Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 09/22/1997 0ITV OF .V\.���J*ann Ttment (253)859-3390/FAX(253)850-2544 Jim White, Mayor .�+� s F., s LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing September 22, 1997 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Steve Dowell at 7 00 p.m. on September 22, 1997, in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Dowell. Chair Brad Bell, Vice Chair 5 Tom Brotherton Jerry Daman Ron Harmon Sharon Woodford . LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: David Malik PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James Harris. Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Matthews Jackson, Planner/GIS Coordinator Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to approve the August 25, 1997 minutes The motion carried. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS ; None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None #AZ-97-2/#CPA-97-2 DEL MAR ANNEXATION ZONING - (M. Jackson) Planner Matthews Jackson explained that the City Council approved Ordinance No 3351 on June 3 1997, which annexed the Del Mar area Into the City of Kent as of July 1. 1997 The area is 4AZ---97-1/#CPA-97-1 DEL MAR ANNEXATION ZONING 1 220 4th AVENLF SOUTH I KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)859-3300 • Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 22, 1997 • Page 2 approximately 578 acres which is just shy of a square mile. Mr. Jackson explained that the area is generally located in the southwest corner of the previous City limits The area is bounded by Pacific Highway on the west, the existing City limits on the north and east, and the south by SE 272nd xS The Del Mar area was part of the City's Potential Annexation Area and came into the City from unincorporated King County Mr Jackson explained that annexing this area completes the southwest corner of the Potential Annexation Area At the time of annexation, the area was assigned an interim zoning of SR-2, single family residential 2.18 units per acre. Mr Jackson explained that all newly annexed lands to the city are given an SR-2 designation regardless of the previous King County zoning He then explained that the City has six months upon annexation to complete the zoning process. There will be a total of three public hearings. The first hearing begins tonight before the Land Use and Planning Board The Board will make a recommendation that will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration Two hearings will be held by the City Council, and by state law, these hearings must be held 30 days apart The first City Council public hearing is expected to take place on October 7, 1997. • Mr. Jackson explained that the Del Mar annexation area was included in the Federal Way Community Planning Area in King County The Growth Management Act requires counties and cities to establish housing targets. They are required to look at projections for growth, existing land uses. and zoning capacity to order to establish targets The County had given the Federal Way Community Planning Area a target of 3,300 to 4,200 new housing units over the next 20 years The Del Mar area was a very small portion of the Federal Way planning area Staff estimates an interim target of 75 to 100 new housing units in the next 20 years is appropriate for the annexation area The housing developed in this area consists of approximately 29%single family detached residences , and about 67%multifamily. Mr Jackson explained that the ratio of multifamily to single family in this area is quite a bit higher than the overall City's ratios of 42% single family and 53%multifamily. Existing land uses in this area are varied. There is intense commercial development along Pacific Highway South(Fred Meyer and multiple shopping centers), moderate to high density multifamily complexes located north of 260th and 259th, and single family residences throughout A large percentage of the annexation area was zoned R-4 in the County Mr Jackson stated that there are some environmental constraints on new development. Single family subdivisions east of the freeway along 272nd and on and near Military Road, are developed on typical suburban lots sizes of 6,000- 10,000 square feet There is an existing Circle 'K' and an office development at the corner of Military Road and South 272nd Street. • Mr Jackson stated that the Planning Department earlier held an open house at the Westhill Fire Station and about 35 residents attended. He explained that the major concerns that came up at the 4AZ--97-1/#CP4-97-1 DEL MARANNEXATION ZONING 2 • Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 22, 1997 • Page 3 open house were: public safety,traffic impacts (I-5, Pacific Highway, Military Road, and 272nd), and preserving single family neighborhoods Mr Jackson next outlined Zoning Alternative 1. He explained that Alternative 1 applies the most applicable City zoning designation to the previous County designation The residential land is designated either SR-4 5 or SR-6. The existing fourplexes along 27th Place South are designated Medium Density Multifamily(MRM) A series of apartment complexes(Appian Way, Cottonwood, and Cedarwood) and a mobile home park were designated as R-48 (up to 48 units per acre) in King County, and are designated High Density Multifamily (MRH) on Alternative 1. Two vacant areas along Pacific Highway were designated as R-12 in King County They have been recommended for Duplex Multifamily (MRD)which would allow a single family home or a duplex on a lot. MRD does not allow attached homes more than a duplex. The two existing multifamily projects along 272nd(Huntington Woods and The Village Apartments) were zoned R-24 in the county and are recommended for MRM in Alternative 1. • The existing commercial development at the corner of Military Road and 272nd is recommended for Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) and the adjacent office development is shown • as office These lots were designated Neighborhood Business and Office in the County. Mr. Jackson summarized Zoning Alternative 2. He explained that Alternative 2 tries to match the existing land uses at the densities that they are developed Mr Jackson explained that one of the main differences between Alternative 1 and 2 is that SR-6 zoning would expand to include all the single family areas east of 1-5 He explained that this reflects both the existing