Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 08/25/1997 CITY OF UW7-612BIT 1 Jim White, Mayor OF%,4 m Planning Department (206) 859-3390TAX(206) 850-2544 James P Harris, Planning Director LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing August 25, 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 August 25, 1997, in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Dowell, Chair Brad Bell, Vice Chair Tom Brotherton Jerry Daman Ron Harmon David Malik Sharon Woodford PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT. James Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner 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 July 28, 1997 minutes The motion carried ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None. COMMUNICATIONS None. NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Director Jim Harris explained that the September City Council Planning Committee . meeting will consider the Downtown Strategic Action Plan and the changes to the Planned Unit Development Ordinance The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 16, 1997 at 4 00 pm in the City Council Chambers East. #AZ--97-IMCPA-97-134ERIDIAN VALEYANNEXATION ZONING 220 4th AVENUE SOUTH / KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)859-3300 Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 25, 1997 • Page 2 #AZ-97-1 MERIDIAN VALLEY ANNEXATION ZONING - (M. Jackson) Planner Matthews Jackson explained that the City Council approved Ordinance No. 3344 on April 15, 1997 which annexed the Meridian Valley area into the City of Kent The area is approximately 1.39 square miles in size and includes approximately 4.665 new residents. Mr Jackson explained that the area is generally located east of 132nd Avenue SE to 148th Avenue SE and north of SE 256th Street to approximately SE 236th Place. Mr Jackson explained that the area officially became a part of the City on July 1, 1997 At that time, the area was assigned an interim zoning of SR-2, single family residential 2 18 units per acre. Mr. Jackson explained that all unclassified newly annexed lands to the city are given an SR-2 designation regardless of the previous King County zoning Mr Jackson explained that the City has six months upon annexation to complete the zoning process. The 1990 Growth Management Act requires that a city's zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use map be consistent. Mr Jackson explained that the Land Use and Planning Board will be considering both an amendment to Kent's official zoning map as well as the Comprehensive Plan land use map Mr. Jackson explained that there will be a total of three public hearings. The first 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 Council hearing will occur in mid-September, while the second hearing will likely occur in mid to late October Mr Jackson explained that the majority of the area is developed single family residential detached residential units He explained that the existing development in the area is fairly consistent with what the zoning was in King County prior to the annexation into Kent but there are some exceptions In the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element there is a potential annexation area This area y P includes lands within the City's sphere of influence that will potentially be annexed but are currently outside of Kent corporate boundaries. The Meridian Valley area was included in the City's Comprehensive plan that was completed in 1995 so at that time staff took the appropriate applicable County zoning designations in the County's 1994 Comprehensive Plan and applied those to the Meridian Valley annexation area The majority of the Meridian Valley area was given an Urban Residential land use designation(4-12 units per acre) under the County's Comprehensive Plan and Kent's existing Comprehensive Plan Mr. Jackson explained that the area of multifamily development was given an Urban Residential land use designation of twelve plus units per acre and the commercial node was given a commercial designation. Mr Jackson explained the differences between the County and the City's zoning designations. He explained that there was a key included in the staff report to compare the County's designations as to how they relate to the City's designation #AZ-47-14CPA-97-1 MERIDIAN VALLEYANNEXATIONZONING Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 25, 1997 • Page 3 There are some key differences between the County and the City zoning. Mr. Jackson explained that the City's zoning is based on both a maximum density and a minimum lot size and the city's residential zoning designations are based on use. The areas that are zoned for single family are single family exclusively Areas that are zoned for multifamily allows for both single family and multifamily development In the County, residential development is not necessarily based on single family or multifamily development, rather, it is based on density Attached units are allowed either through a conditional use process in some zones or they are principally permitted uses in others In addition, there are no minimum lot sizes in the County, however, no lots of less than 2,500 square feet are allowed unless it is located within an attached development. The County also allows density bonuses based on providing a public benefit Mr Jackson