Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 03/26/1985 (3) J , n KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 26, 1985 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Douglas Cullen at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 26, 1985, in the Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Douglas Cullen, Chairman Robert Anderson, Vice Chairman Robert Badger James Byrne Richard Foslin Chuck Lambert Nancy Rudy COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: „- Jill Spier, excused Raymond Ward PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James Harris, Planning Director James Hansen, Principal Planner Fred Satterstrom, Project Planner Lin Ball , Assistant Planner Ed Heiser, Assistant Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Lambert MOVED that the MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 26, 1985 minutes of the February 26, 1985, Planning Commission meeting be approved as written. Commissioner Badger SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chairman Cullen referenced page 3 of the By-Laws of the Planning Commission of the City of Kent, Washington, page 3, number 8 Conduct of Hearings, A and D: A. On all questions of parliamentary procedure not covered in these By-Laws, Robert 's Rules of Order, as amended, shall govern in the conducting of the meetings of the Commission. D. Each speaker will give his name to the Chair before presenting his material , arguments shall be kept to non-repetitive essentials; discussion of personalities shall not be tolerated, no questions may be asked by any speaker without prior consent of the Chair. , Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1985 Chairman Cullen listed the basic steps in the public hearing process. Those who wish to speak must sign up before the hearing. Staff will make a presentation. Speakers will be called in the order in which they appear on sign-up sheet. A maximum of three minutes will be allowed for rebuttal . The purpose of the rebuttal is to refute statements of others rather than summarize testimony that has been given previously. The public hearing will be closed and discussion will be limited to members of the Planning Commission, unless they request information from those present. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENT Lin Ball , Assistant Planner explained that the Subdivision Code Amendment is a proposal to amend the code to increase the number of lots that are allowed in a short subdivision from the current four lots to a maximum of nine lots. This was discussed at the February 26 work session of the Planning Commission. A request was made at this meeting for clarification regarding the "piggyback" subdivisions, and this has been clarified on the last page of the staff report. Ms. Ball explained that in December 1984 the City Council/Public Works and • Planning Committee asked the Planning Department and the Public Works Department to develop a proposal for a nine-lot short plat. A 1981 amendment to the State Subdivision Law included an optional provision that allowed incorporated cities to increase the number of lots from four to nine. This was the basis for this proposal . The four issues and concerns that were addressed in these meetings are as follows: 1 . Subdivision improvement standards 2. "Piggybacking" or "accumulative" short plats 3. Right of public to be informed 4. Environmental concerns 1. Subdivision Improvement Standards The greatest concern of both the Planning Department and the Public Works Department is the provision of adequate standards for public improvements. Currently the City's Subdivision Code only requires that adequate provisions be made for streets and other public ways, and for drainage, water supply and sanitary wastes. The City has less stringent street and utility standards for short subdivisions than for formal long subdivisions. Substandard private streets are permitted in short plat. This type of minimal standard may be adequate when dealing with only four lots under the existing short plat regulations. The impact could be substantial, though, when dealing with over double the number of lots. As the number of lots increase, so do the pedestrian/traffic conflicts and the impacts to substandard streets. Also, the need arises for more complex utility systems as the subdivisions get larger. -2- Kent Planning Commission Minutes i March 26, 1985 At this time the City allows a short subdivider to defer improvements until the time of development, thus transferring the responsibility for installation to a future buyer. Installation is required at the time of the first development permit. The increase to nine lots would put a e�avy burden on the future landowner, possibly making it unfeasible to meet the requirements. In order to mitigate the increased impact on pedestrians, traffic, streets and utilities, the Planning and Public Works Departments recommend that short subdivisions in excess of four lots be subject to formal subdivision improvement standards. 2. "Piggybacking" or "Accumulative" Short Plats The State Subdivision Law and the City's Subdivision Code do not address the issue of how many lots may be created through a series of short plats on adjoining parcels under the same ownership. Since the law is silent on this, there is the possibility of creating a large number of new lots without going through the formal long subdivision procedures. This "piggybacking" really provides a loophole for evading the state law's intent of limiting the number of lots created in a short subdivision. This is a concern even when dealing with four-lot short plats but becomes a major concern if the number of lots is increased to nine. The possibility of creating a large number of new lots with substandard improvements and without the public notice and review, which would be required in a long subdivision, is an additional concern to the City staff. As the number of lots increase, so does the need for more complex street and utility systems. There is a need to apply more stringent standards to ensure that street and utility systems will meet the public need and will tie in with existing and proposed systems. For this reason, if short plats are increased to nine lots, the City staff would recommend that any "piggyback" short subdivisions (mul- tiple short plats of adjoining land under the same ownership) be required to be heard as a formal subdivision, complying with all formal subdivision requirements and procedures. The exception to this would be to wait the five years required for replatting a short subdivision. 