ordinance forward, he suggested that the density bonus option should be
removed completely and hope that the remaining incentives are attractive enough
to bring developers on board.
Commissioner Mork reminded the Commissioners that,
once adopted, the ordinance could be amended at any time to add or delete
provisions. That means that if there is
an influx of deep green development, the City could amend the code to limit the
number. Commissioner Thomas agreed that
the City Council could impose a moratorium on new deep green development, but
the Planning Commission could not.
Commissioner Thomas suggested that perhaps they could
add a requirement that the minimum area for each house on a lot must average
5,000 square feet. Ms. Redinger said
there is no precedence anywhere else in the code for this type of
approach. Assistant City Attorney
Ainsworth-Taylor commented that is the intent of the minimum lot size
requirement in regular zones.
Commissioner Thomas said she hates to exclude the
density bonus from single-family zones, but she wants to have some mechanism
that ensures that density does not become overdone. Commissioner Chang questioned why a density
bonus must be included as an incentive. She suggested they try the other
incentives, combined with peoples’ desire to live in greener homes, to see if
they can make something happen.
Commissioner Thomas asked what other incentives would be available in
single-family zones. Ms. Redinger
answered that, as proposed, projects in single-family zones would be required
to have pre-application and neighborhood meetings, and the City could consider
waiving a percentage of the stormwater fee. There is
also a mechanism to waive a percentage of the transportation impact fee.
COMMISSIONER
CHANG MOVED THAT SMC 20.50.630(E)(1) BE AMENDED BY CHANGING THE FIRST SENTENCE
TO READ, “THE DEPARTURE WOULD RESULT IN A
DEVELOPMENT THAT MEETS THE GOALS OF THE SHORELINE DEEP GREEN INCENTIVE PROGRAM
AND WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH THE HEALTH, CHARACTER AND SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY.” COMMISSIONER THOMAS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Commissioner Maul cautioned that the term “character”
could be hard to defend and/or define since it is based on opinion. He questioned who would make the
determination that a project does or does not impact the character of the
community. Commissioner Chang said the
intention would be that the reviewers would consider community character when
reviewing departure requests.
THE MOTION
FAILED 1-5, WITH COMMISSIONER CHANG VOTING IN FAVOR AND COMMISSIONERS MAUL,
MALEK, MONTERO, MORK AND THOMAS VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
Commissioner Malek asked about the implications of
postponing the Commission’s recommendation and then notifying the public that
they would be reconsidering the ordinance as a pilot program. Assistant City Attorney Ainsworth-Taylor
advised that the Commission would need to officially close the public hearing
related to the proposal currently before them.
A “pilot” Deep Green Incentive Program could come back as a new
proposal, and the process would start all over again, with another study
session, followed by a public hearing.
Commissioner Maul reminded them that the City Council
would still have an opportunity to review the proposal and conduct a public
hearing. The proposed ordinance contains
a lot of good elements, and he suggested they forward their recommendation and
thoughts to the City Council, and then let them do their job to finalize the
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER
MALEK MOVED TO AMEND SMC 20.50.630(E)(3)(a) BY ELIMINATING THE FIRST SENTENCE
OF THE LAST PARAGRAPH AND ADDING “NOT APPLICABLE IN SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES.” COMMISSIONER CHANG SECONDED THE MOTION.
Commissioner Maul pointed out that, as currently
proposed, the density bonus would be excluded from the R-12 and R-8 zones. Director Markle suggested that the language
should specifically call out the single-family zones where the density bonus
would not be allowed.
COMMISSIONER
MALEK MODIFIED THE MOTION TO AMEND SMC 20.50.630(E)(3)(a) BY ELIMINATING “MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET IS
REQUIRED FOR
R-4 AND R-6 ZONES IN ORDER TO REQUEST DENSITY BONUS” AND BY ADDING “NOT APPLICABLE IN SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES”
AFTER THE COLON IN THE FIRST SENTENCE. COMMISSIONER CHANG ACCEPTED THE
MODIFICATION.
Commissioner Thomas again voiced concern that the
motion, as currently proposed, would exclude the density bonus from the
majority of zones where single-family housing is allowed. She suggested that a better approach would be
to require a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet in the R-4 and R-6
zones. This would result in a minimum
average lot size of 5,000 square feet for three units and 7,500 square feet for
two units. She noted that 7,500 square
feet is close to the standard for the R-6 zone.
She concluded that this approach would get the Commission beyond the
point of excluding the density bonus from single-family zones.
THE MOTION
FAILED 3-3, WITH COMMISSIONERS MALEK, CHANG AND MONTERO VOTING IN FAVOR AND
COMMISSIONERS MAUL, MORK AND THOMAS VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
COMMISSIONER
THOMAS MOVED THAT SMC 20.50.630(E)(3)(b) BE AMENDED TO CHANGE THE PHRASE INSIDE
THE PARENTHESIS TO READ, “NOT APPLICABLE
IN R-4 AND R-6 ZONES.” COMMISSIONER
CHANG SECONDED THE MOTION.
