Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 01/15/1985 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 15, 1985 , The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Douglas Cullen at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 15, 1985, in the Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Douglas Cullen, Chairman Robert Anderson, Vice Chairman Chuck Lambert Jill Spier Raymond Ward i COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Badger, excused Richard Foslin , excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James Harris, Planning Director ! James Hansen, Principal Planner Fred Satterstrom, Project Planner Lin Ball , Assistant Planner i Ed Heiser, Assistant Planner CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: l Leigh Ann Tift, Assistant Attorney APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner '4ard MOVED and i FOR DECEMBER 18, 1984 Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the motion to approve the December 18, 1984, Planning Commission minutes as presented. Motion carried. CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT Chairman Cullen presented Jill Spier with her Certificate of Appointment to the Planning Commission. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AMENDMENTS Chairman Cullen opened the TO THE KENT SUBDIVISION CODE public hearing to consider amending the following sections of the Kent Subdivision Code: Section 2.2.8 Final Short Plat Map Section 2.2.3 Property Annexed to City with Preliminary Plat Approval Lin Ball presented the following staff report. Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1985 SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENTS I. Required Signatures on Short Subdivisions Section 2.2 8 Final Short Plat Map Add a new ►'10 to read as follows 10. Provide a notarized certificate of the owner(s), contract purchaser, grantor of a deed of trust, or other holder of beneficial title to the property being subdivided indicating that the short sub- division is made with free consent and in accordance with their de- sires. a If the short subdivision is subject to deeding of prop- erty(s), the notarized certificate shall be signed by all parties having any ownership interest in the lands subdivided b. For purposes of this section, "ownership interest" shall include legal and equitable property interests, including, but not limited to, present, future, contingent or whole fee interests, together with a beneficiary's interest pursuant to a trust and con- ' tract Interest pursuant to a specifically enforceable contract for the purchase of the said real property. i Add a new #11 to read as follows 11. Include a current title report confirming that the title of the lands as described and shown on the plat is in the name of the owner(s) signing the plat certification. I II. Add a new Section 2.3,3. Existing Section 2.3.3 becomes 2.3.4 and i existing Section 2.3.4 becomes 2.3 5. i Section 2.3.3 Property Annexed to City with Preliminary Plat Approval n County In instances where property annexed to the City has received preliminary plat approval from King County prior to annexation, the following re- view shall occur i 1. City Staff Review The Planning Department, Public Works Department, Fire Department and Building Department shall review the plat. City plan checking review and inspections shall be subject to fees per Public Works Ordinance 12203 ' 2. General Requirements and Findings If the City departments find that the preliminary plat complies with the following, the subdivision can proceed to the final plat stage without any preliminary plat hearing by the Hearing Examiner and City Council. a) Overall density of the subdivision does not exceed the maximum allowed pursuant to the Kent Zoning Code Lot size and lot width requirements do not have to comply with Zoning Code standards as long as overall density complies. b) Adequate provision is made for open space, drainage ways, streets, alleys, public ways, water, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, sites for schools and school grounds. These are to be developed in accordance with Kent stan- dards The City may add conditions to the preliminary plat in order to ensure conformance with City of Kent standards. c) is not detrimental to its surroundings. ,3. Expiration Date The preliminary plat shall comply with Section 2 3.2 8) pertaining i to expiration of the preliminary plat The date of approval will be that date on which King County approved the preliminary plat 4. Installation of Improvements or Bonding in Lieu of Improvements_ If the improvements are not constructed prior to annexation to the City, the subdivision must comply with Section 2.3.4 of this Code (old Section 2.3 3). ' 5. Final Plat Procedures The procedures for final plat shall be the same as those outlined in Section 2.3 5 of this Code (old Section 2 3 4) -2 Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1985 Ms. Ball pointed out that the first amendment was written for clarification in the short plat process. When deeding property, everyone with any type of ownership interest must sign on the final short plat. The new paragraph 11 is new to the section only. It has been moved in the code so that the process will be more clearly defined for the developer. The second amendment provides a means for the City to deal with property that may be annexed to the City in a situation where a preliminary plat approval had been previously obtained from the County but a final plat approval had not been obtained. Ms. Ball stated that this amendment would expedite the process. Commissioner Anderson pointed out that under "II .3.Expiration Date" The preliminary plat shall comply with Section 2.3.2 8 should read The preliminary plat shall comply with Section 2.3.2 paragraph 8. Commissioner Lambert MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Anderson MOVED to approve the amendments as presented by the staff. Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. LEBLANC GARDENS REQUEST TO AMEND Chairman Cullen opened the public THE EAST HILL PLAN hearing regarding the request to amend Kent's East Hill Subarea Plan. The request is to change the East Hill Plan Land Use Map from its current single-family designation (4 - 6 units per acre) to multifamily (7-12 units per acre) . The staff report will be presented followed by ten minutes given to each person who has signed up to speak regarding the matter. Staff will then present their rebuttal followed by three minutes of rebuttal comments for those who have signed up to do so regarding the statements made by the previous speakers . When the public hearing is closed, only the commissioners will be speaking unless they call upon previous speakers or staff to clarify certain points . I Ed Heiser showed the location of the property, west of 112th Avenue SE at approxi- mately SE 235th Street. The property is directly north of the incorporated limits of the City of Kent. The subject property is approximately eight acres in size, but only six acres is involved in the comprehensive plan change. Land use adjacent to the LeBlanc property includes single-family and multifamily developments. Park Orchard subdivision lies to the west and Eastridge subdivision is to the northeast, across 112th Avenue SE. These subdivisions provide for a majority of the single- family developments in the vicinity. In addition there are a number of smaller ) plats and large lots that have been developed for single-family residential use. The land to the south has been developed for multifamily development. The King's Place Apartments and the Kenton Ridge Apartments exist to the south of the LeBlanc property. Each of these developments has a density of approximately 20 i units per acre. More intensive commercial uses exist to the south and west of the property. The core of this commercial area occurs at the intersection of 104th Avenue SE and SE 240th Street. -3- i i Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1985 The LeBlanc family has owned the subject property for over forty years. The family developed the site as a botanical garden in the early 1940' s by planting several groves of trees unique to this area. Besides residing on the property, the family conducted tours of the gardens and used part of the property as a holly farm. Several years ago the site gained national attention in Sunset Magazine for its gardens and landscaping. Part of the original homestead was sold off for the development of Park Orchard. The LeBlancs still reside on the prop- erty, but the gardens are no longer open to the general public. The owners of the LeBlanc Garden's property wish to develop to a multifamily residential density. To accomplish this goal , they need to annex into the City of Kent. Since Kent' s East Hill Plan calls for a single family residential land a use density, a change to multifamily density is necessary in order to apply a i multifamily residential zoning classification to the parcel . Otherwise the prop- erty, if annexed, would be zoned single-family residential (7,200 square feet per dwelling unit). A number of unique trees and shrubs are located on the property. The multifamily designation will permit a greater flexibility in the site design and therefore a greater probability that much of the vegetation would be preserved. The Kent Sphere of Interest is a policy document adopted by the Kent City Council that reviews areas of unincorporated King County that may be future annexation sites. The document provides certain criteria that establish the parameters that decision makers use to consider a Potential annexation. The Sphere of Interest report overviews political considerations , land use patterns, munici- pal services, topography, drainage, and a variety of other topics. The Sphere of Interest Report identifies the area adjacent to the property as a potential annexation site. This area is identified as "North East Hill " i .e. , north of James from the present city limits on the east to 104th Avenue SE, north to SE 222nd Street. This area will eventually be annexed to the City. Mr. Heiser reviewed the policy statements of the East Hill Plan that relate to this request. Land Use Element The land use classifications outlined in this element provide specific determina- tions regarding the land uses and residential densities projected in the plan. The applicant is requesting a reclassification of the subject property from Single Family, 4-6 units per acre, to Multifamily, 7-12 units per acre. The following is the description of these classifications taken from the East Hill Plan: Single Family (3-4 dwelling units per acre) This category provides for lot sizes ranging from 10,000 to 15,000 souare feet. Subdivisions and short plats can be designed in areas with this density so that public facilities and services can be provided and maintained in an efficient and economic manner. Multifamily (7-12 dwelling units per acre) This designation is intended to provide areas for low density attached dwelling units such as duplexes, -4- Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1985 townhouses , low-rise apartments and condominiums. Properly designed, low- density multifamily developments can serve as transition areas between commercial areas or high density multifamily developments and single- family neighborhoods. The East Hill Plan designates land to the south of the subject property as "Multifamily 12-24 