3. Right of Public to be Informed The City has the responsibility through the subdivision process to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare is not jeopardized. The impact that platting has on the public welfare becomes greater as the number of lots increase. As the number of lots increase, so do the impacts created by auto and truck traffic, and the conflict between these and pedestrian traffic. There comes a point when the public has the right to be informed of the possible increased impacts thac the creation of a large number of new lots may cause. The short sub- division regulations do not have a vehicle for informing the public. Formal subdivision regulations require that the public be informed. The Planning and Public Works Departments feel that, as a minimum,if nine-lot short plats are allowed, that "piggyback" short plats should be required to be heard as formal plats. This would provide the public • with proper notification and place such platting into the public hear- ing process. -3- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1985 4. Environmental Concerns Short subdivisions are exempt from the requirements of the State En- vironmental Policy Act except in cases of replatting of a short sub- division, and in wetland areas of the City. Since short plats are exempt from these requirements, any impacts caused by the division of land under these regulations must be miti- gated through conditions for public streets, utility and other public facility improvements. Since the impacts of platting increase as they become larger, this lack of control through SEPA further points out the need for more stringent improvement standards. (See Paragraph dl.) The staff made the following recommendation as presented In the staff report. The Planning Department and Public Works Department recommend that the City's short subdivision regulations be amended to change the number of lots allowed from four (4) to nine (9). In order to ensure that the public welfare is protected, this recommendation is subject to the following: 1. Any short subdivision in excess of four (4) lots shall have full subdivision standards applied. This includes the requirement that all streets and utilities be as per City standards, and that improve- ments be either bonded or installed prior to recordation of the short subdivision. This does not take away the City's current right to apply these standards when necessary to short plats of four or less lots (a current practice). 2. "Piggybacking" or "Accumulative" short subdivisions will not be allowed within five (5) years of approval of the short plat on the adjoining property. "Piggyback" platting within the five-year period will be required to go through the formal subdivision procedures. Piggyback or Accumulative Short Subdivisionsare defined as "mulitiple short subdivision of contiguous land under common ownership". Ownership for purposes of this difinition shall mean ownership as established at the date of the initial short subdivision approval. 3. For any short subdivision with lots in excess of four (4), the appli- cant must submit a preliminary sketch for staff review prior to sub- mittal of the application. This is in lieu of the tentative plat meeting required under formal long plats and will give the staff an opportunity to inform the applicant of any obvious problems. The staff will review this preliminary map within one week, after which time the applicant can submit the application. Commissioner Lambert asked if he owned property next to a property owner who had requested a short subdivision, would he be required to wait for five years before he could apply for his subdivision. Ms. Ball responded that he would not have to wait. The terms "Piggyback" or "Accumulative" short subdivisions were defined as multiple short subdivisions of contiguous land under common ownership. -4- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • March 26, 1985 Commissioner Lambert asked if he would have to wait if he had purchased his property immediately after the original owner had completed a short subdivision. Ms. Ball responded that it still would not apply, because ownership for the purpose of this definition meant ownership as established at the date of the initial short subdivision approval . She explained that the original owner would be required to wait five years, but if the property were sold, the new owner could request a short plat. The purpose of this change is to encourage the developer who has four lots and is planning to develop 30 lots to go through the long subdivision process so that all phases would be coordinated and that the infrastructure would be worked out in this process. Commissioner Badger referred to page 3, number 1, to the words "when necessary. " He asked if this were an arbitrary condition that the city applied at the start of an application? Ms. Ball replied that this is discussed during the review process. Every situa- tion is different, but the most common condition that is applied to most short plats is the situation of the area next to a street that may have future plans for being widened. This would be brought outdur3ng the review by the Public Works and Planning Departments and other city departments. Raul Ramos, Land America Corporation, represented Centron, the developer of the Lakes Project located north of James and east of the Green River. His office address is 604 West Meeker, Suite 201 , Kent, Washington. He read the following letter into the record: C� rne2tca�r,,at�)�2ain 3_z6-85 F'h,I'dil Real Estate/Development hd partnershipinvestments fond use 604West Meeker . Sutfe201 . Kent,WA98032 . (2061854-6977 March 26, 1985 Kent Planning Commission City of Kent P. O Box 310 Kent, WA 98032 R C: Proposed Nine (9) Lot Short Plat Dear Planning Commissioners; This letter is to express my general support for the proposed rune (9) Lot Short Plat amendment to the Subdivision Code. It is a realistic and progressive approach to the need for moderation In regulations and opportunity in securing favorable flnanung during low interest rate periods. In my opinion, the amendment is in the best interest of the general public. However, the staff recommendation on Page 3, Item 2 on "Piggybacking" should be • modified to read as follows: "Piggybacking" or "Acswnulative" short subdivisions will not be allowed within live (5) years of approv.il of the short plat on the adjoining property, except when part of a rezone with an approved rnd%Ler plan or a PIID -5- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1985 Multiple short subdivisions of connnguous land under corntTion ownership should be permitted provided the subject property has received Master Plan approval through the rezone or PUD process. Adoption of this change would permit the Lakes Development to develop its property with- out having to go through the long, cumbersome and costly formal subdivision process. The Lakes is a planned multi-family residential community to be located on 240 acres of land North of James Street and Cast of the Green River. It has gone through two formal subdivision processes and one short plat application. An environmental impact was com- pleted in 1981, and a Supplemental Impact SLatement is being prepared in 1985 It has had more than its share of public hearings and environmental reviews. In 1981, the rezone allowing the project was approved with a 'Na,ter Plan Because of this prior public review of the Lakes Development, it would serve no public purpose to prohibit "Piggyback' or "Accumulative" short plats on property with a City Approved Master Plan. 1, therefore, respectfully request that you adopt the Planning Department's recommenda- tion on the nine (9) short plat with my suggested modtfira non on Itern 2, Page 3 �e y my yours, C % r/ Raul F Ramos, AICP President Mr. Ramos pointed out that the Lakes project is an approved project with a master plan on it. The details of the plan include exactly how many units will be allowed on the property, how it is going to be phased, and what type of densities will exist