The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-21-2020 - Agenda PacketPage 3-4 A4 MEDINA, WASHINGTON www.medina-wa.gov PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA Virtual/Teleconference Tuesday, July 21, 2020 2:00 PM With the passing of the City's Proclamation of Local Emergency and the Governor's Stay -at Home Proclamation, City Hall is closed to the public. Planning Commission participation in the special meeting will be by teleconference/online only. Members of the public may also participate by phone/online but please note that no contemporaneous public comment will be accepted. Join Zoom Meeting htti)s://zoom.us/'/96329893233?pwd=RDZhQ1 PTOUg0alo5Z1 IEWUw5cXpmQT09 Meeting ID: 963 2989 3233 Password: 774017 or Dial in at +12532158782„96329893233# AGENDA David Langworthy, Mark Nelson, Laurel Preston, Mike Raskin, Randy Reeves, Shawn Schubring and Jenny Smith Staff/Commissioners Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 23, 2020 Recommendation: Adopt. Staff Contact: Amber Kellison, Development Services Coordinator Due to remote conferencing there will be no contemporaneous public comments at the Planning Commission meeting. Page 1 of 16 Page If residents or the public have questions, concerns or comments of Planning Commission business or issues, or the following Planning Commission agenda, kindly submit comments via email or regular mail to akellison(a)medina-wa.gov by 1 PM on Tuesday, July 21, 2020 to be read aloud by the Development Services Coordinator. Subject: Calendar/Joint Meeting Update Recommendation: Discussion item only. Staff Contact: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager 5 - 16 2. Subject: Mitigating Bulk Recommendation: Discussion item only Staff Contact: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager Next special meeting: September 22, 2020 at 2PM. Planning Commission meetings are held on the 4th Tuesday of the month at 6 PM. However, due to shifts in work and life that have resulted from COVID-19, the meetings have been temporarily changed to 2pm. UPCOMING MEETINGS August 2020 No Meeting Tuesday, September 22, 2020 Special Meeting (2pm) Tuesday, October 27, 2020 Special Meeting (2pm) November 2020 Special Meeting TBD December 2020 Special Meeting TBD In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need a disability -related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (425) 233-6410 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. Page 2 of 16 Draft AGENDA ITEM 3.1 MEDINA, WASHINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES zoom Tuesday, June 23, 2020 2:00 PM MINUTES The Planning Commission special meeting of June 23, 2020 was called to order at 2:04 p.m. by Chair Preston. Commissioners Present: Langworthy, Nelson, Raskin, Reeves, Schubring and Preston Commissioners Absent: Smith Staff Present: Keyser and Kellison Keyser announces upcoming meeting schedules. 1. Minutes from the May 26, 2020 regular meeting. ACTION: Motion Nelson second Reeves. Approved 6-0 None 1. Subject: Mitigating Bulk Keyser discussed optionally adjustments to code regarding lot coverage, zoning and bulk. The Commissioners provided input and asked questions. Staff responded. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 23, 2020 Page 3 of 16 Draft AGENDA ITEM 3.1 ACTION: Keyser will do further research and bring back more options on bulk for next Planning Commission Meeting. None Motion Raskin second Nelson; the Commission adjourned the regular meeting at 4:02 p.m. Minutes taken by: Amber Kellison Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 23, 2020 Page 4 of 16 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 CITY OF MEDINA 501 EVERGREEN POINT ROAD I PO BOX 144 1 MEDINA WA 98039-0144 TELEPHONE 425-233-6400 1 www.medina-wa.gov MEMORANDUM DATE: July 21, 2020 TO: Medina Planning Commission FROM: Stephanie Keyser, AICP, Planning Manager RE: Mitigating bulk At our last meeting, we discussed the discrepancy that exists within the code for lots that are larger than 16,000 square feet. Depending on the zoning district, lots that are zoned R-20 or R-30 have a maximum structural coverage that is smaller than the same sized lots that are zoned R-16. It is staff s belief that it is not the intention of the code to arbitrarily grant more structural coverage to some of these larger lots while reducing coverage for others. It is likely that this is a contributing factor to the looming and out -of -scale complaints that some new construction generates. The possibility of rebalancing the structural coverage for larger lots in R-16 to mirror what is allowed in R-20 and R-30 was discussed as well as the possibility of moving away from zoning consideration and instead focusing solely on