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