Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 02/26/1985 .ry KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 26, 1985 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Douglas Cullen at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 26, 1985, in the Council Chambers. COMMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Douglas Cullen, Chairman Robert Anderson, Vice Chairman Robert Badger James Byrne Richard Foslin Chuck Lambert A Nancy Rudy Jill Spier i COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Raymond Ward PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James Harris, Planning Director James Hansen, Principal Planner Lin Ball , Assistant Planner Ed Heiser, Assistant Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Rudy requested that FOR JANUARY 15, 1985 her letter of January 15, 1985, be included in verbatim form in the minutes of this meeting. Her letter was addressed to Doug Cullen, Chairman, Kent Planning Commission, January 15, 1985. Mr. Chairman : It was called to my attention this afternoon that I was to be excluded from participation in this meeting because of an error on the part of the Planning Department staff in not securing my reappointment at the necessary time. I understand that a vote is to be made and to be taken on the LeBlanc request for amending the East Hill Plan, an issue which has become highly controversial . It should be known that there are only five ruling members of the Commission present, and that two members, Jim Byrne and me, are disenfranchised because of the error. One new member was not present for the workshop on this issue. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Commission consider the aforementioned circumstances and delay its final vote on this matter until the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Nancy Rudy and Jim Byrne. fi Kent Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1985 Chairman Cullen pointed out that on page 13 of the January 15 minutes it stated, "Commissioner MOVED to close the public hearing." Commissioner Anderson suggested that his name be inserted in this position. Commissioner Spier MOVED to accept the minutes as amended. Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the motion. Mr. Harris mentioned that the next workshop would be held the third Tuesday of March, and the public hearing would be held the fourth Tuesday of March. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER Chairman Cullen reopened the THE LEBLANC REQUEST TO AMEND THE public hearing to consider the EAST HILL PLAN request by Leo LeBlanc to amend Kent' s East Hill subarea plan, specifically to consider changing the East Hill Land Use Map from its current single family designation, 4-6 units per acre, to multifamily, 7-12 units per acre. 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. " 8. Conduct of Hearings: (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. (B) The Chairman shall, upon declaring the opening of a hearing, state the hearing's purpose and ascertain that the Commission members present are oriented to the hearing question and review hearing procedure. (C) No matter will be considered at any meeting unless the proponent or his delegated representative is present, or his presence has been excused by the Chairman, or the matter has been initiated by some department of the City of Kent. (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. (E) The Planning Commission will not hear any scheduled agenda item when significant new materials are presented at a Planning Commission hearing that have not been reviewed by the staff and entered into the staff report. In such cases the agenda item will be continued to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission public hearing date. New materials must be del-osited in the Planning Depart- ment office at least ten (10) days prior to the Planning Commission meeting for which the materials are intended. Commissioner Lambert understood that the hearing had been closed at the previous meeting. Chairman Cullen stated that the hearing had been reopened to include the persons present who wished to speak. -2- Kent Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1985 i Vice Chairman Anderson MOVED that the hearing be extended in order to hear any new testimony. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chairman Cullen explained the procedures that would be followed for the hearing as outlined in the meeting procedures for this meeting. Mr. Harris identified himself as the Planning Director of Kent and referred to the comments made at the previous meeting regarding the possibility of this site becoming a park site. After review with the Parks Department, it was found that there was interest in the site but there were no available funds at the present time to acquire the site for a park. Mr. Tom Mohle, 23235 110th Place SE stated that there had been a neighborhood meeting in which the situation had been presented by Mr. Heiser and Mr. LeBlanc, and the neighbors understood and accepted the situation. He did state that the neighbors were concerned about 112th SE because it was dangerous and narrow. They hoped that if there were any development along this roadway in the future, they would like to have it widened. He understood that half of the road was owned by the County and half owned by the City of Kent. He expressed the desire that the City of Kent would take the responsibility of the entire road if the area is annexed into the City of Kent. He felt that a road owned half by the County and half by the City might remain unimproved. He also expressed concern about the increase in traffic through the Park Orchard area. He added that since the new development has opened up on the east side of Park Orchard Elementary School , people cut through Park Orchard to the other area. He hoped that something would be done about the traffic in the event that housing is erected in this area. He also expressed concern about the water problems and the increased rates that have taken place. He wished to be assured that this development would not create additional stress