Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 09/25/1995 CITY OF T-2rr �� KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Hearing September 25, 1995 Jim White, Mayor The regular meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kent Morrill at 7:00 PM on September 25, 1995, in Chambers West, Kent City Hall. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Morrill, Chair Russ Stringham,Vice Chair Gwen Dahle Connie Epperly Janette Nuss Robert MacIsaac Mike Pattison PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Kenneth Dozier, excused Edward Heineman, Jr., excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Brad Hazeltine, Planner Linda Phillips, Planner Matt Jackson, GIS Planner Sharon Folsom, Planning Intern Chris Holden, Administrative Secretary Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary APPROVAL OF AUGUST 28. 1995 MINUTES Commissioner Dahle MOVED and Commissioner Epperly SECONDED to approve the August 28, 1995 minutes as written. MOTION CARRIED. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 1 #CPA-95-1 and 4AZ-95-3 220 4th AVE SO. /KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (206)859-3300/FAX N 859-3334 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 2 NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None MERIDIAN AhMXAMON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND INITIAL ZONING (Area 1)#CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 (Fred Satterstrom) Mr.Fred Satterstrom,Planning Manager for the Kent Planning Department,welcomed the residents of the Meridian Annexation Area. He explained what these hearings are about, and gave the residents an overview of the time lines for the hearings. Mr. Satterstrom pointed out the hearings will give an opportunity for citizens to give input,not only to the Planning Commission, but also to the City Council regarding the proposed zoning for the Meridian Annexation Area. According to the ordinance that the City Council passed back in August, the annexation of the Meridian Area will become effective on January 1, 1996. The City of Kent has approximately four (4)months to adopt pre-annexation zoning. The City of Kent is trying to clarify the zoning in this area so that there is less confusion on day one so that residents know what their zoning is. In order to do this the Planning Commission is holding public hearings. The Planning Commission will listen to public testimony, deliberate on what it has heard from the citizens tonight and tomorrow night,and then they will make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council is required,by law,to hold two Public Hearings itself. The two public hearings must be at least thirty days or more apart. The tentative dates for the City Council public hearings are October 17, 1995, and November 21, 1995. If the City Council accepts the Planning Commission recommendation at the second hearing in November, the Meridian Annexation Area zoning would become effective on January 1, 1996. There would not be any "interim" zoning period. Mr. Satterstrom reminded the public that the Planning Commission is here to receive public testimony regarding the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning for the Meridian Annexation Area. Any questions that deal with other topics, like police issues or other very logical annexation questions, would be best answered at one of the two Open Houses the City will be conducting. The Open Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 1 #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 3 Houses will be held at the Soos Creek Fire Station on Wednesday, November 15, and at Martin Sortun Elementary on Thursday,November, 16, between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Mr. Satterstrom presented the following letters to the Planning Commission to enter into record: 1. Dated August 28,from the Grandville Southern Corporation signed by Mr. Michael Reid. 2. Brad Bell of Bell,Anderson, and Associates dated September 19. 3. William Carey dated September 21. 4. Approximately five parties on property near 265th and 132nd. 5. Mr. Gerald Ormiston of Brousseau, Jankovich, and Ormiston. Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner with the Kent Planning Department, went into a little bit of background on the process and how the Planning Department has arrived at the alternative that are before you tonight. Mr. O'Neill made sure everyone had a copy of the Proposed Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Initial Zoning(hereinafter referred to as the staff report) document. Mr. O'Neill summarized the information in the staff report. When the City Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan the existing designations in King County Comprehensive Plan were put throughout the entire unincorporated portion of the annexation area including the Meridian Annexation Area. The Comprehensive Plan map will be amended for this area in conjunction with the zoning because under the Growth Management Act the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning need to be consistent with one another. Mr. O'Neill explained the history of this area from a land use and zoning prospective. The Meridian Annexation Area along with the Soos Creek Community Planning Area,which is a much larger area in King County, has had its Comprehensive Plan and zoning changed a couple of times in the last five years. In 1991 the Soos Creek Community Plan and zoning was adopted by the King County Council. Then, in 1994(about nine months ago)King County adopted its Comprehensive Plan that the County was doing under the Growth Management Act and zoning for the entire Soos Creek area including the Meridian Annexation Area. The staff report goes into some of the distinctions and differences between King County's and Kent's zoning. Mr. O'Neill explained the process that the Planning Department has followed over the last month and a half or so in terms of getting to the three alternatives. Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 1 #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 4 The Boundary Review Board and the City Council made the final decision on the annexation in August. At that time,the Planning Department began the process of developing some land use and zoning alternatives for the area. The City of Kent held an Open House on August 24, at Meridian Elementary School, where the Planning Department displayed four zoning alternatives. The purpose of putting those alternatives together was to look at some general land use patterns and to get people's reaction to them. The Planning Department had a questionnaire which asked people's opinion on a serious of land use patterns. The Planning Department asked which zoning alternative they preferred. The feedback received was very helpful for the Planning Department putting the information together for these public hearings. Mr. ONeill presented three Comprehensive Plan Map alternatives and three zoning alternatives the Planning Department has developed from the public feedback. There may be a little bit of confusion for the people that came to the Open House between the four alternatives that were there and the three alternatives that are here. The purpose of the four zoning alternatives at the Open House was to look at some broad conceptual alternatives and to get feedback on those. The first alternative that is in the staffs report, Alternative 1, shows what the proposed zoning and Comprehensive Plan would be if we simply took the existing King County zoning and transferred it over to the most applicable City of Kent zoning. This is one of the four alternatives shown at the Open House that the City of Kent had on August 24. This alternative received more votes than any of the other alternatives. In terms of the overall land use pattern, Alternative 1 is primarily single family residential. However, one of the most distinguishing features of this alternative is that when the Soos Creek Community Plan and zoning was adopted several Growth Reserve areas were designated. Some of those Growth Reserve areas include the area around Clark Lake, the area along the south end of Kent-Kangley, the area at the southern end of the annexation area, the southeast corner, the area north of the Meridian Shopping Center along 132nd, and a couple of other smaller areas. The intent of those Growth Reserve areas,at the time the Soos Creek Plan was adopted,was to phase growth by keeping very low density areas. Those areas were zoned for one dwelling unit per 2.5 acres or one dwelling unit per five acres. When the King County plan was adopted those growth reserve areas stayed in place. However, King County is in the process of looking at the Urban Residential designations for those areas. It is important to point out that Alternative 1 shows those Urban Reserve areas as very low density Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 1 #CPA-95-1 and 4AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 5 zoning. In the City of Kent's case,the lowest density zoning we have is RA. All of those areas that are designated Urban Reserve are all being proposed by King County for a higher density ranging typically from four to six units per acre. But what this alternative shows is existing zones. The Planning Department thought it was important to include this alternative first of all because it was the one selected by more residents than any other and second of all it shows the baseline from which the Planning Department is operating. This is the existing land use and zoning pattern in King County at this time. The second zoning and Comprehensive Plan alternative,Alternative 2,is another alternative that was prepared for the August 24, Open House. In terms of residential density this one is probably at the other end of the spectrum. It doesn't take any single family land and designate it multi-family. Mr. O'Neill pointed out that none of the alternatives that were part of the August Meeting or tonight's public hearing recommend doing that. However, in Alternative 2 there aren't any areas designated for one unit per acre zoning designations(RA). Everything has been proposed at a minimum of four units per acre designation(R1-9.6) or six units per acre (R1-7.2). The two things that Alternative 1 and 2 have in common are the commercial areas and some of the vacant multi-family zoned areas at 132nd and Kent-Kangley and 152nd and Kent-Kangley are essentially designated as is shown in existing King County zoning either commercial or multi- family. The major difference between Alternatives 1 and 2 are the Urban Reserve areas are shown at higher zoning designations in Alternative 2 throughout the entire area. Alternative 2 was one of the four alternatives that was evaluated at the August 24,Open House. This alternative received the second highest vote total. Given that fact and given the fact that it provides a clear difference from Alternative 1 it was included in the staff report. The third alternative, Alternative 3, is the staff proposed alternative. Mr. O'Neill explained why it was the one the staff proposed. This alternative was not a part of the August 24th meeting. The Planning Department reviewed the feedback received from the questionnaire, reviewed the existing land use policies in both King County and the Kent Comprehensive Plan, spoke with the City Administration a few times,went back to the City Council's Resolution that they adopted at the time they were considering the Comprehensive Plan regarding this