explained that an example of a public benefit could be the inclusion of non-market or low income housing which would give a developer additional density above the base There are also some minimum density requirements in the County which require a certain percentage of the base density to be developed The City of Kent has neither a minimum density nor bonus density provision Mr Jackson explained that 72 5% of the residential units are single family detached, while multifamily represents about 27.5% within the annexation area. • Mr. Jackson explained how staff determined the zoning alternatives. He explained that staff evaluated the previous County designations, current land uses, and public comments gathered through questionnaires from an open house held at Martin Sortin Elementary Mr.Jackson explained that he received letters marked as Exhibit "A" 1. Pasko - supports the staff recommendation 2. Johnson - asked for consideration for different zoning 3. Galusha- asked to consider property for commercial development 4. Hebeler - zoning history and property value history Mr. Jackson explained that Alternative I tries to approximate the closest applicable City zoning to the previous King County zoning He explained that the majority of the Meridian Valley Annexation Area is recommended for SR-4 5 which correlates to the previous County zoning of R-4. Alternative 1 maintains the same zoning boundaries designated with the most applicable City zoning based on the previous County zoning designations. Alternative 2 is staff's closest attempt at trying to zone the area to represent what is actually built on the ground,what is expected to be built,and what is consistent with the existing land use patterns. The majority of the site would be zoned SR-4.5 which would include the Meridian Valley Country Club and the surrounding area Mr Jackson outlined the staff recommended changes that took into • consideration site constraints,current land uses,and property owner requests. Mr. Jackson explained that the Comprehensive Plan land use map designations are a long term land use policy while the zoning designations are the law. #AZ-97-1/#CPA-97-1 MERIDIAN VALLEYANNEXATIONZONING ` Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 25, 1997 Page 4 Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Vice Chair Brad Bell SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing Motion carried Fred Lavering, 24430 140th Avenue SE. Mr Fred Lavering lives in the Meridian Valley Annexation area and represents the Meridian Valley Maintenance Association which consists of over 400 property owners Mr Lavering explained that they supported the annexation into the City of Kent in hopes to eliminate the flooding in the area and to try to abolish the recent King County zoning changes to high density multifamily. Mr Lavering supports the staff recommended Alternative 2 with a few exceptions He does not support the proposed SR-8 designation. He commented that SR-8 does not seem compatible with the surrounding zoning of SR-4.5 and SR-1 He was also concerned with the MRD zoning designation at 132nd He questioned why the MRD was on both sides of 132nd. He felt that 132nd was a significant road and it was not necessary for the zoning to be consistent on both sides. He also commented that the site designated for MRD had a significant wetland and that the MRD was inappropriate. Dee Swenson,24111 135th Avenue SE Mr Dee Swenson commented that it is a pleasure to work with the City of Kent as opposed to King County He stated that he had attempted to work with the County but was not given any consideration. Mr. Swenson supports Mr. Lavering's comments. He suggested changing the SR-8 designation to an SR-6 zoning designation Gerald Dulz, 13419 SE 240th Mr. Gerald Dulz stated that he owns property that has a proposed zoning designation of SR-8 He stated that his property had originally been zoned for multifamily to the County He asked the Board to consider his property for a zoning designation of MRG Mr Dulz stated that he was interested in developing a senior housing center He commented that this type of development would have no significant impact on traffic and no impact on schools He stated that if a senior housing development was not feasible then he would like to build condominiums Board member Ron Harmon questioned what Mr. Dulz's previous zoning was in the County Mr Dulz explained that he had three separate zoning designations on his property R12, R18, and R24. Chair Steve Dowell questioned if any of his property was north of 240th Mr Dulz stated that all of his property was south of 240th. • Board member Tom Brotherton questioned what the total size of his property was. Mr. Dulz stated that the total acreage is about four and three quarter acres Mr. Brotherton commented that it was #AZ--97-1/#CPA-97-I MERIDIAN VALLEYAN.NEXATION ZONING a Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 25, 1997 Page 5 his understanding that the City Council is very much against any additional multifamily development on East Hill and questioned what benefit would this development have for the community. Mr. Dulz stated that he would like to give his assurance that there would not be any apartments built. He commented that he is against apartments himself He would prefer to build a senior housing community or condominium homes He