Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 10/23/2000 y PLANNING SERVICES Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Manager Phone 253-856-5454 T Fax 253-856-6454 KEN NA HI N0TON Address- 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent.WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Continued Public Hearing October 23, 2000 The continued meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Jon Johnson at 7 00 p in on Monday, October 23, 2000 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hail LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS PRESENT Jon Johnson, Chair Fred N Satterstrom, AICP, Planning Mgr Ron Harmon, Vice Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP Brad Bell Pat Fitzpatrick, Asst City Attorney Steve Dowell Bill Wolmski, Env Engineer Mgr. Sharon Woodford Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary Terry Zimmerman LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT David Malik, Excused APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the October 16, 2000 minutes has been moved to November's regularly scheduled meeting ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS Mr Satterstrom stated that the following correspondence was received in Planning Services to be entered for the record • Alan Stuckey and Marilyn Schultheis submitted a letter addressed to the Land Use and Planning Board, dated October 17, 2000 for the record as Exhibit #1 • Monica M Leavitt submitted e-mail addressed to the City of Kent dated October 20, 2000 for the record as Exhibit #2 • The Rainier Audubon Society submitted a letter dated October 18, 2000 for the record as Exhibit #3 • Frederick Mendosa with Curran Mendoza P S submitted a letter dated October 23, 2000 for the record as Exhibit#4. NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Manager, Fred Satterstrom stated that City Council will hold a public hearing on November 7 concerning the moratorium affecting urban separators, as designated by King County as well as those areas under consideration for addition or deletion by the Land Use and Planning Board. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 2 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY Katrina Cordi, 28424 144th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA stated that her property is under consideration by the City of Kent for addition to the urban separator She stated that she would like this land to remain at its present zoning of six units per acre and not be downzoned to one unit per acre Ms Cordi stated that this property has been upzoned on several occasions over the last ten years and that one purpose of the Growth Management Act is to allow for predictability in land use Ms Cordi clarified that the City of Kent is considering her property for addition to the urban separator in Options 3 and 4 of the staff report Ms Cordi stated that her parents want the same right to develop their property as has occurred around them and asked that their property not be added to the urban separator. James McKay, 28449 144th Avenue Southeast, Kent,WA stated that he speaks on behalf of his and his neighbor's properties, which consist of 2 25 acres each He stated that these properties are under consideration for addition to the urban separator under Planning staffs Options 3 and 4 He stated that his property was rezoned to 6 units per acre after the City of Kent annexed the area, excessively inflating tax rates and increasing appraised land values at a higher rate than that of the residence Mr McKay stated that in addition to tax rate increases, storm water and drainage fees have increased threefold in the last year He stated that the fee increases are calculated based on the area in which he lives, parcel size and based on the needs of current development projects already approved by the City of Kent Mr McKay stated that he and his neighbors have the additional burden of paying City of Kent excise tax on Puget Sound Power, telephone service, cable and heating oil He stated that his community is looking for relief from the over inflated tax rates through Proposition 722 on November's ballot. • Mr McKay stated that he and his neighbors are opposed to rezoning of their property and consider this move by the City of Kent as "taking", economic profiling, unconstitutional and reeking of special interests Mr McKay stated that most of his neighbors are retired senior citizens living on retirement social security benefits He stated that adding their property to the urban separator at one unit per acre represents an injustice which could force these neighbors to sell their property due to exorbitant tax rates and the inability to develop their land Mr McKay stated that the property owners should be given the choice to designate their property as urban boundaries and given tax credits if they choose to designate their property as part of the urban separator Mr McKay recommended that this issue not be voted upon without more input from Kent's citizens in order to consider the implications these zoning changes will bring to the people living in the urban boundary areas Mr. Kelley Mayer, 24504 148th Lane Southeast, Kent, WA stated that he purchased his one-acre parcel in the urban separator due to the rural setting He stated that increased density in this area could cause well water contamination, forcing owners to hook up to the City of Kent's water system at enormous expense Mr Mayer voiced concern that if permeable