area,and considered a number of other things including the residential targets and capacity. Taking all of that into consideration the Planning Department came up with an alternative that addressed a lot of those concerns. Alternative 3 proposes low densities for some of the Urban Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 1 #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 6 Reserve areas,particularly the area directly around Clark Lake, the area along Big Soos Creek, and some of the agricultural areas located at the southern end of the Meridian Annexation Area, remaining at a very low density. Again, RA is the lowest density single family designation for the City of Kent. Some of the Urban Reserve areas that are closer to the more developed areas are being proposed at a slightly higher single family density. The developed single family neighborhoods would essentially remain the same either R1-7.2 or R1-9.6,as they are in all three alternatives. That would be consistent with the existing King County designations. The other major change in this alternative,and this is following the resolution that the City Council adopted last January and is referenced in the staff report under the analysis of alternatives, takes some of the vacant multi-family zoned land in other words land that is currently zoned for multi- family in King County but is not developed and designates it Commercial for those properties that directly front on Kent-Kangley Road. The developed multi-family land, in other words the land that already has a project on it is zoned multi-family. That is true in all three alternatives. Again,what this alternative provides,with some exceptions around Clark Lake and Big Soos Creek, is higher single family density for the urban reserve areas than Alternative 1,but not quite as high as Alternative 2 would have. The other major change is the way it treats the vacant multi-family parcels. This alternative actually has more land designated commercial and less land designated multi-family than other two alternatives. Mr.ONeill outlined the importance of the planning for future population. The Planning Department is trying to accommodate the future growth with the zoning. The City of Kent Planning Department has initiated a process through King County staff,City of Kent staff, City of Renton staff, and City of Auburn staff in terms of looking at the housing target for the entire Soos Creek Planning Area and trying to figure out what percentage of that target would be accommodated by each respective City in terms of trying to figure out what would be the appropriate target for this area. Based on the data from King County the target would be a growth of 1,700 to 2,000 households in the Meridian Annexation Area. Note that this is not 10,000 households which is the number that was previously discussed. The Planning Department believes that the target could be accommodated by any of these three alternatives, but Alternative 1 would be tight because of all of the low density designation in the Urban Reserve Areas. The Kent Planning Department is confident that Alternative 1 and 2 would accommodate those targets. However, in Mr. O'Neill's opinion, the City of Kent would have to do more work on both of those areas. Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 1 #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 7 Commissioner Nuss voiced her concern with going ahead with Alternative 3 if it was the highest density. Her concern was with the possibility that down the road King County or someone else could mandate the City of Kent to accommodate for a higher density. Commissioner Nuss questioned if there was anyway that Kent could command that this is what we have taken and we're not going to make it any tighter. Mr. ONeill clarified that Alternative 3 is not the highest density. Alternative 2 is for the most part the highest density. He also pointed out the fact the City of Kent has a policy in our Comprehensive Plan that any population target the City is going to plan for would be agreed upon by an Interlocal Agreement between Kent,King County and ideally Auburn and Renton. Any process to change the target would have to be an Amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan. The City of Kent is trying to do all of this in a way which is consistent with the County's established housing target. Commission Stringham asked Mr. O'Neill for clarification regarding whether all three alternatives would accommodate the 1,700 to 2,000 new households and if the staff is accounting for the recommended 25%cushion? Mr. O'Neill responded that Alternative 1,based on the best data available,would be below the 25% cushion particularly at the higher 2,000 range. Chair Morrill opened the public hearing and called for public comment. Due to the amount of testimony the Planning Commission will be hearing he requested the public keep their testimony to a maximum of five minutes. Public Testimony-: Brad Bell,26034 142nd Avenue SE. Mr.Bell is proud to becoming a part of the City of Kent. He has lived in the Lake Meridian Annexation Area for 20 years. Mr. Bell commented that he is very involved in the schools and the community. Mr. Bell was speaking on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. William I Carey Sr's property. The Carey's own three parcels (.36 acres, .26 acres, and .16). The Carey's currently have homes on the property that they are renting. Commissioner Epperly requested the street boundaries that Mr. Bell was referring to. Mr. Bell indicated the street addresses(12838 Kent-Kangley, 12830 Kent-Kangley,and 26939 129th Avenue SE). This property borders the west of the Lake Meridian Shopping Center. Mr. Bell believes their is a lack of community commercial property in the area. Mr. Bell is in complete support of the staff recommended Alternative 3. Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 1 #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 8 Bob Bradley, 88 Virginia Street#9,Seattle,WA. Mr.Bradley and his wife are the owners of the two pieces of property adjoining the ones that Mr.Bell was speaking of. Mr.Bradley indicated his desire to support very strongly the staff recommendation for Community Commercial use of this property. Commissioner MacIsaac asked Mr. Bradley what was presently located right behind his property to the north. Mr. Bradley indicated that the property to the north of his property is currently vacant land. The vacant land is included in the area that has been proposed for R1-5.0 zoning. There is a creek through that land and is probably not going to be developed. Commissioner Maclsaac asked if that is true for Mr. Carey's property. Mr. Bradley indicated that it is also true for his property. Nancy Ackerson-Konen, 11704 Kent Kangley Road. Ms.Konen is in favor of Alternative#3. She supports Alternative 3 because of the other alternatives multi-family density designations. In her opinion the City of Kent does not need any more apartments at I I6th and Kent Kangley. Ms. Konen has lived in the area for 20 years. She is glad the Planning Department has recommended the zoning change on Alternative#3. Dean A. Conti,21121 SE 206th Street,Renton. Mr. Conti is in favor of Alternative 2 which would allow a 5,000 square foot minimum on his property. Mr.Conti provided the committee with a letter. His property is 16 acres with a considerable amount of wetlands that could be some significant uses to the community. Mr. Conti is requesting a community commercial zoning on the frontage of his property. Commissioner Dahle questioned the location of his property compared to the park-n-ride lot. Mr. Conti indicated on the map the location of the park and ride and his property. Commissioner Epperly questioned if there were horses located on the property. Mr. Conti responded that the horses were gone. Melvin Lake, 12665 SE 240th Street. Mr. Lake has resided there for the last 21 years. He has seen a lot of development and changes occur. The property is immediately adjacent to Chancellor Crest (R4 or R6 zoning). The property directly behind Mr. Lake's is zoned R4. Mr. Lake expressed his support for the proposed alternatives 2 or 3. Mr.Lake questioned the Planning Commission whether their is indeed land around Clark Lake that has been purchased by the County. If so, how will that property be dealt with by the City in the Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 1 #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 9 situation where the City annexes the entire area? Ms.Amy Mills Goldberg, 12814 SE 245th Street. Ms.Goldberg is neighbors with Mr.Melvin Lake. She does not live in the Meridian Annexation Area. Her property borders the Meridian Annexation Area and she questioned the Planning Commission on the protocol for receiving announcements and/or flyers regarding the annexation area. Ms. Goldberg also questioned the Planning Commission on what is planned for the open space around Clark Lake. Ms. Goldberg stated that King County just went through a King County Building and Land Development Hearing in March of 1993. The outcome of that hearing was that the area was environmentally sensitive and needed to remain open. It is Ms. Goldberg's hope that what ever comes from the zoning in this area will be in accordance with that. The file number related to those King County hearings is S-90-P-005. She is very concerned with the area around Clark Lake for environmental purposes. Mr. Harold Price, 27235 - 116th Place SE. Mr Price indicated that the proposed zoning for his property is R1-9.6. He is concerned with a neighbor that would make most junk yards look good. He questioned what the Planning Commission would be doing to address this issue. Mr. Frank Silbernagel,25012 116th Ave SE. Mr. Silbemagel questioned if a townhouse would be considered a multi-family zoning. Mr. Satterstrom indicated that in the City of Kent under existing Ordinances common wall developments are prohibited in the single family zones. Common wall developments are allowed only in multi-family zones under current regulations. Herb Noji, 5710 32nd Ave S, Seattle. Mr.Noji owns property at 12525 SE 248th across from Clark Lake. He states his strong objection to Alternative 1. He believes that Alternative 2 or 3 are better uses of the land. Mr. Noji also believes that RA is probably not a practical zone in an urban situation. George Webb, 26524 128th Ave SE. Mr. Webb's property is adjacent to the Lake Meridian Shopping Center. In that area there is an existing King County wetlands called Meridian Meadows. It is a combined wetlands and storm drainage,earth dam with gate valve. It is currently being used with a trail around it which was both sponsored by and supported by not only King County but the local neighbors. It has interpretive signs and is used as an interpretive Center and it is not mentioned in the staff report at all. Mr. Webb would like to implore the Planning Commission to ensure that this area remains a Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area I #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 10 wetland. Currently the proposal zones this as Rl-5. Mr. Webb felt a better solution for the area that is adjacent to the wetlands to have a lower density in order to protect it. Mr. Webb also supported Alternative 3. He is in favor of less multi-family and encourages the Commercial zoning along Kent Kangley. Mr. Webb would like to see the access to the commercial properties limited to Kent Kangley. Walt Kuehlthau,25261 124th Ave