commented that this type of development could help support the commercial node nearby Mr. Harmon questioned that if Mr. Dulz had made an agreement with the adjacent property owners that he would not zone his property MRG,wouldn't his request go against that agreement Mr. Dulz stated that MRG would be the best zoning designation for his property. Frank Wiemes, 13426 SE 240th Street Mr. Frank Wiemes stated he owns the property just north of Mr Dulz and supports Mr Dulz's request for a higher density but feels that MRD would be sufficient Mr. Wiemes commented that this location would be good for a senior housing project Mr. Wiemes asked the Board to consider a higher density of MRD for his property. Jeff Chalfant, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, 18215 72nd Avenue S Mr. Jeff Chalfant represents Bill Ruth and Jack Juan Mr Chalfant stated that his clients strongly oppose Alternative 2 and the proposed SR-8 zoning designation. He explained that his clients would like to preserve the previous County zoning of R18. He commented that the R18 zoning designation is an effective transition buffer between the commercial node at 240th and the single family residential area He stated that current land use patterns in the area such as the commercial node support the higher density Mr Chalfant commented that the property in question in significantly restrained by low grade wetlands and development under the single family standards is not very practical Craig Sears,2134 NW 204th,Shoreline,WA 98177 Mr Craig Sears is a land use consultant and represents Finkbemer Development Mr Sears explained that his client purchased approximately six acres in this area about three years ago The property was zoned R18 by the County and they would like the property to maintain the MRG designation as shown in Alternative 1 for the entire parcel. Board member Sharon Woodford commented that Alternative 2 designates the property MRG Mr Sears remarked that the MRG designation does not include the Mackey property which the Finkbemer company has an option on Ms Woodford questioned whether Mr. Sears would support Alternative 2 if the Mackey property was included in the MRG zoning. Mr Sears stated that that would be acceptable iMr. Brotherton questioned why Finkbeiner was requesting an MRG zoning designation if they want to build single family residents. Mr. Sears commented that his client would like to keep their options open. a� #AZ--97-U#CPA-97-1 MERIDIAN VA LLE Y A NNEXA TION ZONING Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 25, 1997 Page 6 George J. Burmeister, 13915 SE 241st Street. Mr George Burmeister stated that he supports Mr Lavermg's position Mr Burmeister commented that he does not support increasing any density higher than what is being recommended in Alternative 2 He supports the staffs recommendation. Pam Longston,23611 138th Avenue SE. Ms. Pam Longston commented that staff did a great job. She supports Mr. Lavering's suggestions. Jack Ottini, 14304 SE 256th Place. Mr. Jack Ottini commented that he supports the staff recommendation Mr Ottim stated that he was on the committee to annex into the City of Kent and commented that they had three main concerns for annexing into Kent. better police protection, road improvement and flooding problems, and the zoning problems. Mr. Ottim stated that there was a moratorium in King County for construction because of the flooding He questioned whether the moratorium was still in effect Mr Ottini questioned what the City's stand was on wetlands He questioned why the city was considering multifamily zoning designations if the city has a moratorium on new apartments Mr Ottim commented that the bus service in the area was not sufficient to support more new apartments nor were the schools capable of handling an increase in student population Tom Sharp,24254 143rd Avenue SE Mr. Tom Sharp commented that he supports Alternative 2 with the exception of the SR-8 zoning designation Mr Sharp commented that he had lived in this area for 25 years and appreciates being a part of Kent. Mr Sharp stated that he owns a few properties at 240th and 140th A portion of his property is zoned SR-2. He commented that it is uneconomical for him to develop the property at only two units per acre. He asked the Board to consider changing the SR-2 zoning designations to SR-4.5. Vice Chair Bell questioned what Mr. Sharp's concern was regarding the SR-8 designation. Mr Sharp stated that he felt that the SR-8 density was too high and that it was inconsistent for the area. He commented that the services are not there to support the SR-8 density Dennis Hogan, 24307 129th Avenue SE Mr Dennis Hogan resides in the Meridian Valley Annexation area and represents the residents of the Chancellor Crest development Mr Hogan stated that residents supported the annexation in order to become a part of a government entity that would be more responsive to their concerns and objectives for the neighborhood. Mr Hogan commented that the Chancellor Crest concerns center around the fact that apartments represent substantial increases in population, demand on services, and a direct impact on infrastructure in the surrounding communities. Mr. Hogan commented that he supports Alternative • 2 with the exception that the Mackey property and the property owned by the Finkbeiner Corporation be designated