on the water pressure. He suggested that the LeBlancs look into a covenant that would protect the property. He hoped that it would be preserved as much as possible, and pointed out that trees become vulnerable when some are removed and others are left standing. He asked that the Planning Department consider this situation when the development takes place. He expressed concern about the possibility of four-story apartments being built on the property so that the privacy of the present property owners would be jeopardized. He felt that this would be considered encroachment. He also mentioned that 35 per- cent of the population of the City of Auburn lives in multifamily dwelling. The City of Renton has 29 percent of its population living in multifamily dwellings. The City of Kent has over 50 percent in multifamily dwellings. He hoped that this property would be developed as the LeBlancs had requested rather than have the site stripped of trees and a single family residential area constructed. He did not wish to see another King ' s Place style of dwelling constructed. He closed by requesting consideration for the neighbor- hood concerns. Commissioner Rudy stated that she had observed some children on 112th SE and felt that the street was dangerous for the children. -3- Kent Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1985 Mr. Mohle felt that if the City and County would split the cost of widening 112th, it seemed unlikely that anything would be done about the street. Commissioner Lambert was concerned that no residents were present at the County Council meeting which was held at the Kent Council Chambers on February 11 . He felt this would have been the ideal time for residents in the area to speak to both the City Council and the County Council . Traffic had been discussed at this meeting. Mr. Mohle explained that the neighborhood he represented was not against apartments but against the type of dwellings that were constructed at Kings Place, because it is very stark with only one tree on the site. Mr. George McKenzie, 10921 SE 236th Street, Kent (in the County) explained that he lives with Kings Place on one side and LeBlanc 's property on the other side. He realized that the apartments had been lowered so that it appeared to be a one-story structure. He explained that he did not want structures constructed that would allow the residents to look down on his property. Commissioner Lambert explained that by building below the ground level, the contractors were not required to include elevators in the construction. Mr. McKenzie mentioned that the poplar trees were the only screen, and that they had been planted partially on his property. He was able to insist that they not be removed, but they were really not an effective screen. He expressed concern that the City of Kent is interested in annexing Park Orchard to the City of Kent. He did not wish to have his property included in this action. He explained that if his property were rezoned, it would approximately double in value if he could build a multiple-family unit on the site. He felt that the City of Kent would stand to gain from the additional property that would be annexed into the City. Commissioner Anderson explained that the multiple units that were being con- sidered would allow for clustering and that it would not be beneficial for the clusters to extend to the edge of the site. He felt it would be a benefit to leave the screen, and that there was an ordinance which required screening between a residential and multifamily area. The Planning Department would be able to recommend which trees should be preserved in the area. Mr. McKenzie wished to emphasize that the issue was the type of tree that would make an adequate screen. Chairman Cullen opened the meeting for rebuttal . Mr. Hansen explained that Mr. McKenzie was concerned with site design. These considerations would become effective only after the annexation had taken place. When the site is annexed into the City of Kent, it would be subject to all the City regulations, including the tree ordinance, which would prevent blatant cutting of trees and should avoid the situation that was described. Chairman Cullen explained that the public rebuttal was intended to refute any statements given by others rather than to summarize testimony that was previously given. -4- Kent Planning' Commission Minutes February 26, 1955 No rebuttal was given. Commissioner Lambert MOVED to close the public hearing. Vice Chairman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Spier expressed concern about the safety of children on 112th SE. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Wickstrom, Public Works Director, to respond to the concern. Mr. Wickstrom explained that if the property were annexed into the City of Kent, this area would be reviewed through the EIS process at which time some off-site improvements, independent of th property' s immediate frontage on 112th SE, could be required. He realized that there wasn 't a 60-foot right of way in this section of the road. He also stated that the Engineer- ing Department did not have any immediate plans to do any road improvements on 112th SE at the present time. Commissioner Spier asked if they could approve the issue with the suggestion that if the annexation takes place, the street be considered for widening. She felt this was a valid complaint from the residents of the area. Commissioner Lambert felt that one of the conditions in granting a permit would be that the street adjacent to the property be improved to a certain width with curbs and sidewalks. Mr. Wickstrom responded that there would be no problem in front of LeBlanc's property. As part of the rezone, the City would obtain the necessary right of way if there was not a full 60-foot space through the area. Through the EIS process the traffic volume would be studied and the necessary improvements would be planned. Full improvements might not be necessary, perhaps an overlay and a widening where it would be required. Commissioner Lambert felt that if the residents of the area were concerned about street improvement, they would be