SE. Mr. Kuehlthau is requesting consideration to be zoned at a minimum of R1-7.2 (six dwelling units per acre). He has resided in his house for 20 years. Commissioner Stringham questioned Mr. Kuehlthau if any of the current alternatives accommodate his wish. Mr. Kuehlthau did not think any of the alternative accommodated his request. Commissioner Dahle asked for some more specific location. Mr. Kuehlthau explained to the Commission that he is located three houses from the corner. He has a pasture and his house sits on the corner. He is on the west side of 248th across from White Horse Crossing. Gary Richardson, 1207 96th Ave SE,Bellevue. Mr. Richardson owns 1.4 acres of property located near 116th and 240th. He is directly east of proposed Neighborhood Convenience Commercial zoning. Mr. Richardson is requesting a zoning designation for his 1.4 acres of MRM. Mr. Richardson is interested in building senior citizen housing. Commissioner Dahle requested an address for the property. Mr. Richardson indicated that the property is located at Lot 2 SP 379-109. Mr. Edward J. Pawlowski, 27727 - 106th SE. Mr. Pawlowski has resided in this area since 1958. Mr. Pawlowski voiced his disapproval regarding the annexation into the City of Kent. Commissioner MacIsaac asked Mr. Pawlowski which alternative he preferred. Mr. Pawlowski indicated he would prefer what the King County has currently zoned. Ms. Jennifer Grajewski, 12810 SE 245th. Ms. Grajewski resides in the Kensington High development which is not currently part of the annexed area. Her back fence is a part of the annexed area. Ms. Grajewski is angered that the citizens of Kensington High were not notified regarding the annexation of the Clark Lake area. She supports Alternative 1. Mr. Hans Freiwald, 11824 SE 270th. Mr.Freiwald voiced his concern with the wetlands in the area Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 1 #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 11 and the land use of those areas. Mr. Marlene W. Personette, 12330 SE 256th Street. Mr. Personette is located on the corner of 256th and 124th. He has a small acreage there and lives on the property next to Mr. Walt Kuehlthau (25261 124th Ave SE). Mr. Personette believes the current growth in the area does not support an RA designation. Commissioner MacIsaac asked Mr. Personette what zoning he was looking for in his area. Mr. Personette is looking for any zoning designation except for RA. Linda Bushaw,24436 116th Ave SE. Ms.Bushaw is speaking on behalf of Larry Nolan and herself. Their property is located directly across from the Fire Training Station. They believe this area is inappropriate for single family residential. They would like to be included in the Neighborhood Convenience Commercial designation. The property is the frontage to the fire station and behind the property is an open area where they are going to be building new homes. Ms. Bushaw and Mr. Nolan would prefer Alternative 3. However, they would like to include their property in the NCC designation. Commissioner Dahle asked for a clarification on the location of the new homes. Ms. Bushaw informed the Planning Commission that the new homes are being built on 120th Ave SE. Mr. Robert Faugh, 29204 124th Ave SE. Mr. Faugh does not reside within the annexation area. However,Mr.Faugh owns property at 27864124th Ave SE. He stated his opposition to Alternative 1 and 2. It is his sincere hope that the Planning Commission will select Alternative 3. He does not believe his property is a viable area for agriculture any more. Again,he is for the R1-9.6 designation indicated on the staff proposed Alternative 3. Mr. Gary Stewart,26620 127th Ave SE. Mr. Stewart has lived in the area 22 years. He is against the Alternatives 1 and 2. He is concerned with the land use of the existing wetlands. Mr. Stewart was instrumental with King County in putting in a footpath in this area. Again, he is against Alternative 1 and 2. Ms.Virginia Castillo, 11926 SE 268th Street. Ms. Castillo is concerned that the high density areas are creeping up to them. Ms. Castillo has questions regarding moving from King County to the City of Kent jurisdiction in regard to having animals on their property. She would like to know what are the rules and how does the zoning effect the ruralistic setting they like. She prefers Alternative 1 for the lowest density designation. Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 1 #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 12 Commissioner Russ Stringham MOVED to continue the Public Hearing on Tuesday, September 26, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. The motion was SECONDED by Commissioner Gwen Dahle. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Satterstrom, City of Kent Planning Manager,readdressed the questions from the public except for the issues that were raised property to property. The Planning Department staff will log the individual issues by addresses and will prepare written feedback on each location for the October 2, 1995, public hearing. Mr. Satterstrom addressed the concerns regarding the Clark Lake area. There are some publicly owned lands that were purchased by King County. The area around the lake has been proposed at an RA zoning designation. The RA zoning designation in the City of Kent is our lowest density code. The small area near Clark Lake proposed R1-9.6 is in recognition of existing King County zoning. The Clark Lake Park will be turned over to the City of Kent on or about the effective date of the annexation(January 1, 1996). The City of Kent will own that area and probably eventually develop the area for recreational purposes. There was a question regarding operating businesses from homes. The City of Kent, like King County, has what is called "Home Occupation Regulations". As long as a business is conducted within certain bounds it may occur within the dwelling. Those bounds are drawn fairly tightly so the use doesn't interfere with the principal use of the structure as a residence. But, a home occupation is permitted within the City of Kent. In order to run a home occupation you need not zone the area commercial. If it exists within certain bounds, it can be licensed and authorized as a home occupation. The issue regarding the "junk yard";generally speaking a"junk yard" is not a home occupation. The "junk yard" usually becomes a code enforcement issue. The City of Kent has regulations about the storage of in-operable automobiles on private land. If there is too many in-operable (defined as not being actively licensed) automobiles on your property and your neighbors complain the code enforcement officer will investigate. The City of Kent does not allow for attachment of units in any single family zone (any zone "Rl There is no common wall development allowed in single family zones. The City of Kent currently does not have a P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) Ordinance that allows attachment of units either. As it currently exists, if you have single family zoning,then those units must be detached from each other. Multi-family zoning is another manner. In any multi-family zone, including the duplex zone,you can have attached units. The P.U.D Ordinance is in effect in any multi-family zone Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 1 #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 13 in the City of Kent. The Planning Commission is considering a proposed Cluster Development Ordinance. A question was brought up regarding senior citizen housing. Retirement housing for senior citizens can occur with a conditional use permit in any Rl zone. A conditional use permit requires a hearing in front of the Hearing Examiner and the neighbors are notified. This is an existing regulation in the City of Kent. Again, it only applies to retirement homes. There were a lot of speakers that addressed concern about wetland and streams and how the zoning may not be reflective of the sensitive area that may be on some sites. Mr. Satterstrom indicated that the City of Kent has its own set of sensitive area regulations including steep hillside regulations and wetland ordinance. The regulations are some what similar to King County's regulations. When looking at development, if the property in question has wetlands a wetland study will have to be done. Some wetland area may not be able to be developed and the density of the zoning would either be shifted to a developable part of the site or would not be allowed to develop to the density it was zoned for. The final issue is animals. The Meridian Area represents a fairly unique area being annexed to the City of Kent. Large parts of this area are rural in nature. A lot of residents located in that area went out there to own animals and to have some open space in a rural area. Anyone who is keeping animals lawfully and legally in King County is going to be lawful and legal in the City of Kent. Even if it does not conform to our regulations, property owners will be lawfully grandfathered into the City of Kent. Our existing code says that for every large animal that you keep on your property you need 20,000 feet of area on your lot per large animal. The code is silent on a lot of other issues. Most residents will find they are in conformance with that area requirement. Jim Harris,City of Kent Planning Director,addressed the wetland issue finther. He pointed out that the wetland issue is more of a development issue and not an actual zoning issue. If a wetland exists on a piece of property an exhaustive wetland study will be done. If the land is designated as a wetland the property will not be developed regardless of the zoning. Any wetland that exists now will be taken over by the City of Kent's Public Works Department which has a wetland's section. They have the wetland biologist and engineers in that section and will be operated as King County has operated them. King County will turn over their operational manuals and the City of Kent will operate them. Commissioner Nuss questioned the wisdom of moving ahead without a thorough understanding of the existing wetlands. Mr. Satterstrom assured the Planning Commission that the City has all the Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 1 #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3 Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1995 Page 14 information that was available from King County. Commissioner Epperly questioned the City's policy on notification regarding the residents adjacent to the Meridian Annexation Area. Mr. Satterstrom explained the City's policy to notify only those residents within an annexation area. Commissioner Epperly asked for clearer classification on the multi-family designations on the Alternative 3. Mr. Satterstrom clarified the zoning of multi-family designations on the staff proposed alternative are already existing multi-family areas. Commissioner MacIsaac questioned what citizens have to do to ensure that they are grandfathered. The Planning Department is going to research the issue of grandfathering further and report their finding to the Planning Commission at the October 2 hearing. Commissioner Janette Nuss MOVED to adjourn the public hearing. Commissioner Connie Epperly SECONDED the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The public hearing adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James P. Harris c:\users\doc\minutes.925 Meridian Annexation Area Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map Amendments-Area 1 #CPA-95-1 and#AZ-95-3