lot size with regard to structural coverage. Removing the zoning differentiation would impact approximately 3221 lots in R-16 by reducing the existing structural coverage that they're currently permitted, while at the same time this would grant 58 substandard lots in R-20 and R-30 more structural coverage. For the purpose of this discussion, a substandard lot would be considered anything smaller than 16,000 square feet because that is the current minimum on the sliding scale for the R-20 and R-30 structural coverage table (MMC 20.23.020(B)). It was asked that staff bring back a comprehensive analysis of these substandard lots in R-20 and R-30 for discussion. There are 390 lots that are zoned R-20 and 75 lots that are zoned R-30. Of those, there are 49 substandard lots in R-20 and 9 substandard lots in R-30. It should be pointed out that access easements were not included in this parcel data2. It should also be noted that there is an existing house in R-20 that was built across two property lines. While this would not be permitted today, technically if the house was demolished, they could sell each parcel separately and so for the purpose of this discussion are considered two separate substandard parcels. Attachment 1 highlights these substandard lots in both zoning districts. The substandard parcel ranges are broken out into different colors as follows: green is 10,00 or less, light purple is 10,001-10,999, dark orange is 11,000-11,999, light blue is 12,000-12,999, grey is 13,000-13,999, pink is 14,000- 14,999, and dark purple is 15,000-15,999. Using the R-16 sliding scale for substandard lots, the ' The raw numbers cited in the staff reports keep changing because staff had been working off of an excel spreadsheet that identified all of the lots in Medina. However, the spreadsheet had not been updated to reflect zoning changes or lot line adjustments. The numbers reflected in this staff report are the correct existing conditions. 2 Parcel data may be viewed in Attachment 2 Subject: Mitigating Bulk Page 5 of 16 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 impact on the lots in R-20 and R-30 are shown below, as well as the percentage increase of structural coverage. R-20 and R-30 lots Lot Size under 000 R-20 square feet R-30 New Structural Coverage % Additional Coverage 10,000 or less 14 4 30% +5% 10,001 to 10,500 3 1 29.58% +4.58 10,501 to 11,000 6 2 29.17% +4.17 11,001 to 11,500 0 0 28.75% +3.75 11,501 to 12,000 3 0 28.33% +3.33 12,001 to 12,500 3 0 27.92% +2.92 12,501 to 13,000 3 0 27.5% +2.5 13,001 to 13,500 3 0 27.08% +2.08 13,501 to 14,000 4 0 26.67% +1.67 14,001 to 14,500 1 0 26.25% +1.25 14,501 to 15,000 2 0 25.83% +.83 15,001 to 15,500 4 1 25.42% +.42 15,501 to 16,000 3 1 25.21% +.21 There are things that need to be further explored if this option will be pursued. The first is whether only the lots that are larger than R-16 should be rebalanced. The second is whether or not the substandard lots in R-20 and R-30 should be granted additional coverage. It has come to staff s attention that some of the complaints regarding looming structures stems from the redevelopment of these smaller lots that were granted additional coverage in 2008. If we're going to move to a rebalancing approach with an incentive base to be able to recapture some of that "lost" coverage, does it make sense to roll -back the 2008 bonus and instead include it in the optional incentives? Also included for today's discussion are: integrating incentives to offset the reduced structural coverage (Option 2), allowing additional height if a pitched roof is used and there is a second floor reduction (Option 3), requiring different roof -forms based on height (Option 4) and looking at changing how height is measured (Option 5). Option 1: Structural Coverage Adjustment Summary: This option would adjust the structural coverage allowed on lots that exceed 16,000 square feet to match those of similar sized lots in the R-20 and R-30 zoning districts. Or, this option could do away with the zoning aspect and just limit structural coverage to lot size. Subject: Mitigating Bulk Page 6 of 16 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Proposed change for rebalancing R-16: Table 20.23.020(A): R-16 Zone Total Structural Coverage and Impervious Surface Standards Square Footage of the Lot Area Maximum Structural Coverage Maximum Impervious Surface 10,000 or less 30 percent 55 percent 10,001 to 10,500 29.58 percent 55 percent 10,501 to 11,000 29.17 percent 55 percent 11,001 to 11,500 28.75 percent 55 percent 11,501 to 12,000 28.33 percent 55 percent 12,001 to 12,500 27.92 percent 55 percent 12,501 to 13,000 27.5 percent 55 percent 13,001 to 13,500 27.08 percent 55 percent 13,501 to 14,000 26.67 