throughout the project. They have already gone through extensive public hearings throughout the last five years and he felt that they should be allowed to "piggyback." He expained that it was their intention to comply with the formal subdivision standards. They were not attempting to circumvent the formal process. Commissioner Lambert asked if grandfathering could be considered in this situa- tion . Mr. Har1'^is responded that this was not possible in this situation. If there is a master plan for a development and this plan is being carried out, he felt it would seem reasonable to allow this request for this situation. He added that there were only two in Kent at the present time. Mr. Ramos agreed that he was not asking only for the Lakes project, but for all developments with an approved city master plan. Mr. Harris suggested that whenever there is a master plan that has been approved by the city through rezone, PUD or other process, then back to back subdivisions under the short plat procedure up to nine lots would be allowed. If they wished to include the tenth lot, then this would disallowed, because state legislation made no allowance for ten lots . If there were a master plan, the Planning Department would be aware of street locations, utilities and the densities allowed -6- 1 s 1 • Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1985 If the developer stuck to the master plan, they would not need to go through the process numerous times. It would be necessary to review the process only if there were a change in the master plan. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was a time limit on the implementation of the master plan. Mr. Harris responded that there was no time frame stated in the plan. There was no rebuttal . Commissioner Lambert MOVED to close the pu5lic hearing. Commissioner Byrne SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Byrne MOVED that the Commission approve the proposed ordinance amending the Subdivision Code to increase the number of lots allowed in a short subdivision from the current four (4) to nine (9) lots with amendment that the master planned developments can have "piggyback" developments. Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the motion. Motion unanimously passed. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING Ed Heiser, Kent Planning Department, THE ZONING CODE RELATING TO stated that the Planning Commission PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) has had an opportunity to review the AND MIXED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MUD) draft PUD-MUD regulations at three different times. They first discussed these amendments in November 1984 and also in January and February 1985. At the last workshop on February 26, 1985, there were two major amendments to the draft ordinance. The first change appears on page 8 under i . Density Bonus Standards: Parking lot size. A two percent density bonus may be authorized T old-street parking is grouped in areas of 16 stalls or less. Parking areas must be separated from other parking areas, buildings, etc. by significant landscape in excess of Type V standards as outlined in Section 15.05.070, K.C.C. At least 50 percent of these parking areas must be designed as outlined above to receive the density bonus. The second change is on page 13: K. Downtown Redevelopment and the PUD/MUD Regulations 1 . Areas of downtown Kent may be developed utilizing the standards provided for in the PUD/MUD section. Those areas eligible for this benefit shall be located within the • CBD plan boundary as outline' in the Kent Comprehensive Plan. This flexibility in the design regulations is permitted to encourage the redevelopment of the downtown areas. -7- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1985 Raul Ramos, representing Centron, developer of the Lakes Project, submitted the following letter to the clerk and each Planning Commission member. �4ncL Gxl M1e1 *ca G2f2a22ric+�b y� Real Estate/Development . lid partnership investments . land use e� 604 West Meeker . Suite 201 . Kent,WA 98032 . (206)854-6977 3—Z( "8S March 26, 1985 Kent Planning Commission City of Kent P. O. Box 310 Kent, WA 98032 RE: Proposal DUD/MUD Ordinance Dear Planning Commissioners: This letter is to express my general support for the proposed PUD/MUD Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Department The Ordindnce streamlines the review process and eliminates duplication of Hearings by the Examiner and City Council. This time savings is certainly in the best interest of property owners as well as the general public. However, the PUD maybe unworkable tit that m order to utilize the Ordinance, you have to have a mixture of residential uses (i.e., apartments and single family uses) within the development. These types of developments are not common within the Kcnt area. The closest example of this type of development is the Lakes Project. It will contain a mixture of apartments, townhouses, patio-type homes (zero lot lines) and condominiums. The Ordinance as proposed would not allow a PUD solely on townhouses. The proposed Ordinance should encourage and not require a mixture of housing types within a PUD. Otherwise, this would be discriminatory and impractical since mostly all developments are single purpose uses. Consequently,you may have at Ordinance that just fills space in a Zoning Code. In order for the PUD to be workable and thus acceptable, you should consider making the following modifications: I. On Page 2 under Permitted Uses, Item I should read: ...developments are encouraged to include a mixture of uses. 2. A development composed entirely of muli-family uses should be allowed as a PUD. 3. Eliminate the anti-multiple family tone of the Ordinance found on Page 2. 4. Add another enterium titled: "Variety of (lousing" and attach a four (4) percent density bonus to it. The other criteria items should be adjusted to reflect the new criterion. (Note: no more than a 20 percent density bonus can be given on any one project.) 5. Alternative statement:A development composed entirely of multi-family units should not be considered as a PUD, except if part of a rezone with an approved master plan. Item #4 above would be a positive incentive to property owners to consider a mixture of housing types within their developments. Also with the above suggested modifications, the PUD Ordinance can be expected to be used more reasonably and without hems; exclusionary. Therefore, I urge you to consider making these changes and incorporate them within the proposed PUD Ordinance. y ruly u , Raul . Ramos, AICP Press ent -8- Kent Planning Commission March 26, 1985 Mr. Ramos suggested that the Planning Commission not prohibit multifamily developments from using the PUD process because they are only apartments or condominiums and do not have a variety of housing types, but rather attach density bonus points to the project. He felt this would be more fair than prohibiting multifamily projects from using the process unless they had a mixture of housing types. He felt that it would be difficult to find apart- ments and condominiums mixed with single family homes, and that this was very impractical in the Kent area unless there was a very large parcel of land available. Mr. Harris used as an example a 23-unit-per-acre parcel of land which, when when