willing to dedicate 20 feet of their property so that this could take place. Mr. Wickstrom explained that one way the roads are improved is through the local improvement district (LID) in which each owner pays his fair share of the improvement. If all the properties abut City property, it could be done on one LID. Persons in the County could protest that their portion not be included in the project, which would leave out portions of the work that needed to be done. Another way would be to have the developer put in the improvements in front of the property that is being developed, and then as part of the mitigating measures, as far as the environmental impact is con- cerned, the City would require him to make some off-site improvements. Another way that this could be improved is on the City' s six-year plan. It would then be on the capital improvement program. These, and combinations of these, are the basic ways that roads get improved. -5- Kent Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1985 Commissioner Anderson felt that if they were annexed into the City of Kent they would be required to improve the portion of the right of way which is adjacent to their property. Mr. Wickstrom assured the Commission that the area around the development would be improved, but other areas of 112th would be more difficult to obtain the necessary improvements. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that the area under consideration has more than one parcel that is being considered. There is the two-acre parcel that is to remain single family. He asked if a short plat would be necessary in order to separate those two parcels. Mr. Harris responded that eventually the short plat would be required. Commissioner Anderson expressed concern that the northerly portion also be widened in the case of a short plat. Mr. Wickstrom responded that driveways are extracted and agreements to improve roads would be included in the case of a short plat of the two-acre parcel . Commissioner Anderson remarked that he had been to the area and found that many of the property owners present at the previous hearing had widened the roadway on their side. He also noticed that there was a path worn through a vacant lot and across a church parking lot. He felt that children may be using this area, which may be trespassing, but would appear to be safer than the roadway. He suggested that the roadway be widened when the property is improved. Mr. Badger asked if this request by Mr. LeBlanc were granted, would there be any absolute assurance that the parcel of land would be annexed into the City of Kent or that by approving the request, would they be permitted a 7 to 12 unit per acre under the County development situation? Mr. Harris responded that they are in the County and until they are annexed into the City, the Comprehensive Plan is not affected. The County' s Soos Creek Plan is the plan of that area at the present time. They must submit a petition to become part of the City of Kent. Commissioner Badger asked if the Soos Creek Plan designates this area for single family dwellings at the present time. Mr. Harris agreed that this was true, but if the City of Kent would change its plan (which would overlap part of the Soos Creek Plan area) to a multifamily designation, then when they come into the City it would be easier for the LeBlancs, because the staff would be compelled to recommend that the area be designated multifamily. Commissioner Badger reiterated that even if this were approved to be multi- family, it could not occur unless it is annexed into the City of Kent. -6- Kent Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1985 Mr. Harris agreed that unless the LeBlancs could convince the County to change their designation to the Soos Creek Plan, that would be true. He felt that it would be more likely that the County would suggest that they annex into the City. Commissioner Badger commented that since they could not build multifamily units unless the County changed its zoning and the City of Kent changed its Comprehensive Plan to allow multifamily (about one half or less than the density of the immediate area to the south) , then the City would have control of the developmental sequence. i Mr. Harris agreed that this would be true after it is annexed into the City. Commissioner Rudy asked if 112th Avenue was within the scope of consideration in amending the East Hill Plan. Mr. Harris responded that it was within this scope, because the Comprehensive Plan also deals with transportation. Commissioner Badger asked if it were correct that 240th was to be widened from 116th to 132nd with a five-lane intersection at 116th. Mr. Wickstrom responded that this was in the Six-Year Plan. i Commissioner Badger asked if the City had a plan for widening 240th to five lanes from 108th to 116th. Mr. Wickstrom responded that this was not in the present plan to be implemented within the next few years. Commissioner Badger asked if there would be an automatic traffic light at 112th or if it had been considered. Mr. Wickstrom answered that it would depend upon the amount of traffic generated in this area. He said he could not respond to the need at this intersection because it was not known at the present time. Commissioner Anderson suggested that tree preservation and screening were important to the residents of the area,and that 236th should not be extended. Mr. Harris felt that this would not be a problem, because when they come in for a building permit, the SEPA and Tree Ordinance and general development standards would help to guide in the developmental process. Chairman Cullen asked for a general motion before dealing with the amendments. Commissioner Byrne asked how far north multifamily might extend in order to have some continuity to the area. Mr. Harris expressed concern only for the area presented at the present time. If this were not a heavily forested site, this issue would not have been presented. -7- Kent Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1985 The Planning staff felt that a fairly low multifamily density would save many of the trees. As a single family