Commissioner Thomas said that, as currently proposed,
the parking reduction bonus would not be applicable in the R-4 and R-6
zones. Parking bonuses would be an
option in all of the other zones. Ms.
Redinger added that specifically calling out the R-6 and R-4 zones leaves the
language less open to interpretation.
THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Commissioner Thomas said she understands that setting
a minimum lot size requirement of 15,000 could be arbitrary because it is not
based on any study. However, she
expressed her belief that it would add clarity and some level of comfort that
homes would not be developed on very small lots.
COMMISSIONER
THOMAS MOVED THAT SMC 20.50.630(E)(3)(a) BE AMENDED BY ADDING A SENTENCE TO THE
LAST PARAGRAPH TO READ, “MINIMUM LOT SIZE
OF 15,000 SQUARE FEET IS REQUIRED IN R-4 AND R-6 ZONES IN ORDER TO REQUEST
DENSITY BONUS.” THE MOTION DIED FOR
LACK OF A SECOND.
Commissioner Mork questioned why the ordinance does
not include “prioritized permitting” as another potential incentive. She asked if it could easily be added, and if
so, where should it be added. Ms.
Redinger noted that one of the major incentives in the City of Seattle is the
ability to jump to the front of the permitting queue. However, the City’s queue is not currently
long enough for it to be considered a meaningful incentive. Assistant City Attorney Ainsworth-Taylor
commented that this change would be within the scope of the current proposal. She suggested that “Expedited Permit Review”
could be added as an additional incentive in SMC 20.50.630(D).
Commissioner Malek asked if the City has a program
called “Fast Track” for additions and projects of 500 square feet or less. Director Markle answered that the City does
not have a “Fast Track” Program, but they do offer over-the-counter permitting
for some smaller projects. Expedited
permitting means that a project would move to the front of the line. Assistant City Attorney Ainsworth-Taylor
pointed out that, as per the current fee table, the permit fee for expedited
permit review is double. Including
expedited permit review as an incentive would require clarification that there
would be no additional fee.
COMMISSIONER
MORK MOVED THAT SMC 20.50.630(D) BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE “EXPEDITED PERMITTING
WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL FEE SPECIFIED IN SMC 3.01” AS ANOTHER INCENTIVE
OPTION. COMMISSIONER MALEK SECONDED THE
MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
At the request of Assistant City Attorney
Ainsworth-Taylor, Ms. Redinger noted where language relative to the Salmon Safe
program was added throughout the ordinance.
Assistant City Attorney Ainsworth-Taylor suggested the Commission do a
simple motion to approve the additions.
Commissioner Thomas referred to SMC 20.50.630(D)(1)
and said it is not clear that NZEB and Salmon Safe would both be required in
order for a developer to obtain a waiver of City-imposed application fees. Ms. Redinger agreed that that is the
intent. Assistant City Attorney
Ainsworth-Taylor referred to the definition section and noted that NZEB is
defined as being NZEB in combination with Salmon Safe. Commissioner Thomas agreed that the
definition would address her concern.
COMMISSIONER
MORK MOVED TO ACCEPT ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS RELATIVE TO THE SALMON SAFE
PROGRAM. COMMISSIONER THOMAS SECONDED
THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Commissioner Mork noted that the Commission has talked
about incentives for Deep Green Development, but they haven’t talked about
surcharges for people who want to build traditional developments. Assistant City Attorney Ainsworth-Taylor
cautioned that this would be outside of the scope of the current proposal.
VICE CHAIR
MONTERO REVIEWED THAT THE MAIN MOTION (made
at the January 5th meeting) WAS
TO FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR DRAFT ORDINANCE
760 AS AMENDED BY STAFF AND THE COMMISSION.
THE MAIN
MOTION CARRIED 4-1-1, WITH COMMISSIONER CHANG VOTING IN OPPOSITION AND
COMMISSIONER THOMAS ABSTAINING.
DIRECTOR’S
REPORT
Director Markle briefly reviewed the status of the projects
that were included in the development update that was provided to the
Commission in writing at the last meeting.
Director Markle noted that the Commissioners received
an invitation to the Ronald Commons Hopelink Open
House on February 6th from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished
business.
NEW BUSINESS
There was no new
business.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONERS/ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no reports or announcements.
AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING
Director Markle announced that the February 2nd
meeting has been canceled because there are no agenda items.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was
adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
______________________________ ______________________________
William Montero Carla
Hoekzema
Vice Chair, Planning Commission Clerk, Planning
Commission