developed would include walkways, open space and recreational-type activities. He felt that it would be unfair for this developer to then ask for bonus points on top of what they were already allowed--a high density. He did not want the developer to request a rezone and then in addition ask for bonus points. Instead, he wanted the developer to have a true mix of residential types of housing-- single family, townhouses and other multifamily units. He stated that Kent expects to be annexing lands to the east of the present city limits where there is potential future development. He felt that if an area were zoned multifamily, why should the city give 20 percent or 15 percent bonus units to do the things that ought to be done, such as connecting units together with walkways, pathways, open space and a recreational area. iMr. Heiser pointed out that the Lakes had been approved as a Master Plan for approximately 2,500 units, over 241 acres of land. With the PUq the Lakes project could be brought to approximately 2,900 units with a 20 percent bonus. If they complied with all the standards provided for in the ordinance, they could achieve a density bonus. He felt that through that bonus they should be able to provide the city with a housing mix which would include single family housing. Mr. Ramos felt that it was unfair to exclude multifamily developments from PUDs. He felt that one could find a lot of high-density, quality multifamily developments, and that the Commission should consider that sometimes there may be a five-acre or ten-acre parcel that has some very unique environmental characteristics. He felt that in some cases it would be necessary to be permitted to cluster the density in certain areas and increase the height so that they could save a certain part of the property to maintain its natural habitat, or else start levelling land and filling. He stated that he was talking in a generality about flexibility and did not like the exclusionary nature of the approach that was being taken. He pointed out that his letter had to do directly with the Lakes project, and that they had an approved master plan and had requested building permits for over 300 units and were not planning to go back and try to get a 20 percent density bonus on the project. He also felt that it was economically unfeasible to get a five-acre parcel and try to inject a prescribed mixture of housing, such as townhouses and single family dwellings. He felt that they were providing a mixture of housing in the Lakes project except for the traditional single family homes with two-car garages on a separate lot. This was the only type of housing that is not allowed in the Lakes project. . He summarized by repeating #5 from his letter. -9- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1985 Commissioner Lambert pointed out that residents of the potential Fred Meyer area expressed during the rezone hearingsthat they did not like to see single family residential areas mixed with apartment dwellings. These residents had asked for an adequate buffer to be built between the two areas. This same issue was brought up again during the LeBlanc hearings with the same feelings expressed again. Mr. Harris felt that these persons were responding to the mass of apartment buildings which exist near the LeBlanc property which were not planned around townhouses and other types of units mixed together. They were opposed to the three-story structures which are typical of apartment units. Mr. Harris felt that a mixture of structures, such as duplexes, apartment units and townhouses, would be acceptable. He used the Meridian Country Estates as an example of beautiful single family homes but rows of townhouses were built on a hill adjoining the area. He felt that these fit well into this develop- ment and should be considered in the development of other areas. Commissioner Badger mentioned that the PUDs were recommended for no less than ten acres except within the Central Business District area. He wondered why five acres had been included in the statement. Mr. Harris read the following from the proposed ordinance page 6 D Development Standards. 1 . Residential . a. Minimum site acreae e. PUD's shall have a minimum site acreage of ive acres. owevr, PUD' s are recommended to be developed on no less than ten acres. Ten acres is recommended as the minimum acreage necessary to properly integrate unique design features of the PUD regulations. Commissioner Anderson responded that he understood that all types of units would not be required in a PUD. He thought that the smallest residential unit could be a duplex. Mr. Hansen replied that he was interested in encouraging a true mixture in the PUD projects. He pointed out that multifamily outnumber single family 20-1 currently in the building activity. At_ the present time 53 percent of the residents live in multifamily dwellings in Kent. He felt that the current feeling of elected officials in the city was to strive for a balance. There is now an effort on the part of the staff to try to come up with a tool to help encourage some sort of balance between single and multiple housing. It is not intended to be exclusionary toward the multiple family housing. He did not feel that the in-town PUD was addressed in detail . In a situation such as the one across the street from City Hall , a mixture in terms of single family plus multiple family would not be feasible due to the lot size and type of develop- ment. He felt that the Commission was not only addressing the needs of the present, but the future development of the City of Kent. -10- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • March 26, 1985 In response to Mr. Ramos' letter which had been presented only at the beginning of the hearing, he felt that the staff had not been given time to prepare comprehensive comments regarding these issues and needed time in order to offer a good, firm position on the point of the alternative statement. Commissioner Badger MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Byrne SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Badger commented that Mr. Hansen needed additional time to respond to number 5 in the alternative statement of Mr. Ramos ' letter. Mr. Harris suggested the Commission request that the issue be continued. Commissioner Lambert MOVED that the public hearing on this issue be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Commissioner Byrne SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. • -11- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1985 KENT APARTMENT COMPLEX Chairman Cullen opened the third VARIANCE #SMV-85-1 public hearing to consider a request by Barghausen Consulting Engineers to allow construction of a 77-unit multifamily residential complex. Ed Heiser presented the application for a variance from the Kent Shoreline Master Program 1 . To allow the construction of a portion of a 35-foot high, three-story building within the shoreline area, and; 2. To allow an encroachment of building, asphalt pavement, and concrete checker block surfaces within the required 100-foot building setback line. The subject property is located at the east end of South 262nd Street on the east side of 85th Avenue South. The property is approximately four acres in size. The property is currently zoned MR-M, Medium Density Multifamily