lot sizes. some of which would not be conforming with an SR-4 5 designation, and adjacent neighborhoods which are currently zoned SR-6 Mr Jackson explained that the area at 272nd and Military Road was recommended for NCC and Office, as it was in Alternative 1. He received a letter from the owner of the office zoned property requesting an office designation for an adjacent property-to the north The existing multifamily developments are recommended for MRM. Mr. Jackson explained that the properties are developed at a density which is approximately the same as MRM This would be zoning to what is on the ground, but would not allow additional density 1 Alternative 2 recommends a General Commercial (GC)designation for the vacant parcels that were zoned R-12 in the County as well as extending the GC zoning to end of the lots that front on Pacific• Highway South. The existing mobile home park would be given a Mobile Home Park (MHP) designation. The existing multifamily development near 259th which includes the Royal Skies . P.0 D. is recommended for MRM Based on the existing development, this would not allow for more development but it would make the development conforming to Kent zoning densities The #AZ--97-1/#CPA-97-1 DEL MARANNEXATIONZONING 3 • Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 22, 1997 Page 4 density of two lots was used to develop the Royal Skies apartments, however, all the development was done on only one lot The second lot was established as permanent open space The lot has been recommended for a SR-1 designation to reflect this The recommended land use designations correlate with the recommended zoning designations. Mr Jackson presented the Comprehensive Plan land use map alternatives Land Use Plan Map Alternative 1 matches the recommended zoning for Zoning Alternative 1. He explained that the areas designated as SR-4 5 and SR-6 in the zoning map are recommended for SF-6 on the Comprehensive Plan land use map and the area designated as SR-1 in Zoning Alternative 2 is recommended for SF-1 for the land use map The areas designated as GC,NCC and Office are given a Commercial land use designation The areas zoned as MRM or MRH are given a Medium Density ; Multifamily designation, and the areas zoned as MRD area given a Low Density Multifamily a designation The area zoned MHP in Alternative 2 would be given an MHP land use designation in Land Use Plan Map Alternative 2 iF Mr Jackson explained that staff is recommending that the Land Use and Planning Board recommend to the Council to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by amending the land use • map to reflect Land Use Plan Map Alternative 2 and amend the City's zoning map to reflect Zoning Alternative 2 1 Board member Ron Hannon questioned the area that was designated R-4 in the County that the staff propose for SR-6 Mr Jackson explained that the City's SR-4 5 zoning designation requires a minimum lot size of 7,600 square feet Ile explained that there are several existing lots that do not meet the minimum requirement. The SR-6 designation would allow all lots to conform with , minimum lot size requirements. The area is also adjacent to existing SR-6 zoning and would continue with single family development Board member Tom Brotherton questioned whether staff recommended office zoning for the parcel north of the existing office zone on Military Road. as requested in the letter written by the property owner Mr Jackson explained that when researching the property the owner listed was not the `,, author of the letter, therefore, staff did not recommend office zoning for the adjacent property Chair Steve Dowell asked for an overview of the differences between the alternatives Mr Jackson explained the main differences between the two alternatives j Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing Motion carried The Board members noted staff would note questions the public has • concerning issues and comment on them after the public testimony Don Masoero, 3317 S. 259th Place Mr Don Masoero commented that he was concerned with • staffs recommendation which would increase commercial development and the potential of parking #AZ--97-1/#CPA-97-1 DEL MAR ANNEXATION ZONING 4 . Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 22, 1997 Page 5 lots along Pacific Highway. He voiced his concern with current traffic and discussed increased impacts with the additional commercial zoning ;t Mr. Masoero commented that he is pleased with the increased police patrols but does not support any increase in density He stated that the infrastructure in the area is not set up for an increase in density He supports Alternative 1. Alex Klouzal, 20910 Third Avenue South, Des Moines, WA 98198. Mr. Alex Klouzal commented that lie has owned property in this area for 40 years He stated that there are some environmental constraints that limit the development possibilities. He asked the Board to consider i a multifamily designation for his property. Kevin Ruoff, 24517 129th Place SE. Mr Kevin Ruoff stated that he supports the staff recommendation. Mel Kleveno, 601 S. 227th #307N, Des Moines, WA 98198. Mr. Mel Kleveno stated that • represents property owners in the Del Mar area annexation. He commented that there is environmental impacts in the area and only half or one-third of the area is developable He stated k that it is not economical to develop the area single family He asked the Board to consider a multifamily designation of MRM for the property he represents. ' Donal McKlurkin,3410 S. 272nd Street Mr Donald McKlurkm owns and operates a Montessori School and requested a zoning designation that would allow this use to continue. Nora Rainwater,P. O.Box 4542,Kent,98032. Ms Nora Rainwater stated she owns and manages a fourplex She was concerned with the requests for more multifamily. She stated that some of the existing multifamily developments are not taken care of and she would not like to see more of the s., same. Simon Yang, 25653 32nd Place South Mr Simon Yang stated that he has lived in this area for seventeen years He commented that if the area Mr Kleveno represents is not suitable for single family development because of the developmental concerns he mentioned,then it would be even less suitable for multifamily Mr Yang questioned the vacant land east of I-5 Alex Klauzal, 20910 Third Avenue South, Des Moines, WA 98198 Mr. Alex Klouzal commented that the cost