Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 01/30/1990 Kent, Washington January 30, 1990 Proper legal notice having been given by the City Clerk, Mayor Kelleher called a Special Meeting of the Kent City Council to order at 7 : 00 p.m. at the United Methodist Church. Present: Councilmembers Dowell, Houser, Johnson, Mann, Orr and Woods, City Administrator Chow, City Attorney Driscoll, Planning Director Harris and Public Works Director Wickstrom. Approximately 100 people were in attendance. Councilmember White was absent. Mayor Kelleher announced that the purpose of the special meeting is: 1. To consider a recommendation from the Planning Commission to amend the City of Kent City-wide Comprehensive Plan, the East Hill Subarea Comprehensive Plan and the Kent Zoning Code and Map (CPZ-89-3) . 2 . To consider a recommendation from the Planning Commission to amend the City of Kent City-wide Comprehensive Plan, the Valley Floor Subarea Comprehensive Plan and the Kent Zoning Map (CPZ-89-4) . He also noted that the Council has the option to approve, disapprove, or modify and approve as modified, the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and East Hill Subarea Comprehensive Plan amendments as set forth by the Planning Commission in the Findings and Conclusions approved December 11, 1989 . The Council may also vote to refer the recommendations back to the Planning Commission for further proceedings. Jim Harris, Planning Director, noted that in 1985 the Council asked the Planning Department to analyze the housing situation. He explained that a study was done and many meetings were held, which indicated that the citizens of Kent were most concerned about the increasing number of apartments and a sense of overcrowding. He then explained subsequent actions by the Council as follows: 1. Adoption of Resolution 1123 promoting development of single family residential uses and establishing a goal of achieving an average density reduction of 20% on all undeveloped multi-family zoned land. (December 1, 1986) 2 . Adoption of Resolution 1145 endorsing and directing the Planning Department, Planning Commission and Hearing Examiner to proceed with Options B and C in the "Report on Multi-Family Density" . (September 15, 1987) 3 . Approval of the Planning Commission' s recommendations with modifications. (June 21, 1988) 1 January 30, 1990 Special Meeting 4 . Adoption of Ordinance 2788 reducing multi-family residential densities for lots of more than 15, 000 square feet in size by 20% on an interim basis and adoption of Resolution 117.2 directing an update of the Housing Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, including an area-by-area study of single family and multi- family housing densities. (July 5, 1988) Harris stated that the Planning Commission has since held workshops and hearings on this issue and has made recommendations to the Council, which will be considered tonight. Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager, pointed out that since 1980, 6, 660 units of multi-family development has been erected in the City of Kent and 314 single family units have been constructed. He said that currently 70% of housing is multi-family and 30% is single family, giving Kent the highest ratio of multi-family in the County, possibly in the State. Satterstrom stated that the Mayor and Council have initiated several programs including an affordable housing study, adoption of multi-family design standards, passage of a zero lot line ordinance, and adoption of a new housing element. Lauri Anderson of the Planning Department noted that meetings had been held in which citizens voiced their concerns about residential development. She said that transportation and a mix of housing types were primary considerations. Anderson also noted that the Planning Commission had explored the idea of a new zoning district, R1-5. 0, which would allow 5, 000 square foot minimum lot size, and they had devised a single family designated overlay area which identifies single family areas which warrant protection. She also pointed out that two open houses were held, and that the citizens at these meetings all favored 100% East Hill reduction option. She said that under the Planning Commission' s recommendation for East Hill, of the 21 areas, 6 would not be changed, 9 areas would change from multi-family to single family, and the remainder would change from a higher density to a lower density. Janet Shull of the Planning Department stated that on the Valley Floor there was emphasis on retaining density. She said there were four areas identified for their potential to become multi-family. Shull stated that there were a total of 14 multi-family areas identified by staff, and that the Planning Commission recommended no change on 4 of them, a lesser density on 4 of them and single family on 4 . She pointed out that two of the areas had been divided. Linda Martinez , Chair of the Planning Commission, noted that twelve public hearings and six work sessions has been held, and that a great deal of public input was received. She said the Commission had studied the issue and made recommendations and asked the Council to make a decision tonight. 