percent 55 percent 14,001 to 14,500 26.25 percent 55 percent 14,501 to 15,000 25.83 percent 55 percent 15,001 to 15,500 25.42 percent 55 percent 15,501 to 15,999 25.21 percent 55 percent 16,000 or greater 25 percent 55 percent 16,001 to 16,500 24.5 percent 55 percent 16,501 to 17,000 24 percent 55 percent 17,001 to 17,500 23.5 percent 55 percent 17,501 to 18,000 23 percent 55 percent 18,001 to 18,500 22.5 percent 55 percent 18,501 to 19,000 22 percent 55 percent 19,001 to 19,500 21.5 percent 55 percent 19,501 to 29,999 1 21 percent 55 percent 30,000 and greater 21 percent 55 percent Subject: Mitigating Bulk Page 7 of 16 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Or proposed change for doing away with the zoning aspect of structural coverage: Table 20.23.020(A): gene Total Structural Coverage and Impervious Surface Standards Square Footage of the Lot Area Maximum Structural Coverage Maximum Impervious Surface R-16 R-20 R-30/SR-30 10,000 or less 30 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 10,001 to 10,500 29.58 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 10,501 to 11,000 29.17 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 11,001 to 11,500 28.75 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 11,501 to 12,000 28.33 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 12,001 to 12,500 27.92 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 12,501 to 13,000 27.5 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 13,001 to 13,500 27.08 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 13,501 to 14,000 26.67 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 14,001 to 14,500 26.25 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 14,501 to 15,000 25.83 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 15,001 to 15,500 25.42 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 15,501 to 15,999 25.21 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 16,000 or greater 25 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 16,001 to 16,500 24.5 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 16,501 to 17,000 24 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 17,001 to 17,500 23.5 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 17,501 to 18,000 23 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 18,001 to 18,500 22.5 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 18,501 to 19,000 22 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 19,001 to 19,500 21.5 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 19,501 to 29,999 21 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 52.5 percent 30,000 and greater 21 percent 55 percent 52.5 percent 50 percent Subject: Mitigating Bulk Page 8 of 16 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Option 2: Incentives (TBD) Summary: This could be a layered approach. Perhaps if Option 1 is pursued and the structural coverage for all lots are reduced, the following could be written as incentives for property owners to recapture some of that lost coverage It's been difficult to come up with ways to incentivize development (e.g. pitched roofs) because many of the traditional methods are just not applicable. Things like expedited permit processing, affordable housing density bonuses, or reduced permit fees are just not realistic to offer in this moment. Additional height is contentious and granting more coverage under the current code doesn't make a lot of sense. A reduction in building capacity is one tool cities are utilizing to combat excessively large, out of scale houses. If it is determined that the entire structural coverage needs to be reevaluated and reduced, one way to allow homeowners to recapture some of that lost square footage (percentage to be determined) could be by requiring a few of the following options, some of which were discussed briefly last year: Daylight Plane Vertically extending to a point (12' or 15' above grade), then an inward sloping line at 45 degrees THE DATILK 'PLME CROSS SECTION OF THE DAYLIGHT PLANE SIQE PROPERTY LINE Subject: Mitigating Bulk Page 9 of 16 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Plane Break All portions of a building that have a side wall exceeding 14 ft. in height and a continuous length greater than 45 feet shall have an offset/plan break that is a minimum depth of five feet beyond the required side yard setback and a minimum length of 10 ft. Second -Story Reduction This would require reduction coverage in any floor above the first. Planting Area At least 50% of the side yard and rear setback shall have a planting area with a minimum width of 5-feet adjoining the side and rear parcel lines (actual percentage and size to be determined). Option 3: Pitched Roof — Additional