surfaces are paved over for development, resulting water runoff could cause water to set on the Soos Creek Trail during the winter months Mr Mayer stated that he understands the concerns of other landowners not allowed to sell their land as they see fit He stated that he is willing to set a portion of his land aside in an attempt to show his commitment for retaining the rural quality of this area and as a possible means to offset losses incurred by property owners not given increased zoning Mr Mayer voiced support for Option 2A to retain property density at one unit per acre Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 • Page 3 Tom Sharp, 24254 143rd Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA submitted a nine page report along with an areal photo and urban separator designation map indicating his property location for the record as Exhibit #5 He stated that his property located at 140th Avenue Southeast and Southeast 240th is surrounded by the Meridian Valley Country Club on the south, Village of Soos Creek and Country Club North on the north He stated that his 2 36 acre parcel was rezoned by the City of Kent from 1 to 4 5 units per acre three years ago and could only contain development of six homes with lot sizes ranging from 9,000 to 12,000 square feet Mr Sharp stated that development of his property would not degrade his neighbors land use as property on three sides of his property is zoned at 4 5 units per acre Mr Sharp spoke on the reasons that his property does not meet the criteria for urban separators as set forth by the City of Kent and King County. He stated that his property does not affect Soos Creek as it runs perpendicular to it Mr Sharp stated that the Soos Creek Sewer District extended the sewer system across 240th at his request and expense in anticipation of developing his property He stated that storm water flows to the west and is retained on his property, flowing into a King County surface water management pond built on 132nd and 240th He stated that all other utilities are in place Mr Sharp stated that although he is not vested legally, he is vested ethically He stated that he has spent thousands of dollars in preparation for developing his property, during which time he was unaware that his land could be considered as part of the urban separator area Mr Sharpe stated that staff is recommending Option 2B, maintaining his property as part of the urban separator Pam Leckmgton, 26125 147th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA stated that she opposes increased zoning within the county parklands Ms Leckmgton stated that 1,000 signatures were gathered in opposition to changes in this policy and over 90% of the 47th District polled are against any development in this area Ms Leckmgton stated that her community does not want the City of Kent Planning Department to redraw the map She stated that the City of Kent should draft a policy which strengthens current urban separator policies already in place to protect this area She stated that the policy should reflect more permanency with no loopholes for emergencies. Ms Leckigton stated that the unmatched quiet and serenity of the Soos Creek Trail is irreplaceable. She supports an option that accepts the King County designated urban separator area though she does not favor clustered housing Mr. Terry Augerson, 15305 Southeast 244th Place, Kent,WA stated that he and his wife have lived on a five-acre parcel since 1978 and have seen vast amounts of open space diminished He urged the Board to protect what is left of these vital open spaces around Soos Creek by retaining the current zoning of one unit per acre Don Dvorak, 24128 145th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA urged the City of Kent to adhere to the King County Urban Separator Policy as written by King County and ratified by the City of Kent He stated that it is imperative to protect the Soos Creek Trail Mr Dvorak stated that the City of Kent's attorney stated at the last meeting "that if you try to make changes to this policy, it may open the City of Kent to the possibility of litigation" and questioned if the City of Kent would be prepared to go to litigation with King County or private property owners Mr Dvorak stated that if the City of Kent promised landowners in the urban separator that zoning would increase, these people should be compensated by the City. He stated that landowners downzoned by King County should be compensated through the County. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 4 Don Clasen, 13602 Southeast 282, Kent, WA spoke on behalf of his wife Barbara He asked the Board to consider factoring in special circumstances in their policy-making for inclusion of the existing 20 acre wetland on and adjacent to their property site as a natural buffer and urban separator Mr Clasen stated that his developable parcel of 112 acres is obscured from view of the South Ridge development to the East due to the wetlands and existing 10 acres of setback buffers from the wetlands Mr Clasen stated that developing his land could assist the City of Kent in meeting its housing goals and by downzomng the land to R-1 would artificially inflate property and housing values. Mr. Clasen stated the County never informed his family that they were within an urban separator and that their land has always been zoned R-3 or R-4 Mr Clasen urged the Board to adopt a policy for the City of Kent making it possible to use its limited developable land within this