2 January 30, 1990 Special Meeting Carol Stoner of the Planning Commission noted that the main issues on East Hill were public facilities, providing a mix of housing types, school overcrowding and inadequate transportation. She said that as of 1-1-89 , 79% of existing housing on East Hill was multi-family. She said that the Commission had recommended that R1-5. 0 zoning be applied to approximately 16 acres of land on East Hill, and that the Council apply a single family designation overlay to protect existing single family neighborhoods. Tracy Faust of the Planning Commission noted that four meetings had been held regarding the Valley Floor and that input had been received from at least fifty people. She stated that their input was taken into consideration, as well as Resolution 1172 and the 20% reduction when the Commission made their recommendations. She urged the Council to accept the Findings and Conclusions of the Planning Commission tonight. JOHNSON MOVED to approve as modified, the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and Subarea Comprehensive Plan amendments as set forth by the Planning Commission in the Findings and Conclusions approved December 11, 1989, and to include the Mayor' s recommendation to amend the Zoning Code as outlined in his memo as dated on January 30, 1990. Woods seconded. The Clerk then read the Mayor' s January 30, 1990 memo regarding 5, 000 square foot lots into the record, a copy of which has been filed. Mann proposed as a friendly amendment, and further MOVED that the City compensate affected landowners in an amount equal to the difference paid in property taxes on land on which zoning would change in this proposed ordinance. Houser seconded. Johnson did not accept this as a friendly amendment. The Mayor and Council agreed to limit comments from the audience to five minutes each. Paul Morford, 21264 132nd Avenue S .E. , addressed the Council regarding the 5, 000 square foot lots in the North Park area. He pointed out that a permit to build 16 duplexes is vested, but that this would be a good opportunity to build 32 single family homes instead. Morford proposed that the 5, 000 square feet be changed to 4 , 600 square feet. He noted that in 1985 the City had conducted an affordable housing study, and maintained that the single family homes on 4 , 600 square foot lots would meet the objectives of that report. Mr. Heutmaker, the owner, and Mr. Canfield, the architect, both agreed that 32 single family homes could be built in this area on 4 , 600 square foot lots, and urged the Council to give their approval . Dee Eklund, noted that the Chamber of Commerce had studied the Planning Commission' s recommendations and had distributed their report to the Council tonight. Eklund stated concern that without increasing density on the valley floor, you cannot plan for commuter rail or mass transit. 3 January 30, 1990 Special Meeting The Chamber also supports further use of the zero lot line concept which would increase single family dwellings at more affordable prices and encouraged building condos and co-ops. She also stated that they recommend that the Hearing Examiner process be included before final zoning changes are enforced. Jim Flick, 9408 S. 218th, questioned the total cost of compensating landowners whose zoning is changed, and how it would be funded. Bill Juede, representing Triangle Properties, noted that in the rezone, their property was changed from Industrial to MRG, which is 16 units. He said they have agreed to change their plan to multi-family, but would like a higher density. Don Knapp, 25046 38th Avenue South, voiced concern about overcrowded schools and streets. Dennis Beckwith, 10860 S.E. 196th St. , Renton, asked to be deleted from the rezone list. He then read a letter he had written to the Mayor and City Council, and a petition signed by neighbors. Mr. Basemore, architect for Bill Jeude stated that with MRM zoning they wouldn't need any compensation and that MRM was needed in order to break even. He noted that his client was not resisting participating in road improvements and that large apartments were planned which would accommodate families. Bob Jenkins, of 626 S. 2nd Avenue stated that he had purchased multi- zoned property 25 years ago as a retirement investment and to downzone this now would seriously affect his retirement years. Mr. Sanders, of 10925 SE 244th St. , stated that any changes to zoning would affect owners and that the Council must ensure a nominal impact to the community in order to be acceptable to the landowners. Edith Lambert, 6702 34th Ave. NW, Seattle, stated that she owned property at 110th Ave. SE and SE 256th St, which was zoned for multi- family before annexation to Kent and was supposed to remain so according to the Planning Department. She pointed out that owners paid taxes in accordance with multi-zoning and now would be downzoned without any compensation for the devaluation of the property. She stated that the government cannot devalue property by restricting its use without compensating the owners. Gary Conner, of E. Ward St. , stated that speaking of compensation was premature in that it was not known how much the downzoning would cost the City in taxes or how much the owners might be paid in compensation. 