units/acre. " This classificaiton is defined in the Plan as follows: Multifamily (12-24 dwelling units per acre) This is a popular density due to increasing development costs. If designed properly, developments { + of this density can accommodate more people while still maintaining a quality environment. If the subject property is reclassified to multifamily, 7-12 units/acre, this { density would serve as a transition area. The property could provide a low- density multifamily buffer between the high-density multifamily development to the south and the single-family area to the north. Such a transition area would be a benefit to future residential development further, north. Natural Environment Element Goal : Preservation and enhancement of the natural qualities that make the East Hill area an attractive place in which to live. I The Planning Department comments that it would be possible to save a greater number of trees that exist on the site by clustering the units around signifi- cant trees and shrubs on the property rather than using the entire area for single-family development. I Transportation Element The property lies directly east of SE 236th Street. This local access street serves the single-family development to the west of the site. It has been planned to be extended through the subject property to 112th Avenue SE. The actual location of the street and timing of construction have not been deter- mined. The Traffic Engineer has suggested that the Comprehensive Plan reclassi- fication would result in a higher density zoning upon annexation to the City. In order to maintain peak-hour traffic generation at its planned level , the density of the five-acre parcel would have to be limited to 8. 5 units/acre. Unless the density of the property is limited, the ultimate traffic generation i from the site may be higher than originally planned. This slightly higher traffic generation must be considered along with many other factors. The Engineering Department feels that coordination with King County needs to take L place before 236th is extended to 112th. Human Environment Element Goal : Development designed in harmony with the suburban/rural character of East Hill to ensure the feeling of openness that exists throughout the area. 5_ 4y Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1985 Mr. Heiser pointed out that by clustering housing units on the site, it will be possible to integrate groves of rare and unioue trees into a potential develop- ment. By retaining a significant amount of the existing vegetation, a feeling of open space can be provided. In addition, the aesthetic qualities of the ulti- mate development will be enhanced. The applicant has submitted a plan which shows the general layout of the trees on the site. This plan also identifies several varieties of trees , some of which are extremely rare. The applicant has provided this 'plan in an attempt to show that cluster housing could be developed in certain areas of the site. The plan shows that trees on the perimeter of the site should be saved to provide a buffer between the subject property and adjacent developments. The plan also shows where additional trees could be saved if good site planning and construction methods are used in the development of the area. Mr. Heiser presented the Planning Department's conclusions and findings: A. The East Hill Plan designates the property as Single Family, 4-6 units/acre. Reclassifying the property to Multifamily, 7-12 units/acre, would be consistent with many policies of the plan. By alloviing a cluster-type multifamily develop- ment, the City/public would gain the following benefits : A significant number of mature trees unique to the region could be saved. The subject property would serve as a transition area between the high-density multifamily development to the south and future single family residential development to the north. The subject property offers a rare opportunity to provide unique natural aesthetic qualities in a low-density multi- family development. These qualities would benefit the ultimate residents of the development as well as other citizens in the area. B. The subject property has been identified as a desirable future annexation area. It is appropriate for the City to consider a comprehensive land use change on the property identified in the East dill Plan even though it is not within the Kent city limits. C. The reclassification of an East Hill Plan designation is synonomous with increasing the ultimate zoning of a property. If the ultimate density of the site is higher than approximately six units per acre, the vehicular trip genera- tion figures will be increased above those previously estimated. Such an increase would be minor in scale and must be contrasted with the benefits that the proposed reclassification would offer to the City. Southeast 236th Street is projected to be constructed from its present easterly terminus through the subject property to 112th Avenue SE. The precise location of the street and the timing of construction have not yet been determined. The Engineering Department has suggested that further study and concurrence with King County would be desirable. -6- f F Kent Planning Commission Minutes , January 15, 1985 D. The subject property can be served with water, sewer and storm water drainage upon development. Based on the above findings, the Planning Department recommends approval of the applicant's request. The East Hill Plan designation of the property should be changed from Single Family, 4-6 units per acre, to Multifamily, 7-12 units Der acre. Commissioner Ward stated that it appeared that 236th did not appear to be a necessary street and that it could be diverted in a different