Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-14-1986 - Supplemental Materials8431 Ridge Road Bellevue, Washington 98004 July 14, 1986 City Council City of Medina Medina, Washington Ladies and Gentlemen, In June of 1985 the Joint Committee on Zoning and Building (appointed by the Mayor) presented to you their recommendations on seven different topics. Item six of this report deals with the review and update of the Comprehensive Plan. During that committee's deliberations, a number of issues were raised concerning the Medina Heights area which indicated the need for a comprehensive review of City plans and regulations which impact this unique neighborhood. These issues, identified in the report include: 1. Potential view blockage through redevelopment or expansion of existing homes to two floors 2. The relationship between topograohy aod vie�- preservatlon 0. Street oesign standards 4. Problems which will arise if tns area's lotE are developed to their full density The committep recommended the appointment of an advisory committee of 8-10 Medina Heights residents to work with the Planning Commission and Planning Consultant to prepare specific recommendations for this area of Medina' - The City took no action on this recommendation and in September of 1985 an independent group of Medina Heights people met to study these issues. After a number of meetings this group proposed: 1. A moratorium on building in this area until the Comprehensive Plan was adopted 2. That a City engineer inspect all properties for original grade before a building permit was issued 3. That building height in the area be limited to 20 feet from the highest point of the original grade at the building's wall to the highest point of the roof proper, but no more than 26 feet measured from the lowest point of the original grade at the building's wall to the highest point of the roof proper 4. View preservation is the right and responsibility of the residents 7-14-86 This proposal was mailed to the Planning Commission for their October meeting. An acknowledgment was never recieved. This proposal, along with 53 supporting signatures, was presented at the November - meeting as an agenda item but was not considered. On January 28th of this year the Planning Commission recommended passage of the Comprehensive Plan to the City Council, but no mention was made of the Medina Height's Study Committee proposals. These same proposals were then presented to you. Our group was endorsed and offered the assistance of the City Planner, Attorney, Manager, a Councilperson and a memner of the Planning Commission. You also suggested that we gather signatures to indicate attitudes about our proposals. With this professional advice we defined our 'target' area and proposed ordinance changes designed to protect and enhance our neighborhood. For the purposes of this study we defined Medina Heights as that area bounded by the north side of N.E. 10th` Lake Wasnington Bowlevarc, 3^erlake Drzvc East, and the west side V 84th N.E. !:e o-dinance cnaroes proposed 'attached) were the same as Item 3 above. In April we presented to you petitions in support of an ordinance to restrict building heights in our neiqhborhood. Tne signatures on those petitions represent positive support from apProxzmately 66% of the properties in the area, even after the withdrawal of several names. `~ At that April meeting we were again referred to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission scheduled a special meeting for May 27th. After public input the hearing was closed, the Commissioners discussed and then continued the meeting until June 2nd. On June 2nd their first order of business was to NOT consider Medina Heights as a separate area. At that meeting they eventually decided to recommend for all R-16 zones, in all of Medina a blanket 251 maximum lot coverage and one height standard - 28' maximum on a flat lot and 34' if there is a slope. Have we shot ourselves in the toot-..' The Planning Commission has consistently opposed the formaton of a Medina Heights Studv Committee and has failed to address the issues. The property owners of Medina Heights have sooken for limitations on re -development in their area. The Chairman of the 7-14-86 Planning Commission has stated, "We must consider the users." When asked to identify the users he replied, "The architects, the builders. the developers." Attachment A, Comprehensive Plan for the City of Medina, page 2, paragraph 3, states: "It is believed that development in Medina should continue in the form of premium single-family residences in more or less open settings to capitalize on the City's attractive territorial and lake views. It is felt that the City should take steps to preserve these natural amenities and the other characteristics which contribute to is quality of life'" We are asking the Medina City Council to do what the Planning Commission has failed to do. That is, Lo live up to the goals of the Comprehensive Plan by planning for changes in ihis unique community, by adopting ordinances to control development, and by preserving, not destroyi^g, the character of Medina Heiqhts' I would like this letter cntered 3ntn cne oublzc record. Thank you. Szncerely, Anne Hamilton PROPOSED NEW RESTRICTED HEIGHT ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR MEDINA HEIGHTS STUDY AREA 5-1.07 REGULATION OF R-16 (RH) LAND USE DISTRICTS This zone is established for those areas of the City which are currently developed with one story, split level or smaller two story single family residences, many of which are located on lots smaller than 16,000 square feet and meet the separate owner- ship criteria. In order to maintain neighborhood integrity, to reduce blockage of views and to promote individual privacy, it is necessary to restrict building height to be consistent with current residential development. The minimum lot area for each dwelling in the district shall' be 16,000 sq. ft. The minimum set -back of any part of any building or structure shall be 30 feet from the front property line and 30 feet from the back property line and shall be 10 feet from each side line. Buildings or .structures comprising a dwelling and its accessory structures shall, together, occupy no more than 25 percent of the area of any lot. The height of any building or structure shall be limited to 20 feet measured from the highest point of the original grade at the building's wall to the highest point of the roof proper, but not more than 26'-0" measured from the lowest point of the original grade at the building's wall to the highest point of the roof proper. There shall be a minimum of 70 feet of frontage on a dedicated and improved street. And, use shall be limited to single family dwellings. Structures existing when this ordinance is adopted which exceed these limits are not to be considered as non -conforming for pur- poses of interior remodeling. In those circumstances where a hardship is created because of the height of an existing struc- ture or lots with steep topography, the variance procedure should be utilized. The applicant should illustrate that a new struc- ture or addition to an existing structure will have a minimal impact on view blockage and privacy and that the character of the structure is consistent with adjacent structures in terms of style and scale, including such elements as roof pitch.