4 p January 30, 1990 Special Meeting State Representative Elmira Forner, member of the Planning Commission, stated that Kent is asked to make some tough decisions for the future. A man from the audience noted that apartment construction should be slowed down and further that the taxes were already too high on single family housing. He noted traffic problems and overcrowding of schools on East Hill. Morgan Llewellyn stated that the City should consider the economic impact of downzoning and pointed out that young people couldn't afford to buy homes. He noted that apartment dwellers probably included the children of some of those speaking here tonight. Kathy Meyers, 23829 111th Pl. SE, noted that she lived in an apartment and stated that perhaps the Council could set a limit to the number of years to be considered for compensation. Anne Biteman stated that she opposed Mann's proposal and that her taxes were already high. Jeannette Burridge of 522 49th SW, Seattle attorney, stated that the Constitution protects the individual 's right to build apartments on property which is so zoned and that the Council is pledged to support the Constitution. Hugh Leiper stated that he lives at 1313 W. James in a condo. He noted that the figures given in the report were incorrect in that 1500 condos were counted as apartments. He noted that if apartments were restricted within the city they would be built outside the city limits and still use the city' s overcrowded streets. He suggested that the City seek an expert to train staff in long range planning, as Bellevue had done. Paul Mann stated that he had conferred with the City Attorney and WITHDREW his proposed amendment to Johnson' s motion. A representative of Goodman Management of 13836 NE 8th, Bellevue, stated that he represented managers of 10, 000 apartment units in the Kent valley. He clarified that apartment owners paid taxes and the city would notice the difference in tax receipts if the number of apartments was to be reduced by 20%. Paul Morford expressed his concern for the area at Kent-Kangley Road and 116th Ave. SE, noting that the Planning Commission minutes of November 20, 1989, page 8 , contains an error and clarified that apartments now existing in the center of the property were not mentioned. The minutes stated that the owners did not want single family zoning, and Morford 5 January 30, 1990 Special Meeting introduced Mr. Wright and Mr. Goddard, the principle owners. Morford read and submitted a list of reasons favoring downzoning and list favoring leaving the existing zoning of MRM. Duncan Bonjorni, attorney for owners of Area MF-6 objected to the proposed downzone from MRM to MRD and stated that substantial sums had been spent over the past six months through the permit process. Upon the Mayor' s question, Bonjorni clarified that certain costly actions were required before the application for the permit can be made. City Attorney Driscoll clarified that ordinances were not effective until 30 days after passage. Maureen McNamara of 23839 94th Ave. S urged the City to accept the Commission' s recommendation and noted that apartments are not low cost housing at $600 and $700 per month rent. Richard Hill spoke for the Carpinito family, owners of property on the Valley floor, supporting the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Charles Goddard stated that downzoning would reduce the value of his property by half and that no one would build a single family residence on his property, as it was surrounded by apartments. Frank Chopp stated that he supported the Planning Commission recommendation. Carol Morford referred to site MF-3 on 100th Ave. SE, north of James St. , a location of existing apartments, stating that the proposal would place her property into a non-conforming use. She suggested that the proposed ordinance not include existing apartments. Ralph Wright stated he had owned his 2 1/2 acres on the Kent-Kangley Road for 35 years and had paid high taxes on it in anticipation of his retirement. Paul Mann asked the City Attorney to advise the audience of the reason she advised him to withdraw his motion. Driscoll noted that courts at both Federal and State level had made it very clear that the action that the Council is considering tonight is not the constitutional taking that would mandate compensation for the property owners for diminished value, therefore, the Council has no obligation to make any payment. If the Council has no obligation, we have to look for the authority to make such payment. Article 8, Section 7, of the constitution prohibits the making of a gift of public funds to an individual. Without the obligation to make the payment, Council would be in violation of that provision if it were to make payments to the property owners. 