direction. Mr. Heiser replied that the Engineering Department had not given any indication that it would be built, diverted or not constructed. It appeared that the plans for this street would be held in abeyance at the present time. Commissioner Lambert asked if 236th would be deeded or taken by condemnation. Mr. Heiser responded that the Planning Department was not making any recommenda- tion at the present time. 4 Commissioner Spier asked whether multifamily or single-family land use would allow the land to be least disturbed. Mr. Heiser felt that a greater portion of the site would remain with its present growth if the clustering or multifamily option were exercised. Because of the streets , utilities and houses and the space between each of the houses, it is impossible to save as many trees as would be possible with clustering of the dwellings. Commissioner Anderson asked if the land were to remain as it is presently zoned, would there be a method by which the developer could cluster multifamily units at a density of four to six units per acre as opposed to rezoning it it to a higher density of 7-12 units per acre. Mr. Heiser responded that the recommendation involved a comprehensive plan designation, not a zoning change at this time. He pointed out that the density would depend on how it would be developed and that at the present time it was in the County. To develop the property under the present plan they would have to annex to the City of Kent. At that time the developers would discuss build- ing placement and density, etc. Mr. Hansen pointed out that the justification for the staff recommending the density change from 4-6 units per acre to 7-12 units per acre lay solely on the fact that this is a unique botanical garden and could be partially preserved. Most of the trees have been planted approximately 45 years ago, and the only j garden of this type in the area was the University of Washington Arboretum. The mature species of trees are unique to the County and the State of Washington. f The justification for increasing the density would be to allow the developer to cluster units which would offset some of his costs and give him some incen- tive to develop the property. The City would gain by preserving some of the unique landscaping that would be lost if left to a standard development. -7- i ! M; r i Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1985 " , Raul Ramos, land use planner with Land America Corporation, represented Mr. LeBlanc in this request. He expressed agreement with Mr. Hansen' s comments i remarking that this is an opportunity to use good planning practices to save a unique situation; however, he did not agree with the suggestion by the Engineering Department that 236th should go through to 112th. He felt that it should not go through, not only because it would interfere with the proposal, but also because of the traffic congestion on 112th that already exists. Mr. Ramos referred to his letter of July 26, 1984, stating that the request for a plan amendment to the East Hill Plan is to change the present designation of Single Family, which is 4-6 units per acre, to Low Density Multifamily, which is 7-12 units per acre, on at least six acres of the approximately eight- acre parcel owned by Mr. Leo LeBlanc. The remaining two acres would stay as single family and would act to cap any possible expansion of the proposed transition area. Commissioner Ward asked about the missing acres. d Mr. Ramos responded that the missing acres include the house with the Japanese gardens which is located on the site. This would remain as it is. He quoted from his letter of July 26: "Mr. LeBlanc is prepared to seek utility extensions of sewer and water service into the County. Wherein he will then market the five (5) acre parcel for single family use in accordance with the Sops Creek Plan and the East Hill Plan. Because this would mean the destruction of most or all of the trees , and because there is an opportunity to provide a desir- able transition and thereby preserve significant tree clusters, I have advised him that the best alternative is to request a plan to change to allow Low Density Multiplefamily clustering, and then petition to annex into the City. It is clear to me that both the Community, the LeBlanc Gardens and Mr. LeBlanc would benefit from approval of the plan amendment request. " The LeBlanc Gardens were started by Mr. LeBlanc in 1934 and for many years he did most of the planting of the trees that are on the site. In 1953 LeBlanc Gardens were photographed and featured with a photo outlay and article in Sunset Magazine. He now plans to retire and remain on the site. He feels he belongs to Kent and would be represented better by the City of Kent than King County and would like to be annexed into the City. He felt that this would be the logical extension of the boundary lines. The subject site is only six of the acres that are being proposed for the amend- ment change. He felt that the transition concept was good land use planning. The subject property is situated between a 20-unit per acre development and a future 4-6 unit development on the north. The low-density cluster housing development of 7-12 units per acre would result in greater open space retention. He emphasized the importance of S. E. 236th not being allowed to go through the area. If the property were developed for a single-family subdivision , he felt that 80 percent of the vegetation would be lost, including some substantial perimeter natural buffers that exist at the present time along 112th Avenue S. E. -8- 9 Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1985 He emphasized that a density of less than 7-12 range would not make it economically feasible to develop