Residen- tial . The Kent Shoreline Master Program designates the shoreline area adjacent to the Green River as "Urban" environment. Mr. Heiser mentioned that the future jail is visible from the site and ,there are mobile home parks located south of the subject property . There are other apartments across the street on South 262nd Street. There are also a number of single family residences scattered throughout the area. The Green River is east of the subject property. The property is composed of two triangular-shapeG lots. At the present time there is an existing single family home on the northernmost lot. This home would be renovated for the property manager if the application is approved. This would make a total of 78 units. The applicant applied for specific variances from the Shoreline Master Program. Kent Shoreline Master Program The Kent Shoreline Master Program designates the shoreline area adjacent to the subject property as an "Urban" environment. The Shoreline Master Program provides specific development standards which apply to con- struction along the Green River. In addition, there are a number of standards provided specifically for residential development. The applicant has applied for a variance from the following use regulations of the Shoreline Master Program: 1. No structure shall exceed two stories or twenty-five feet in height. The proposed buildings will encroach from three to 15 feet into the 200 foot wide shoreline area with the construction of a third story. The three-story portion of the building will be 35 feet above grade. 2. The applicant must establish and show on the development or subdivsion plan a "building setback line" along the Green River. This line will establish the limits of all buildings, fencing, and impervious surfacing along the Green River. The standards for establishing the building limits line shall be as follows: -12- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • March 26, 1985 In residential zones, the building setback line shall be a minimum distance of 100 feet from the ordinary high water line, or 60 feet from the ROW of a scenic and recreational drive, or 75 feet from the centerline of a dike, whichever is the greater distance inland from the river. As provided for above, the development is required to establish the "building setback line" a minimum of 100 feet from the highwater mark of the Green River. The proposed development violates this requirement in several instances, including: a) An encroachment of designated 100 foot setback line by eight (B) feet at the north and east ends of complex. This encroachment consists of unit ends, deck corners, and stairwell located at the east end of the complex. b) An encroachment within the 100 foot building setback line is re- quested to construct an access ramp at the north end of the complex in order to provide access to the proposed underground parking lot. c) While the existing single family residential unit located on site at the north end of the site was constructed prior to the adoption of the Shoreline Master Program and, therefore, is exempt from the provisions thereof, it is requested that five parking spaces be constructed in proximity to this unit for public access to the • Green River. d) A security fence between the complex and the proposed 50 foot public access easement along the Green River. e) A request to provide two fire access lanes by the City of Kent Fire Marshal. The lanes provided will consist of concrete "checker" block, which is a semi-impervious material that will structurally support emergency vehicles and permit the growth of ground cover through the material and, likewise enable water run off to percolate into the ground. The Shoreline Master Program also provides goals, objectives, and policy statements that relate to development along the Green River. The fol- lowing is a review of these statements. PUBLIC ACCESS ELEMENT GOAL: Make the river's edge available to the public. Objective 1: Provide improved public access to the river's edge. Policy 5: Access points should be developed for diversified recreational use. Policy 6: Parking spaces shall be provided to handle the de- signed public use of the access point and designed to have a minimum impact on the natural environment. Planning Department Comment • The developer is willing to provide a public access easement along the Green River. This easement will be 50 feet in width as measured landward from the centerline of the dike. The easement, granted to the City of Kent, will permit the public to reach the river's edge. f -13- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1985 In addition, the developer will provide five public parking spaces. These parking stalls will be directly adjacent to the Green River. This parking area will also be easily accessible by the public via S. 262nd Street. Valley Studies Program The Kent City Council reviewed a series of studies in 1980/1981 that related to development of the valley floor area in Kent. This review came to be known as the Valley Studies Program and was adopted by the Council in 1981. Recognizing that the Kent Shoreline Master Program regulates development within 200 feet of the Green River, the Valley Studies Program es- tablished regulations that relate to development from 200 to 1,000 feet of the shoreline area. These regulations apply only to develop- ment within this corridor and, as such, are known as the Green River Corridor Special Interest District regulations. The Planning Department has reviewed the Valley Studies Program and Green River Corridor Special Interest District regulations in relation- ship to the proposed development. The development is consistent with these policies and regualtions. As such, further review in this staff report is not necessary. A Final Declaration of Nonsignificance was issued on December 12, 1985. The assessment was approved with the following conditions: 1. Provide easement for, and improve to City standards, the public i access shown on preliminary plans to allow public access and vehicular access by fire suppression apparatus. 2. Execute no-protest LID covenants for the improvement of S. 262nd Street and 85th Avenue S. with asphalt pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lighting, unaerground utiilitles and related ap- purtenances. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW The Planning Department has reviewed this application in relation to the Comprehensive Plan, present zoning, land use, street system, flood control problems and comments from other departments and finds that: A. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as "Multifamily Dwelling." The Kent Shoreline Master Program designates the site as an "Urban" environment. B. The site is zoned MR-M, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. C. Land use in the area is predominantly multifamily residential. D. The subject property will have access to S. 262nd Street and 85th Avenue S. Each of these streets is improved with two lanes of asphalt paving and gravel shoulders. The Engineering Department has recommended the developer be required to overlay S. 262nd Street with one and one-half inches of asphalt pavement. This improvement would mitigate the impact that the proposed development would have on the existing roadway condition. -14- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • March 26, 1985 In addition to the above improvement, the Engineering Department has recommended the developer be required to execute an agreement to partici- pate in the cost of installing a traffic signal at the intersection of S. Central Avenue and S. 262nd Street. The developer would be re- quired to pay a pro rated share of the installation cost at such time as the traffic signal is warranted. E. There are no flood control problems on the site. F. Variances from the Shoreline Master Program may be granted only under certain circumstances. The following is an excerpt from the Kent Shoreline Master Program: The property owner must show that if he complies with the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program, he cannot make any reasonable use of his property. The fact that he might make a greater profit by using his property in a manner contrary to the intent of the program is not a sufficient reason for variance. A variance will be granted only after the applicant can demonstrate the following: 1. The hardship which serves as the basis for granting of a variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant. 2. The hardship results from the application of the requirements of the Act and Master Program and not from, for example, deed restric- tions or the applicant's own actions. 3. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose . and intent of the Master Program. 4. Public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied. The Planning Department has reviewed the above statements and made the following findings: 1. The hardship which serves as the basis for granting of a variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant. Planning Department Finding The applicant has requested several variances from the Shoreline Master Program. These variances will be necessary to construct the proposed development at a density that is somewhat less, but comparable to, other developments in the area. The variances requested are necessary because of the unusual shape of the subject property. The property is made up of two triangular parcels. The triangular shape of the lot and its location in relation to the Green River expose a relatively greater frontage to the shoreline. The site has 945 linear feet of frontage along the Green River. In addition, 2.8 acres of the 4.0 acre site is within the shoreline area. As a result almost 75 percent of the site is subject to the standards of the Kent Shoreline Master Program. • The unique shape of the lot and the fact that most of the lot is subject to the substantial regulations of the Shoreline Master Program serve as the hardship basis for granting the request for variance. -15- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1985 2. The hardship results from the application of the requirements of the Act and Master Program and not from, for example, deed restric- tions or the applicant's own actions. Planning Department Finding The request for variances from the Shoreline Master Program are a result of the specific application of the following requirements: No structure shall exceed two stories or twenty-five feet in height. The applicant must establish and show on the develop- ment or subdivision plan a "building setback line" along the Green River. Thisline will establish the limits of all buildings, fencing, and impervious surfacing along the Green River. The standards for establishing the building limits line shall be as follows- In residential zones, the building setback line shall be a minimum distance of 100 feet from the ordinary high water line, or 60 feet from the R.O.W. of a scenic and recreational drive, or 75 feet from the centerline of a dike, which- ever is the greater distance inland from the river. (Of the above criteria applied to the subject property, the distance of 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark is the greater distance inland from the river.) Firstly, the proposed development will have three story buildings (35 feet maximum height) within the shoreline area. This will, however, occur only as minor encroachments. The shoreline area crosses the proposed building diagonally, disecting the building. More specifically, the 200 foot shoreline area line results in the disection of five units. These units encroach from seven to 16 feet into the shoreline area. In addition, these encroachments are at angles which further lessens the impact. Secondly, the applicant is requesting a variance from the building setback line. This line has been established at 100 feet from the ordinary high water line of the Green River. The proposed develop- ment violates this requirement in several instances, including: (a) An encroachment of the designated 100 foot setback line by eight (8) feet at the north and east ends of complex. This encroachment consists of unit ends, deck corners, and stair- well located at the east end of the complex, (b) An encroachment within the 100 foot buildng setback line is requested to construct an access ramp at the north end of the complex in order to provide access to the proposed underground parking lot. (c) While the existing single family residential unit located on site at the north end of the site was constructed prior to adoption of the Shoreline Mater Program and, therefore, is exempt from the provisions thereof, it is requested that five parking spaces be constructed in proximity to this unit for public access to the Green River. (d) A request to provide fencing between the complex and the pro- posed 50 foot public access easement along the Green River. -16- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • March 26, 1985 (e) A request to provide two fire access lanes as requested by the City of Kent Fire Marshal. The lanes provided will consist of concrete "checker" block, which is a semi-impervious material that will structurally support emergency vehicles, and permit the growth of ground cover through the material and, likewise, enable water run off to percolate into the ground. A variance from the standard is necessary for each of the above violations. The hardship on the development is a result of the strict application of the Shoreline Master Program and not be- cause of deed restrictions, easements, etc. 3. The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Master Program. Planning Department Finding The Shoreline Master Program provides policy guidelines and use regula- tions that determine the type and character of the development along the Green River. The general purpose of the Master Program is to estab- lish these guidelines and allow development along the Green River with the intent of maintaining the unique natural environment of the shore- line area. A review of the guidelines established in the Shoreline Master Program for residential development indicates that the proposed development will be in harmony with the shoreline environment. The variances re- quested are minor in scale and will not interfere with the public's . use of the river. 