6 January 30, 1990 Special Meeting Brad Bell stated that he thought that some owners in the area were not aware of the proposed downzoning. He recommended that the Council appoint an individual to go over the zoning proposals on a case by case basis with those property owners who have questions. Ed Heineman of SE 244th St. recommended that the Council approve the Planning Commission' s recommendation first and then work out the problems later, such as individual appeals and/or possible compensation to some in hardship situations. Kathy Myers suggested that Council should consider the percentage of those speaking in the interest of the community as opposed to those speaking in interest of personal gain. She noted that care should be taken in allowing 5, 000 square foot lots. Ed Flick of S. 218th St. praised the work done by the Planning Commission and noted that ample notice was given. He recommended that the Council take action tonight. Upon Chris Grant' s question, Fred Satterstrom noted that some projects are in the permit process. It was determined by Mayor Kelleher that under the lower density proposal, there would be 23% fewer apartment units than there would have been under the existing zoning. Grant recommended adoption of Johnson' s motion. He referred to Wright' s situation and asked if there was some service oriented zoning that would fit this property. Lauri Anderson of the Planning Department, stated that community service uses were allowed under conditional use permits. Gail Williams of 21817 93rd Ave. S, stated that those living in the area of site MF-11 did not want multiple zoning in spite of Mr. Beckwith's petition. Robert Clayton of 26047 116th SE, asked about two day care businesses he owned. Laurie Anderson stated that these operated under a special use permit and would not be affected. Elbert Sanders noted that new construction single family is not affordable housing. What must be considered here is what is best for the City of Kent. Howard Bromley stated that he thought that the purpose was to downzone undeveloped property. He said a zoning change for his property at 116th Ave. SE and the Kent-Kangley to single family residential would be a mistake. 7 January 30, 1990 Special Meeting Larry Bramwell stated he represented Dale Snow who has an application pending for multiple zoning for property on SE 240th near 104th Ave. SE, which is completely surrounded by multiple family and commercial property. The SEPA review has been completed and a statement of non- significance has been issued. He pointed out that apartment owners certainly do pay taxes. Barry Anderson, 600 S. Central, referred to site MF-11 on the valley floor, noting that in 1976 this was considered too steep for a residential plat. The Planning Department suggested that the best use of the property was for a planned unit development and this became the City' s first planned unit development. Mr. Beckwith now owns the property. He requested that this parcel remain at MRG zoning. The Mayor clarified for Bill Dinsdale, 13700 SE 266th St. , that in the past, there were two issues dealing with compensation, one of which was the zoning both on the south side of Kent and west of the Green River. He said that in both of those instances the Council took similar action to what they are considering tonight. He pointed out that the Council had been asked to consider compensation for the reduction in the value of the property and the Council declined to do so. The City was sued and did not lose the case. The Mayor noted that at about the same time, agricultural items were dealt with through a County program which was called a Purchase of Development Rights Program. Under this, the proceeds of a bond issue were used to buy the development rights, and so use of the land could be controlled. Dinsdale said he feels compensation is a major issue. He stated that ten years ago he had bought a piece of property as an investment which was zoned multi- family. He said the City should not devalue anyone's property without consideration for that person. He said he feels he should not have to subsidize a program which a citizen' s group has subjected him to. Arnold Hamilton, 25410 SE 113th, stated that if apartments go in, his property will be devalued by 50%. He said there should be buffer zones between single family and multi-family. Johnson pointed out that the issue is city-wide zoning, not individual pieces of property, and it is reasonable that Comprehensive Plans and zoning districts must be subject to change from time to time. He explained that property owners may apply for a variance or a rezone. He stated that the purpose of zoning is to promote the welfare of the