new jurisdiction, listen to its constituency and make decisions based on its citizens Bill Williamson, 700 5th Avenue, Suite 2750, Seattle, WA 98104 submitted a letter dated October 23, 2000 with an accompanying water system facility map, storm sewer facility map and Pfaff property photos for the record as Exhibit #5. Mr Williamson stated that he was speaking on behalf of Greta Pfaff He stated that this property consists of 20 acres located at 124th Avenue He stated that this property is enclosed to the north, south, and west with development and experiences drainage impacts from these offsite properties Mr Williamson stated that this property has existing road stubs leading onto the property as well as storm water, water and sewer systems in place on the south side of the property He stated that roadways surrounding the property defeat connectivity with wildlife Mr Williamson asked the Board to consider Option 2B as this property has already been prepared for R-4.5 development, and it should remain at this zoning Mr Williamson stated that this property does not meet urban separator criteria as it can not promote animal habitat and connectivity, there are no geologically unstable areas and the land has been heavily degraded from cattle production. This property should be removed from the urban separator Faith Imlay, 24625 148th Avenue Southeast,Kent, WA voiced her concern that increased development would create excessive water runoff and flooding of the roadways as well as destabilize the hillsides above her property Ms Imlay stated that the Sees Creek area is environmentally sensitive and stated that this area needs a one unit per acre zoning She asked the Board to consider a permanent protection clause for the environmentally sensitive urban separator rather than implementing a five or twenty year review period She voiced support for Option 2A to protect the urban separator as established by King County Sharon Woodford MOVED and Ron Harmon SECONDED to accept all Exhibits submitted for the record Motion CARRIED. Brad Bell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to close the public hearing Motion CARRIED. Ron Harmon offered a MOTION to approve the staff recommendations for text amendments as presented in their staff report dated September 25, 2000 under Option 2B This motion includes proposed text amendments to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and proposed text amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes Under Option 2B, all properties designated on Exhibit A entitled "Kent Vicinity Urban Separators", with the additions and deletions showing on Exhibits B, C and D, are proposed for an Urban Separator/SF-I designation on the Kent Comprehensive Plan Map and SR-1 on the Kent Zoning Map My motion includes a text amendment under Goals and Policies under LU-20.2 to delete the existing text and replace it with the following h Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 • Page 5 �I11ow amendments to the Urban Separators only at the end of the 20 years, to coincide with King County 1994 Policy update of the Comprehensive Plan, or by Kent City Council initiation because of pending danger or public safety Mr Dowell stated that the Growth Management Act determmed that the county should establish areas of protection as stated in the Soos Creek Plan Mr Dowell stated that the City of Kent ratified a countywide plan, which became part of Kent's comprehensive plan Mr Dowell stated that the City of Kent's Legal department has indicated that Kent need not give up their rights to land use regulations as a result of the County's actions. Ms Zimmerman stated that there is a regional framework policy in place for the City of Kent to follow but questioned its applicability She stated that Kent should be wary of creating a policy that would be inconsistent with other south King County jurisdictions Ms. Zimmerman spoke on her concerns that citizens should be able to resubmit requests to the Board on an annual basis even if the Board recommends a policy supporting urban separators at one unit per acre. Ms Anderson stated that the right of landowners to resubmit land use designation request changes on an annual basis before the Board is based on whether the Board allows for annual changes through the policy language, as well as if the Board adopts a five or twenty year review period Ms Zimmerman stated that she favors a 20-year review period Mr Satterstrom stated that the motion indicates that amendments to the urban separators are allowed only at the end of the 20 years, to coincide with the King County 1994 Policy Updates. He stated that this • policy would remain in affect until 2014 with the exception of pending danger or public safety, which would initiate an amendment by the Kent City Council Mr. Harmon stated that he initially supported the Countywide Planning Policy. However, when the City took exception to the policy by allowing upzoning in the urban separator, the City is now obligated to reach a suitable compromise for the good of the City and the landowners He stated that landowners with vested properties should be allowed to develop their property at their current zoning Mr Harmon stated that the City of Kent should uphold the signed agreement with King County and honor policies, which includes the 20-year review period for consistency with King County Mr. Harmon interpreted "emergencies" within the context of the motion by stating that this term was redefined to refer to pending