subdivision it would be imperative that the vegetation be destroyed in order to build these single homes in the area. He felt that clustering of the units to allow 7-12 units per acre would make it possible to save an extensive amount of the vegetation. He also felt that there would be a natural transition in the area from 23 units per acre to 7-12 units per acre to single family dwellings. Mr. Hansen suggested that the language of the motion could reflect the improve- ments suggested, such as the need for widening and curb and sidewalks on 112th for public safety reasons, and the concern expressed for the trees on the site. The zoning would be considered only at the time that they request to be annexed into the City. The staff report at that time would be predicated upon the Planning Commission ' s recommendation regarding the density. The zoning would then be recommended at a similar level . The staff needs to have the concerns of the Planning Commission expressed. Commissioner Lambert mentioned the possibility of a property owner being unwilling to dedicate 20 feet of his property for a specific improvement. .y Mr. Harris pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan was a broad-brush approach to the situation. He encouraged the Commission to address the issues with which they felt concern. At a later time it would be possible to secure no-protest LID covenants, or the City could work with the County to have the street widened to 60 feet. Commissioner Lambert again emphasized that he felt it would be unfair to have a property owner hold up a certain street improvement because of unwillingness to release property. Mr. Harris admitted that this could happen, but a capital improvement program or local improvement district could be formed in order to complete a project that wasn 't completed by the development. He suggested that the Commission express their concern that 112th be upgraded. Mr. Hansen mentioned again that the details would be reviewed at the actual time of request for development. Commissioner Badger MOVED that the Commission amend the East Hill Plan amend- ment changing the East Hill subarea plan, specifically in the LeBlanc Garden site, from its present designation of 4-6 units per acre to multifamily, 7-12 units per acre, recognizing its unique botanical collection of trees to be preserved to the utmost. Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Spier suggested that the motion be amended to add that the Commission was concerned about the safety in the area, and that special attention be given to 112th if this area were annexed into the City. Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the motion. Motion unanimously approved. -8- Kent Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1985 Commissioner Rudy suggested that an additional amendment be included to recommend that 236th not be cut through to 112th. Commissioner Badger SECONDED the motion. Motion unanimously approved. Commissioner Anderson asked if the two acres to the north were to be excluded from the Comprehensive Plan change, yet it was not stated in the motion that this area was to be excluded. Commissioner Badger responded that the motion included the entire LeBlanc property. Mr. Paul Ramos, representing LeBlanc Gardens, pointed out that the section with the house and Japanese garden were to be excluded, in addition to the two-acre parcel to the north. The original request was for the LeBlanc Garden site. Commissioner Anderson asked if they were planning to live on this parcel and not develop it at this time. Mr. Ramos responded that they were planning to live on that parcel and that it could remain as single family. Mr. Anderson responded that this could be part of the comprehensive plan for multifamily. Mr. Ramos answered that it would not be part of the plan for the multifamily development. Mr. Harris suggested that the motion be amended to state that the north two acres was to be excluded. Commissioner Byrne responded that the north two acres were part of the botani- cal garden at the present time. Mr. Ramos pointed out that the north two acres were not part of this request and had not been developed as a garden at the present time. The LeBlancs were planting trees and developing this area at the present time, so there would be no need to have it included in the area designated as multifamily. The LeBlancs were creating a new garden in this area, but it had not yet been developed to the extent that the rest of the garden had been developed. Commissioner Byrne pointed out that he was referring to the aesthetics of the garden. He felt that the LeBlancs were enhancing the beauty of the garden. Mr. Ramos agreed that the plantings would enhance the site. Commissioner Badger explained that he was aware that there were botanically beautiful trees on the north two-acre parcel , and that was the reason he made the motion to encompass the entire parcel . This would subject this -9- Kent Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 1985 parcel to the preservation of unique trees, also. He did not wish to let the trees in the other area escape out of the garden area. Chairman Cullen asked if this had been included in the original motion. Commissioner Badger felt that it had been included in the original motion but restated the motion. Commissioner Badger MOVED that the Commission approve the East Hill Plan amendment regarding LeBlanc Gardens to designate on the East Hill Land Use Map a change from the current single family designation, 4-6 units per acre, to multifamily, 7-12 units per acre, for the entire LeBlanc eight-acre site as outlined on the map which was received with the original request for the comprehensive plan change. Commissioner Badger stated that he was in agreement with tree preservat ion for the entire eight-acre parcel . Commissioner Byrne SECONDED the motion. Motion was unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lambert MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Byrne SECONDED the motion. Meeting was adjoured at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 5:41f 4� mes P. Harris, Se retary -10-