single family residential r� J #AZ--97-1/#CPA-97-1 MERIDIAN VALLEY ANNEXATIONZONING Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 25, 1997 • Page 7 Mr Harmon questioned how many residents were in the Chancellor Crest development. Mr Hogan stated there were approximately 47 home owners. Katherine Gihm, 11914 Maplewood Avenue, Edmonds. Ms. Katherine Gihm owns property in the Meridian Valley annexation area Ms. Gihm stated that her previous King County zoning designation was R24 She commented that she would prefer an MRG zoning designation rather than the recommended MRD. Pat Sitter, 14018 SE 238th Lane Ms Pat Sitter commented that gravel had been dumped in the drainage ditch near the Puget Sound Energy substation She asked if the City could do something regarding this issue. Vice Chair Brad Bell MOVED and Brotherton SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried (A five minute recess was taken) Mr Jackson explained that the area being proposed for SR-8 zoning south of 240th originally was zoned at a much higher density in the County He commented that there is definitely not a compatibility problem between an SR-8 and the SR-4 5 zone. Mr Jackson explained that this is still a single family residential zone that allows for detached homes on a somewhat smaller lot He . explained that the Meridian Valley area contain a variety of uses which includes some condos, a PUD with attached homes, and existing multifamily developments The SR-8 is a compatible use and is a compromise from multifamily zoning. Regarding the Wiemes property which was proposed for SR-8, Mr Jackson explained that Mr Wiemes brought in a preliminary sketch of duplex units built out at about six units per acre Mr Jackson explained that the SR-8 zoning designation would allow Mr Wiemes to build out at a greater density but with single family detached units only. Mr. Jackson commented that retirement housing is allowed as a general conditional use in any residential zoning district in the city He explained that Mr Wiemes could apply for a retirement complex through the conditional use process regardless of the zoning designation and the density allowed is not tied to the underlying zoning designation. Mr. Jackson explained that the area proposed for SR-6 was zoned multifamily in the County and is currently being developed for single family homes. Mr. Jackson commented that the owner of the Mackey property indicated a desire to be zoned single family and unless the property owner comes forward with a different request staff maintains the recommendation for SR-4 5. . Mr. Jackson explained that Alternative 2 greatly reduced the potential for multifamily development. He commented that the City as well as the County are required to establish housing targets as part of the Comprehensive Plan based on the projected growth rates. He explained that King County's #AZ--97-114CPA-97-1 MERIDIAN VALLEY ANNEXATION ZONING Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 25, 1997 • Page 8 projected growth for this area included approximately 370 to 400 new units. He stated that there is a need for some diverse housing in this area Therefore, staff would continue to recommend the MRG on the parcel designated in Alternative 2 The Gihm property is proposed for NM. The applicant stated that MRD was okay but would prefer an MRG designation Mr. Jackson stated that staff stands by the original recommendation of MRD. Regarding the Sharp property, Mr Jackson explained that there were two reasons this area was zoned different One reason was the existing Bonneville right-of-way The property was zoned RI(P) in the County The (P) designated development restrictions and development standards that were going to be parcel specific for this area. Clustering was going to be required by the County in order to develop in this area and by doing so a developer would be eligible for density bonuses. Mr Jackson stated that staff did not have a problem with zoning this area SR-4 5. Planning Director Jim Harris commented that any King County moratorium ended on July 1, 1997 when this area became a part of the City of Kent Mr Harris stated that the City does not have a moratorium on multifamily development He explained that the City has a wetlands policy He stated that wetlands are dealt with at the time of development. Mr Jackson commented that wetlands are protected by a 25 or 50 foot buffer, depending on the class, and typically would go into a separate track that is protected from development. He stated that the City's policy is a no net loss of wetlands. Mr. Jackson commented that the City is aware of the current storm water issues in the area. He stated that this is not uncommon in areas that have been annexed from King County In some cases, developers will be required to make improvements where deficiencies exist. Mr Jackson explained that future development will have to provide on site and above ground detention and storage for a certain duration of storm. He commented that these are very tough standards to meet but a developer will need to address all of these issues prior to receiving approval for a development Chair Steve Dowell commented that there was a lot of discussion regarding existing flooding problems. Mr Dowell questioned whether there were any additional plans for this area that was not discussed tonight Mr Jackson