danger or public safety He stated that this definition would allow City Council, at their discretion, to amend urban separator areas Mr Harmon cited in the event of an earthquake, land slides, other natural disasters or if the Fire Department needed to establish a 911 dispatch center or fire district station for the protection of the people. Ms Woodford voiced her support of the motion for Option 2B including a 20-year review period and the inclusion of the emergency clause She stated that downzomng property to SR-1 that is vested or already built at a higher density is a mute point and indicated that the City Maps would not match existing development if this downzoning occurred Ms Woodford stated that the parcels located north of Southeast 282 between 124th and 128th should be allowed to develop as they are surrounded on three sides by development with no existing wetlands She stated that logically Mr Sharp's property should be developed although his property is not vested She urged the property owners within the urban separator to voice their concerns before the City Council Ms Zimmerman stated that while she supports preserving urban separators as defined by Kmg County, this would result in the net loss of approximately 350 to 450 housing units Ms Zimmerman stated that the City of Kent is obligated to meet certain growth guidelines within the next 20 years with the intent of preserving rural areas and back filling into the urban areas She stated that if these housing units are not Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 • Page 6 developed within the urban separator, than the City of Kent needs to provide alternative sites for development of these housing units Ms Zimmerman stated that City Council should be directed to establish housing sites other than in the valley to accommodate the 450 housing units in order to meet the City of Kent's growth guidelines Mr Bell stated that the net number of developable units lost with downzoning would be 757 when including the mobile home park or 654 units excluding the mobile home park Ms Anderson concurred Mr Bell stated that Ms Woodford's statement that no downzoning would occur to existing developments is incorrect as the mobile home park would be downzoned He stated that if the county's urban separator policy does not preclude the city from amendments, then the City would not be going against our agreement if we decide not to accept the County s policy Mr Bell voiced his opposition to all of the options with the exception of Option #1. He stated that he believes that many property owners are being swindled as a result of property downzoning and that property owners are precluded from applying for code amendments with the 20 year limitation in place Mr Bell stated that he is not aware of any other land use and planning policy precluding an individual from annually applying for a code amendment accept where the city buys the property or development rights Mr Bell stated that he believes the City of Kent is making arbitrary decisions on whose property to include as part of the urban separator He stated that because of the city decisions, property owners including Mr Sharp, whose property should not be included, are suffering Mr Bell stated that he is opposed to Mr Harmon's motion Mr Bell stated that he would support Option #1 for no change or Option #2B with no downzones and allowing individuals to annually submit rezone applications if they desire to do so. Ms. Zimmerman concurred with Mr Bell and stated that if the City of Kent desires to preserve the urban separator that they should incur the cost and feels that this principal should be incorporated as part of the Board's recommendation, Jon Johnson voiced his concern that if the Board amends the motion to delete Mr Sharp's property from the urban separator that we may be setting precedence for deleting other properties and defeating the purpose of the urban separator Arthur (Pat) Fitzpatrick, Assistant City Attorney, City of Kent, WA stated that the Legal Department takes the position that the City of Kent should abide by portions of LU-27 but that LU-27 goes beyond a policy statement based on prior Growth Management Board findings such as in the Snoqualmie case He referred to a portion of LU-27 that says, "shall not be redesignated in the future within the 20 year planning cycle to other urban uses or higher densities " Mr. Fitzpatrick indicated that if the Board determined that Mr Sharp's property met some exception of the Urban Separator Policy that it would be within their authority to exempt his property. He stated that the City should be cautious of deleting islands of subdivisions, which could conflict with the policy Mr Fitzpatrick spoke about Snoqualmre challenging the Countywide Planning Policies Mr Fitzpatrick stated that there is the potential that the City, of Kent could be sued by the county or private property owners over the way in which the Board defines the urban separator He stated that if the urban separator adopted by the Board conflicts with the County's policy concerning the review period, zoning or allowing for annual rezone application review this could conflict with the Countywide Planning Policies Mr Fitzpatrick stated that if the City of Kent establishes an urban separator policy, which conflicts with the Countywide Planning Policies,the county could challenge the city but would not necessarily prevail Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 7 Mr Harmon asked Ms. Anderson