4. Public welfare and interest will be preserved; if more harm will be done to the area by granting the variance than would be done to the applicant by denying it, the variance will be denied. Planning Department Finding The public welfare and interest will be preserved. The development will provide a public access easement along the Green River as well as public parking areas. Significant landscaping will also be provided along the Green River. The site also offers a unique opportunity to provide housing adjacent to a. significant natural amenity. The requested variances can be approved without impacting the public welfare and interest in the Green River and the shoreline environment. G. The proposed use is consistent with the provisions of the Valley Studies Program. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of the applicant's request for variances from the Kent Shoreline Master Program. Commissioner Lambert asked for clarification regarding the public access setback requirement. Mr. Heiser responded that in residential zones, the setback depends upon the character of the shoreline. In this particular case it is at least 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark. Commissioner Lambert expressed concern about the way the public access would be used by the public. -17- 5 Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1985 • Mr. Heiser responded that each development along the river' s edge in this area has provided public access and there has been no report of problems at this time. It is the intention of the City of Kent to develop a linear park along the river' s edge from the northernmost part of Kent to the southernmost part. Mr. Harris added that the State of Washington has found the Green River to be river of statewide significance, which essentially means that access is to be 9 Y provided along the entire river' s edge. It is the intent of the Shoreline Master Program to have the river open to the people of the State of Washington. He felt that it may be necessary at some future time to have the area policed. Commissioner Badger asked about the fire lanes in the 100-foot area. He wondered if the Walnut Grove Mobile Home Park currently had asphalt paving within the 100-foot area. Mr. Heiser responded that they did have asphalt paving. Commissioner Badger asked if this were the last parcel left to be developed in the multiple zoning area. Mr. Heiser replied that all the properties on the south would now be developed, but he was not certain about the properties to the north. Commissioner Badger asked if the jail property extended to the edge of the river. Mr. Heiser answered that it did extend to the river' s edge. Tom Barghausen, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. , 6625 South 190th, Suite 102, Kent, Washington 98032, stated that he had prepared this application for the Planning Commission' s review. He mentioned that architects Bob Theriault and Arden Steinhart were present and had prepared the site plans for this project, and that they had been working with Ed Heiser and the Planning staff over a six-month period on this project. It had taken a great deal of site planning because of the constrained area. Since the developer wished to put a high quality project on the site, it took a great deal of planning in order to conform to both the Zoning Code and the Shoreline Master Program. Triangular property and square buildings presented a challenge, but they had been able to meet the intent of both with a reasonable development for the site. The density would be about 15 percent less than what was allowed in the zone, and this was without any bonus points. Mr. Barghausen did not anticipate any of the problems that Commissioner Lambert had mentioned. When the project is completed, the landscaping would allow the area to be visible. He felt this would be a deterrent to the type of problems that Commissioner Lambert had alluded to. Commissioner Badger asked at what point the landscaping requirements stopped. Mr. Barghausen remarked that a miniature golf course would be included in the area. Since this would be open to the public, it would be a passive amenity. -18- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 1985 Commissioner Badger asked if there would be a fence between the development and the river. Mr. Barghausen responded that they had originally proposed a fence, but the fence was eliminated as a result of the restriction between the 50-foot access and the balance of the project. Commissioner Anderson asked about parking and the final grades. He felt that the roof line would push close to 35 feet above the existing grade. Mr. Barghausen responded that they were planning to slightly indent the foundation into the ground so that it would be slightly below grade level . The height of the two-story units within the 200 foot line would be 20-25 feet in height, and then at the three-story level it would extend 30-35 feet. Richard Owen, property owner contiguous to the subject property, asked about filling in the area and about a retaining wall . Mr. Harris pointed out that this matter was not involved with the variance request and should be directed to the architect. Commissioner Foslin MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED • the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Badger MOVED that the request for variance from the Kent Shoreline Master Program to allow the construction of a portion of a 35-foot high, three- story building within the shoreline area and to allow an encroachment of building, asphalt pavement and concrete checker-block surfaces within the required 100-foot building setback line be approved. Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Byrne commented that the applicants had worked hard in putting together a very ambitious project. Commissioner Badger mentioned that he understood that the two green areas where the fire lanes are provided were to be accessed from Dyke Road. He felt that this was a good solution for a passable road within the Green River Shoreline Management area. He expressed pride in the creativeness shown in this project. Motion unanimously carried. -19- ' s e Kent P anning Commission Minutes March 26, 1985 OPEN SPACE TAXATION APPLICATION Chairman Cullen presented the C.A.G. ASSOCIATES (202-84-5) C.A.G. Associates application for Open Space Taxation. Fred Satterstrom presented the application stating that it consists of 21 .1 acres that is located between South 212th Street and 216th Street. It is situated on the west side of the Green River and was included in the area that was changed on the Comprehensive Plan last summer to indicate agriculture as the planned land use. He described the three kinds of properties that can apply for open space taxation, which is also known as current use assessment. These lands can be defined as farmlands, open space or timber lands. There are state definitions which define precisely each classification. Mr. Satterstrom pointed out that the effect of being classified as open space is that there is a substantial reduction in the property taxes that are due and payable each year on a piece of ground. If the application is successful , the county assessor assesses that land and taxes it at its current use, what it is presently being used for, as opposed to what its market value might be. The taxes on the difference between the existing use and the fair market value are then deferred for a period of ten years . The property owner would have the option in later years of reenrolling in the program. The property owner gets an annual crop off the property, and a minor portion of the