Height Bonus Summary: This option would grant an additional five feet on top of the maximum zoning height (25 ft./28 ft). if a pitched roof is used and the second floor structural coverage is reduced to 80% of the first floor hi the Medina Municipal Code (MMC), lots in the R-20 and R-30 zoning district are eligible for an additional height bonus of 30 feet from the high point of original grade or 36 feet from the low point of original grade if the structural coverage is reduced to 13% of the lot. Typically with development regulation incentives, there's a tradeoff as demonstrated by the above example. When we talk about the possibility of granting an additional five feet, yes that might encourage more pitched roofs, however it will also negatively contribute to both the perception and actual bulk of new construction, which is something Council wants to avoid. Subject: Mitigating Bulk Page 10 of 16 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 hi order to maximize the building envelope, it is often the case that one floor is placed directly on top of another floor, thereby creating a sense of volume and bulk that too often overwhelms adjacent structures. To offset an increase in additional height but not perpetuate more boxes, it is proposed that the second floor be reduced to 80% of the first floor. Requiring different coverages based upon the style of house (single -story vs. two-story) as well as smaller coverages above a first floor is something that some cities have done to mitigate the oppressive feeling large box - style houses can have on a neighborhood. Option 4: Pitched Roof — Different Height Requirements Summary: This option would impose different height restrictions depending on the roof -type used: 20 feet for a flat -roof and 25 feet for a pitched roof Proposed change: Table 20.23.050(A): Maximum Height Standards Zoning/Height Overlay Maximum Height Measurement Points R-20/R- Medina R-16 30 SR-30 N-A Public Hei hts g High N/A* N/A* N/A* Original Point 20 ft. for flat roof,- 25 ft. for Grade pitched None None Low 25 Point 25 feet feet 20 feet High N/A* N/A* N/A* Finished Point 23 ft. for flat roof, 28 ft. for 30 35 Low 28 Grade pitched feet feet Point 28 feet feet 23 feet Eligible for Height No Yes Yes No No No Bonus *Not applicable. Option 5: Reevaluating whether to move to measuring height from average grade instead of original grade This topic has not been fully discussed, however as a first step, below are examples of how height is measured in surrounding cities. 3 This is seen in many cities in California. However, as of the writing of this, staff had not done a country -wide search to determine if other states are following this trend. Subject: Mitigating Bulk Page 11 of 16 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 Height in Other Cities City Height Maximum Height Additional Measures Measurement Hunt's Point Original Grade 26' above original grade Daylight Plane — reference line Maximum height 32' feet above the finished measured by an inward grade sloping line at 45' from the vertical beginning at 30' above original grade a point 15' above the reference line intersection of original 36' above finished grade and the min. side provided additional yard setback lines but setback measured from an not to exceed 26' above inward sloping line 45 an original grade degrees from the vertical reference line nor a beginning at a point 15 height of 32' above the feet above the intersection finished grade measured of the original grade and from any point of the minimum setback line contact of the finished on the addressed side of grade with the building the property is wall, deck, porch or incorporated into the veranda to the highest project design. point of the building structure. Yarrow Point Original Grade 25' above original grade, N/A or 31' above finished, whichever is less Clyde Hill Original Grade 25' above original grade N/A Beaux Arts Existing Grade 30' above existing grade N/A Village Mercer Island Average Building No building shall exceed Downhill Building Elevation 30' in height above Fagade — Maximum average building elevation facade height on Existing or to the highest point of the downhill side of a Finished for sloping roof sloping lot shall not lots exceed 30' measured from the existing grade or finished, whichever is lower, at the furthest downhill extent of the proposed building to the top of the exterior wall facade Redmond Average finished 35' measured from the N/A grade average finished grade Subject: Mitigating Bulk Page 12 of 16 AGENDA ITEM 5.2 around the building to the highest point of the structure Kirkland Average building 25' or 30', depending on N/A elevation the zoning district Bellevue Average elevation 30' for flat/35' for N/A of existing grade pitched; or 30' depending on the zoning district Subject: Mitigating Bulk Page 13 of 16 Evergreen Point o Lake Washington e SR-520 Maintenance v Facility Fairweather Nature Preserve / Park 1 mi I Town of Hunts Point r_TA9ED]:Ityil=101riI Town of Yarrow Point City of Clyde Hill ° Bellevue Christian School ., FEW_ Legend g,.'