community, rather than to protect the value of an individual 's property. He pointed out that the City did not require compensation when property increased in value, through zoning, and therefore should not be expected to pay compensation when property is downzoned. He pointed out that the new developments do not pay for their fair share for existing services 8 i January 30, 1990 Special Meeting or for existing roads, schools or parks and said the City must act for the benefit of the community. He read a statement which has been filed as a part of the record. Upon Mann' s question, Lauri Anderson noted that there is currently a provision in the Zoning Code which deals with non-conforming residential uses and which states that, in terms of density, residential uses that were in existence prior to 1984 are not deemed non-conforming. Anderson also noted that the MF-3 area has quite a bit of existing multi-family development around it, but that there is single family housing in the area and the Planning Commission felt it would be suitable to zone single family adjacent to the already existing single family. Upon Mann' s question, Anderson explained that citizens have had an opportunity to talk with Planning about any errors in the study. Satterstrom pointed out that the Planning Commission did not conduct a site-by-site analysis, but rather an area-wide analysis on a policy level on the undeveloped areas that the staff brought forward for analysis. Satterstrom explained that after action is taken tonight, property owners would have several alternatives in addition to conforming with that zoning, such as appeal through court, or application for a rezone or for a variance. He noted for Mann that normally if a rezone has been denied by the Hearing Examiner and the Council, the property owner has to wait one year before applying again, but that in this case they may not have to wait. Upon Dowell ' s question, Mayor Kelleher stated that the minimum lot size stated in the memo, which is part of the motion, is 5 , 000 square feet. He clarified that a request had been made from the audience to further reduce this to 4 , 600 square feet. DOWELL MOVED to change the minimum lot area to 4 , 600 square feet. Houser seconded. The Mayor explained for Orr that this would pertain to every piece of property that is within the proposed R1-5. 0 zoning district, not just those mentioned by property owners tonight. He also clarified that it would affect only pre-existing lots. He explained that the amendment says that if you have a pre-existing lot within one of the areas proposed in the R1-5. 0 zoning district, then you can develop that pre-existing lot with minimum lot area of 4 , 600 square feet minimum lot width 40 feet and maximum side slope 15% Lauri Anderson noted for Paul Morford that there are other properties besides North Park which would be zoned R1-5. 0 but there are no other non-conforming lots in other areas. Dowell noted that no new small lots are being created. He then read a letter from Councilmember White stating that he is opposed to the Planning Commission's recommendation without a compensation package being included. JOHNSON MOVED that the 9 January 30, 1990 Special Meeting letter be made a part of the record. Woods seconded. MANN MOVED to amend the motion to include all of the transcripts of tonight' s discussions and all of the materials before the Council . Johnson accepted this as a friendly amendment and the motion as amended carried. The Mayor then stated that the motion before the Council is to amend the main motion by changing the language in his memo dated January 30, 1990, so that on page three the minimum lot size would be 4 , 600 square feet. The amendment then carried, with Woods and Orr voting nay. The main motion to approve as modified the City-wide Comprehensive Plan and Subarea Comprehensive Plan amendments as set forth by the Planning Commission in the Findings and Conclusions approved December 11, 1989, and to include the Mayor' s recommendation to amend the Zoning Code as outlined in his memo dated January 30, 1990, as amended to 4 , 600 square feet, than carried unanimously. The meeting then adjourned at 10 : 25 p.m. The following letters were filed for the record at this meeting: Memo dated January 30, 1990, to Council President and Council Members from Mayor Kelleher regarding 5, 000 square foot lots. Letter dated January 26, 1990, from Councilmember White to City Council. Letter dated January 22 , 1990, to Council from Ralph J. Wright. A report to the Kent City Council on the Kent Area Housing Studies from the Kent Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors dated January 17, 1990. Factors Favoring Down Zone and Factors Opposing Down Zone filed by Paul Morford. Letter to Council from Duncan A. Bonjorni dated January 30, 1990. Letter dated January 30, 1990, to Mayor, Council and City Law Department from Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Beckwith. Marie Jen , CMC City Cler 10