property at the south end is used for stockpiling soil and other landscap- ing materials that are delivered to and from the site. The purpose of the open space taxation request is to qualify the property for the King County' s purchase of development rights program. The County Agricultural Office requires as a prerequisite to acquiring the development rights to a piece of ground that the property has to be enrolled in the open space taxation program. Those properties in the program to date have qualified as open space. Four years ago the Kent Planning Commission heard one of these applications and ruled in favor of the request. If approved, it will go to a joint committee consist- ing of three City Council members and three County Council members in a joint session who will make a decision based on the recommendation of the Commission. The following is quoted fromthe staff report: RCW 84.34.020 (1) defines Open Space land as follows: "(1) "Open Space land" means (a) any land area so designated by an official comprehensive land use plan adopted by any city or county and zoned accordingly or (b) any land area, the preservation of which in its oresenx use would (1) con- serve and enhance natural or scenic resources, or (iii) protect streams or water supply, (iii) promote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or tidal marshes, or (iv) en- hance the value to the public of abutting or neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries or other open space, or (v) enhance recreation opportunities, or (vi) preserve historic sites, or (vn) retain in its natural state tracts of land not less than five acres situated in an urban area and open to public use on such conditions as may be reasonably required by the legislative body granting the open space classification." -20- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1985 The Planning Department staff finds that it conforms to iv and recommends approval . (iv) enhance the value to the public of abutting or neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or sanctuaries or other open space . Mr. Satterstrom proposed to the Commission that they condition that approval of open space taxation subject to the acquisition of either the development rights or the full fee interest of the property by King County in the fourth acquisition rounds, which would be the next eligible round for this property, and that the property would be taxed at the highest and best use valuation until King County authorizes said acquisition. If the county buys it, it would then be classified as open space. If the county does not buy it, then it would not be classified as open space. He felt that the main reason for qualifying this area for open space is the role it plays in tying together certain other properties under the county's farmland program. If the county feels that it does not wish to purchase the property, then he saw no reason why the City of Kent should classify the property as open space. Commissioner Anderson asked about the present use of the land. • Mr. Satterstrom stated that some of the land is used for haying, and the remainder of the land is used for stockpiling soil and landscape bark materials which are taken to development sites when they need topsoil . Commissioner Anderson felt that it fit more the description of agricultural land than open space on this particular parcel . He also mentioned that it had been platted into single family lots. Mr. Satterstrom explained that it contained two parcels, 2.7 acre parcel and the 18 acre parcel . This land does not qualify as farmland because of the income that is required from the property; consequently, it has been submitted as open space. He had talked with the State Office of Agriculture and they felt that this property while, lacking some intrinsic value as open space serves to connect some of the adjoining properties in a way that would enhance the adjoining properties' chances of being purchased under the county' s program, because it would then create a contiguous block of properties. Commissioner Lambert asked if it would still be commercial in designation if the county did purchase the rights. Mr. Satterstrom responded that it would be subject to the covenants that run with the land which go along with the purchase of development rights. The property owner would then enter into an agreement with the county and there would be a number of covenants that would govern the use of the land. Mr. Harris asked if it were true that the county would not be interested in buying such lands unless they were in the open space designation. Mr. Satterstrom replied that this was a requirement. -21- Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 1985 Commissioner Badger asked about the contiguous piece of land to the west which was owned by Consolidated Beverages. He wondered if land speculators at one time expected this land to be used for industrial use. Mr. Satterstrom responded that Consolidated Beverages leases their land to Mr. Carpinito who has farmed it for several years. Based on the application by the property owner, Consolidated Beverages, he felt that they no longer see the long-term use as industrial and would rather sell the development rights to the county. Commissioner Badger wondered if the City of Kent's declaration of the area west of the river for agricultural preservation would preclude any concept of industrial development in that area. Mr. Satterstrom responded that the present zoning would prevent it, but it wouldn't prevent anyone from speculating. Tom McCann, representing the applicant, C.A.G. Associates, stated that the owners have owned the property for six and one-half years. Last summer the property was in an interim zone that was transitioning to some higher use, not necessarily industrial , but it could have been commercial or residential . The property was purchased based on the understanding that the area would be developed. He stated that in 1984 it was downzoned to agricultural use, and City Council members and the Planning Commissioners directed the applicant to get compensation from King County. It was suggested that if he did not get compensation from King County, the applicant should reapply for a zoning change. This request is their attempt to follow through on this suggestion. Mr. McCann explained that they receive approximately $600 or $700 revenue from hay, if it is not damaged by the rain. One of his brothers uses the property to stockpile bark, sawdust, topsoil and fill . He is presently using the property rent free until the disposition of the property is determined. Commissioner Lambert MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Lambert MOVED that the Commission recommend approval of the property as Open Space for taxation purposes, subject to the acquisition of either the development rights or the full fee interest of the property by King County in the fourth acquisition round, under condition that the property will be taxed at the highest and best use valuation until the King County Council authorizes said acquisition. Commissioner Byrne SECONDED the motion. Motion unanimously carried. Commissioner Lambert MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. The next Planning Commission meeting will be held April 30, 1985. Respectfully submitted, i gJams P. Harri , Secretary