° Shoreline m u p PSE State Route 520 "„ ,» t ■� �' d Wells Medina Lake Washington m, �a Nursery. _ Docks �Q�? 30 Z nin € Official Zoning Districts 6�eikAdWIN?reAclov s tt�NA(Neighborhood Auto Servicing) mm3100bdu4@29 » @ s m Public (Parks and Public Spaces) [16L-D mA0®0F07.i999 R-16 (Single Family Residence) M1M0M 1,&.%9 ?m R-20 (Single Family Residence) 290000t2$999 "• "' R-30 (Single Family Residence) �1290000F2$999 SR-30 (Suburban Gardening Residential) FF 3QI000I4t99greater gym, �'"' '"•� '•' 15,000-15,999 Zoning Overlay Districts NCPD (Neighborhood Character Preservation District) Overlake Golf & Country Club ® PLUD (Planned Landuse Development) », Locator Map za, ',• �,I $ St. Thomas ,„o Church/School, Medina Park °City Shop IL Ell m a � .,e.�� a �•� $ •IL ' t » d x e e Metro . » _ "$ pill13 . CMS o , ta3 Medina Elementary ix ■ m • �'^., 3� 3 e 6 i m » € s IL Medina Beach Park City Hall F^- Dabney Point Viewpoint Park _ ,, J - >, Lake Washington Public Dock a �'Y' " Groat Point NW24 tNE24 SW24 SE24 NW25 NE25 SW25 SE25 SW30 NW36 I NE36 NW31 e SW31 City of Bellevue ey a� �b �y � Address &Zoning Official Zoning Map �f .Ordinance No. 907 ��VIEDINA Designations • Passed by City Council, 5.12.2014 reapwaaprcEac<GSyN«hotMed aGlS a4eeanat • Amended b Ordinance No. 961 p I I \ G "I- t) \ represent survey accurate eats No waranees. of any sort. Induaing y a urscy.flNess.--antaEililyac-o-ytltispr[quct • Effective Date: 7.9.2018 1" = 400e Geographic Inlb rnrttion Sc>tcros scar«: King coamy open Daia Gls e onginel plot spa ie zrx<o.• gaga soda is .acaaie atsmaller pnrn File:..\MedlnaGISData\MapDocuments\Medina_Zoning_Addmss_2019_0102_27x40—d Plot Date: 1.2.19 Subject: Mitigating Bulk Page 14 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 Parcel Data - R-20 & R-30 smaller than 16,000 sq. ft. Parcel No. Zoning Sq. Ft. House No. Street 3835503195 R20 2,640 S of 338 ODE 3025300360 R20 4,326 N of 1545 77th PL NE 2425049189 R20 4,356 E of 3204 78th PL NE 2425049180 R20 4,626 2851 Evergreen Point Rd 3835502357 R20 4,875 446 Overlake DR 3835503070 R20 5,096 E of 312 ODE 3025300335 R20 5,402 W of 1545 77th PL NE 3835503110 R20 5,600 Front of 322 ODE - should have LLA 2425049184 R20 6,098 3461 Evergreen Point Rd 3323500041 R20 6,270 8700 NE 11th ST 3323500040 R20 7,475 8703 NE 11th ST 3835503150 R20 7,600 322 Overlake DR 2018700105 R20 9,265 8117 Overlake DR 2018700160 R20 9,502 511 82nd AVE NE 3835502975 R20 10,362 232 Overlake DR 7397300243 R20 10,500 3301 78th PL NE 2425049157 R20 10,500 3665 Fairweather Point Ln 7397300251 R20 10,800 3310 Evergreen Point Rd 7397300252 R20 10,800 3316 Evergreen Point Rd 2018700145 R20 10,812 515 82nd AVE NE 9208900021 R20 10,843 2221 Evergreen Point Rd 9208900023 R20 10,843 2223 Evergreen Point Rd 9208900022 R20 10,843 2229 Evergreen Point Rd 3323500050 R20 11,668 1035 88th AVE NE 9389100050 R20 11,850 456 Overlake DR 3835503170 R20 11,881 314 Overlake DR 9389100045 R20 12,000 450 Overlake DR 7397300240 R20 12,300 3255 78th PL NE 2018700100 R20 12,348 8105 Overlake DR 7397300151 R20 12,560 3230 78th PL NE 9208900072 R20 12,645 1845 Evergreen Point Rd 9208900071 R20 12,645 1847 Evergreen Point Rd 2425049176 R20 13,068 3212 Evergreen Point Rd 2425049182 R20 13,068 3204 Evergreen Point Rd 3025300341 R20 13,360 1444 Evergreen Point Rd 2425049158 R20 13,600 3667 Fairweather Point Ln 7397300250 R20 13,800 3311 78th PL NE 2425049137 R20 13,800 3654 Fairweather Point Ln 3323500055 R20 13,978 1007 88th AVE NE 3835502356 R20 14,032 444 Overlake DR 2425049118 R20 14,533 3670 Fairweather Point Ln 2425049255 R20 14,875 Water Access - W of 3217 EPR 9208900057 R20 15,000 2005 Evergreen Point Rd 9208900073 R20 15,063 1849 Evergreen Point Rd 9389100072 R20 15,300 510 Overlake DR Subject: Mitigating Bulk Page 15 of 16 ATTACHMENT 2 2425049238 R20 15,400 3615 Evergreen Point Rd 3025300365 R20 15,839 1545 77th PL NE 2540700115 R20 15,945 1076 Lake Washington Blvd 2425049125 R20 15,995 3655 Evergreen Point Rd 2260300100 R30 4,149 S of 1403 EPR 2018700110 R30 8,225 8213 Overlake DR 3625049066 R30 9,600 520 Evergreen Point Rd 3625049079 R30 9,600 7601 Overlake DR 3625049056 R30 10,074 512 Evergreen Point Rd 2018700165 R30 10,668 8233 Overlake DR 2018700141 R30 10,960 8223 Overlake DR 3625049040 R30 15,399 7757 Overlake DR 1942300070 R30 15,625 1259 Evergreen Point Rd Subject: Mitigating Bulk Page 16 of 16