is too much to develop his property single family. • Don Masoero, 3317 S. 259th Place. Mr Don Masoero stated that sewer availability does not guarantee the capacity for new development. He is concerned with impacts from development, • especially costs, traffic and wetlands. Mr Masoero asked the Board not to open any doors for new multifamily development. #AZ--97-1/#CPA-97-1 DEL MAR ANNEXATION ZONING 5 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 22, 1997 Page b Mr. Harmon MOVED and Brotherton SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing Motion carried Planner Matt Jackson explained that most major projects go through a State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) process The SEPA process will result in either a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) or development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Most, if not all project actions which do not require an EIS receive a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) which is issued by the City's SEPA official. An MDNS will contain a few or a series of conditions which are intended to mitigate for the expected impacts of a proposed development These conditions typically deal with traffic mitigation, sewer and water service, and stormwater systems He explained that a statement of sewer availability is required prior to accepting an u application for development He explained that if a certificate of sewer availability is issued, it means there is existing capacity to serve a proposed development Mr Jackson also explained that the staff s recommendation would allow a lower overall density that could develop under the previous King County designations ,a Regarding Mr. Klouzal's property, Mr Jackson explained that his property was identified with ; • environmental concerns in the County The County had zoned this property R-4 and the staff recommended zoning is SR-4 5 He explained that the property will probably be more difficult to • develop because of the environmental constraints, however a single family designation is consistent with previous zoning. Mr. Kleveno's group of properties are encumbered by wetlands as well Mr. Jackson explained that it can be difficult to develop an area when there are environmental constraints. He commented that because of the sensitive areas, a lower density should be considered. Mr. Jackson stated that there would be a significant amount of money invested to develop this area as single family residential, but staff would not recommend a change in its recommendation t' Mr Jackson explained that schools are an allowed use in all residential zones through a Conditional Use permit He explained that anything legally established in King County would become legal in the City upon annexation, regardless of new City zoning. He commented that a Conditional Use permit would be required if an expansion or addition was desired The staff recommendation does not recommend any new multifamily development and Mr. Jackson explained that the City could not enforce specific maintenance requirements for property owners. Mr. Jackson explained that the vacant land along I-5 is owned by the state. He stated that the state owns this land for the possibility of new lanes or additional exits if necessary. zl Board member Tom Brotherton questioned if the area east of I-5 was mostly undeveloped. • Mr Jackson explained that the area is largely built out. y t f HAZ--97-11#CP4-97-1 DEL MAR ANNEXA TION ZONING 6 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 22, 1997 Page 7 Chair Dowell questioned the development standards for the commercial zones. Mr Jackson explained that the City does have development standards and landscape requirements The parking for commercial developments does not have to be located in the rear of buildings, but landscape requirement do provide screening. Harmon commended the staff and Mr. Jackson for his excellent work on this project Mr. Harmon stated that the tour of the area was a real eye opener He supports staff recommended Zoning Alternative 2 with the addition of an office designation for the property located north of the existing office zone as requested by the property owner. Mr. Harmon questioned what the existing use was on the property. Mr Jackson explained that there is a single family home currently on the lot Mr Harris commented that the property owner did come to the open house requesting an office designation because of the need for additional parking. Board member Sharon Woodford stated that she supports Mr Harmon's recommendation. She stated that she lives in the area and the office could use additional parking . Vice Chair Brad Bell commented that the Board should not make a recommendation to rezone this parcel until it is determined whether the person making the request is indeed the property owner Mr Jackson stated that staff would investigate the ownership issue further. Mr. Brotherton said he supports staffs recommendation with the office zone addition. He commented that there is not a great difference between the SR-4 5 and SR-6 so he supports Zoning Alternative 2. Ms Woodford stated that she agrees with Mr. Brotherton She commented that it was unfortunate for the property owners who wanted multifamily but would not recommend more multifamily in the area. Vice Chair Bell commented that a single family designation may not make economic sense for Klouzal but without more information he supports the staff recommendation with the additional office designation. Board member Jerry Daman commented that staff did a good Job. He supports Zoning and Land Use Alternatives 2 with the office change The Board MOVED to recommend the adoption of the proposed Alternative 2 for both the zoning • map and the Comprehensive Plan land use map with the expansion of the office designation to :4 include one parcel north of the existing office designation. Motion carried. 1 • Chair Dowell stated that this item will be heard by the City Council on October 7 and November 18 at public hearings. #AZ--97-1/#CPA-97-1 DEL MARANNEXATION ZONING 7 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 22, 1997 Page 8 Mr. Harmon MOVED and Brotherton SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion carried. The meetiAg adjourned at 9.25 p.m. j �l y Respectfully Submitted, c James Harris Sec tary P 1PBMTG9 22 sway 1 Y t e�A i AF'9 #AZ--97-1/#CPA-97-1 DEL MAR ANNEXATION ZONING