if she made her determination on which properties were to be deleted from the urban separator based on those properties vested by permit Ms Anderson concurred with the exception of one property located between 124th and 128th, north of 282nd which is surrounded by developed subdivisions Mr Harmon stated that the Board should approve a property owner's application for upzoning not based solely on whether their property is vested Mr Harmon clanfied that even though the mobile home park would be zoned SR-1; it would retain its status as a residential park even if the park were sold Mr Fitzpatrick stated that legally property is vested when a property owner files an application for a subdivision or building permit He stated that only those people who file a development application with the city are vested Mr Fitzpatrick stated that if someone's property was zoned 4 5 units per acre and the city wanted to preserve the owner's right to develop at this level, the property should not be rezoned to a lower density Mr Bell changed his positron, supporting the 20-year review period. Mr Bell MOVED and Ms. Woodford SECONDED to accept a friendly amendment to Mr Harmon's motion on Option 2B not to downzone properties presently zoned higher than R-1. Mr Harmon accepted and incorporated this amendment as part of his motion Ms Zimmerman stated that the City has the option to redefine low-density and that the urban separator policy defines low density as one unit per acre as a preservation threshold Ms Anderson indicated the areas within the urban separator currently designated SR-1, SR-3, SR 4 5 and SR-6 Ms Zimmerman stated that she does not feel that it would be ethical for the City of Kent to change property owner's zoning designations previously approved by the City She concurred with Mr Bell that rezoning would violate people's expectations of how they can develop their land The Board members showed empathy towards those property owners who indicated they had not been properly notified by King County that they were within an urban separator Mr Johnson voiced his understanding that under the proposed motion the Sharp property would remain part of the urban separator Ms Anderson concurred Jon Johnson MOVED and Brad Bell SECONDED to accept a formal amendment to the main motion, deleting Mr Sharp's property classification as part of the urban separator Mr Dowell voiced opposition to deleting Mr Sharp's property as singling out individual parcels for removal could create legal issues although he empathizes with Mr Sharp Ms Woodford concurred. Mr Johnson stated that he offered an amendment to delete Sharp's property as this property is surrounded by developed or urban classified property and is located on the edge of the designated urban separator Therefore, deleting this property from the urban separator would not Jeopardize the concept of urban separator Mr Johnson stated that he believes that the Pfaff property should also be designated for deletion from the urban separator In response to Ms Zimmerman, Mr Bell stated that the Clasen property is located on the perimeters of the urban separator and that their application has been before the Board for zoning recommendations but without vesting Mr Bell stated that he does not support Mr Johnson's formal amendment. Mr Hannon voiced his opposition to Mr Johnson's formal amendment, as the Board needs to show equity to both vested and nonvested property Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 23, 2000 Page 8 Jon Johnson MOVED to amend Mr Harmon's motion to accept Option 2B by recommending the addition of language to allow for deletion of Mr Sharp's property from the urban separator MOTION DIED for lack of a second. Mr Johnson reiterated that the main motion before the Board remains as offered by Mr Harmon with the inclusion of Mr Bell's friendly amendment Mr Dowell stated that the City of Kent needs to show their dependability to property owners in outlying areas by remaining consistent in standing by the ratification they made to the Countywide Planning Policy He voiced his support of the motion for Option 2B with Brad Bell's friendly amendment Ron Harmon MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to approve staffs recommendations for text and map amendments as presented in staff's report dated September 25, 2000 under Option 2B This motion includes proposed text amendments to the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and proposed text amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Codes Option 2B includes all properties designated on Map Exhibit A entitled "Kent Vicinity Urban Separators", with the additions and deletions of properties as shown on Map Exhibits B, C and D The motion includes an amendment whereby there will be no downzomng of properties presently zoned higher than R-1 within the urban separator This motion includes a text amendment under Goals and Policies under LU-20.2 to delete existing text and replace it with the following- Allow amendments to the Urban Separators only at the end of the 20 years, to coincide with King County 1994 Policy update of the Comprehensive Plan, or by Kent City Council initiation because ofpending danger or public safety MOTION CARRIED unanimously ADJOURNMENT Brad Bell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to adjourn the meeting Motion CARRIED. Chair Jon Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9 30 p in. Respectfully Submitted, lx tyfzr df F ed N Satterstrom,AICP ecretary