stated that there has been discussions regarding the flooding north of 240th at 132nd He commented that this will be an expensive fix He stated that the County will continue with the 240th Street expansion and there will be some relief when this project is complete Chair Dowell questioned the SR-2 zoning designation in the northeast comer of the annexation area. Mr. Jackson explained that the County had split the zoning on this particular parcel The front portion was zoned for SR-4 5 and the back for SR-L The staff recommended an SR-2 zoning designation as a compromise between the two zoning designations. Mr Jackson commented that staff would not have a problem with an SR-4 5 designation. #AZ--97-1/#CPA-97-1 MERIDIAN VALLEY ANNEXATION ZONING Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 25, 1997 Page 9 Dowell questioned whether the SR-6 zoning designation at the north end was consistent with current development Mr Jackson explained that this area is undeveloped He explained that the City's recommendation was consistent with the previous County zoning Mr. Jackson was unclear as to why the County had zoned these parcels at a slightly higher density. He stated that either SR-6 or SR-4 5 would be applicable The difference between the two zones is not significant and the SR-6 is consistent with the previous County designation. Board member Tom Brotherton questioned the MRD located south of the commercial center. Mr. Jackson explained that this area had been zoned RI in the County The MRD designation would take away half the density and the ability to develop attached units beyond duplexes He stated that the MRD is a good compromise Mr Harmon questioned whether an MRD designation would be more appropriate where the MRG abuts the SR-4.5 Mr Jackson commented that they are both residential districts and not inherently incompatible He stated that the MRG designation was the only opportunity for new multifamily R development in the area Mr Jackson commented that the City requires multifamily design review for any new multifamily development The design review process tries to integrate new development into existing neighborhoods Mr. Harmon questioned whether an MRD designation would be more appropriate. Mr Jackson stated that under the proposed land use alternatives all of the areas that are proposed for zoning of MRD or MRG would have a low density multifamily designation Therefore, this would allow those properties that are designated as MRD to apply for a rezone to MRG without going through a future Comprehensive Plan amendment process. Mr. Brotherton stated that since the Finkbeiner Corporation commented that they were interested in single family development and comments from citizens in the area were basically against any new ' multifamily development, he suggested designating this area SR-8. f Mr Harris commented that the County had zoned this area at nearly twice the proposed density. He stated that there needs to be a place for apartment dwellers The recommendation provides housing opportunities for all different individuals. Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and David Malik SECONDED a motion to approve the proposed Meridian Valley Annexation Zoning #AZ-97-1 and Comprehensive Plan Amendment 4CPA-97-1 Alternative 2 as outlined in the August 25th staff report. Mr Harmon suggested changing the following designations: the area designated as SR-2 to SR-4.5, the undeveloped area designated as SR-6 to SR-4 5, and the area designated for MRG to MRD • Mr. Brotherton stated that in general he supports Mr. Hannon's changes. Mr. Brotherton stated that because a retirement community is allowed through a conditional use permit he supports the staffs original recommendation of SR-8. #AZ---97-I/#CPA-97-I MERIDIAN VALLEYANNEXATIONZONING Land Use and Planning Board Minutes August 25, 1997 Page 10 Vice Chair Brad Bell commented that Mr. Jackson did an excellent job. He does not support Mr Harmon's suggestions except to change the SR-2 to SR-4 5. Mr Harmon commented that the MRD could be rezoned to MRG and asked if Mr Bell still had any reservations about the MRD. Mr. Bell stated that he does not support changing the MRG designation Mr Harmon stated that it would be fair to leave the SR-6. Mr. Bell commented that he strongly supports the staffs attempt to come to a fair and equitable compromise and supports the staff recommendation. Vice Chair Bell MOVED to amend the motion to approve staff recommended Alternative 2 changing the SR-2 zoning designations to SR-4.5. Mr. Brotherton SECONDED the motion Motion carried. Mr Brotherton MOVED to amend the motion to approve staff recommended Alternative 2 changing y the MRG designation to MRD Mr. Harmon SECONDED the motion Motion carried. Mr. Harmon called for the question. The motion was to approve the proposed Meridian Valley Annexation Zoning #AZ-97-1 and Comprehensive Plan Amendment 4CPA-97-1 Alternative 2 as outlined in the August 25th staff report changing the SR-2 zoning designations to SR-4.5 and the MRG zoning designation to MRD The motion carried. Mr Harmon MOVED and Brotherton SECONDED a motion to adjourn Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 9.25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James P. Harris Secretary U\D0C\LANDUSE\Mfl4MS\PBMTG8 25 #AZ--97-1/#CPA-97-1 MERIDIAN VALLEY ANNEXATION ZONING