the area. Commissioner Ward asked if the extension of S. E. 236th would destroy the vegeta- tion they are trying to preserve. Mr. Ramos responded that it would. Commissioner Anderson stated that he understood that King County has a means of giving bonus points for development if special areas are preserved. These points would be given to the developer in terms of density. He asked if Mr. Ramos had investigated this and made an estimate of how many additional units might be available if clustering at the 4-6 unit level . Mr. Ramos responded that he was familiar with the cluster ordinance but that this would not allow sufficient density to be adequate incentive to a developer. Mr. Harris asked that a letter from the Kent School District and a petition with 130 names of residents in the immediate area of LeBlanc Gardens be admitted to the record. Commissioner Lambert MOVED to accept the letter and petition into the record. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. x Chairman Cullen asked if the signatures had been verified. Mr. Harris responded that they had not since the issue was the comprehensive plan change. The addresses all seem to be in the Park Orchard or nearby area. Chairman Cullen felt there may have been some repetition of names in the peti- tions. Mr. Harris felt that this was an informational petition and accepted it as it was presented. Tom Mohle, 23235 110th Place S.E. , has lived in the area for six years and has seen much development, including the situation that S.E. 235th is turning into nearly a "freeway" . He felt that the LeBlanc property is beautiful and hated to see it developed at all . He asked about the annexation process and wondered about settling this matter before the property is sold. He felt that after the property is sold, the developer could raise the density again. He felt fearful that the count would go from 42 to 72 units. He asked if there were some way that this beautiful property could be opened up to the public. Mr. Harris responded that the annexation process would be instigated by the owner of the property. The Kent City Council would be making the decision on the request. Any property owner who owns five or more acres adjacent to the City limits can petition for annexation. Jim Reda, 11204 S. E. 235th, described his residence as across the street from ; the LeBlanc Gardens. He stated that both City and County persons had signed the petition. He showed photos of 112th and pointed out that only 20 feet of the road is paved. He stated that the Kent School District wished to have this ; road brought up to standards with sidewalks before additional housing is developed in the area. _9_ Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1985 Mr. Reda felt that the LeBlanc concept was an admirable one and that Mr. LeBlanc was attempting to do a good thing for the community, but pointed out that there would be an impact on the community around him. The neighbors to the west were concerned with the traffic situation and their privacy if the cluster develop- ; ment were to be approved. He quoted from page 6 of the staff report: "Multifamily (12-24 units per acre) . This is a popular density due to increasing development costs . If designed properly, developments of this density can accommodate more people while still maintaining a quality environment. " a Commissioner Ward stated that he understood the greatest objection to the develop- ment was the probability that the traffic would be increased on 112th, and that A it already was a safety hazard. If 236th were to be extended, the safety " factor in the area would be adversely affected. Mr. Redo felt that once this proposal is passed, he feared that the allowable density would be increased because of the costs that would be incurred in the development of the area. He strongly felt that 236th should not be extended. Commissioner Lambert wondered if those in the area were aware that the LeBlancs would be able to apply for a short plat, and that the area could be built into ' single family homes. s Rex McDonald, 11210 SE 235th Place, Kent, said that he felt that the LeBlanc property would eventually be developed. In response to the complaints of the residents in the area , he explained the extreme difficulty they were having in driving through the intersection of Benson and James Street. The 240th roadway seemed always to backed up with cars nearly to 116th each morning, and in the evenings the cars are backed up in the general area of the Post office when driving home, which would be west. He felt there was no alternative but to drive through the Park Orchard development. He explained that this put extreme traffic pressure on the Park Orchard area. He agreed that the trees were lovely and stated that he personally used them as a landmark frequently. His biggest objection was the 20-foot street used by both children and cars. There are no sidewalks , only trenches on both sides of the road. The only area the studentshave available to walk is the paved, narrow street, which forces cars to drive on the wrong side of the road in the mornings. He feels this is a dangerous situation for the children and difficult for the automobile drivers. He did not wish to have 236th cut throuqh because it did rot seem to solve any problems. He also felt that the developer would maximize the number of units possible, which would c,eate even greater parking and driving problems. He feared an even greater problem on 240th, 112th, James and the Benson and in Park Orchard because of all the cars heading toward Kent and the freeways. He concluded by saying that 32 units would be better than 72 units . Commissioner 'Ward asked how long the pedestrian problem had existed on 112th. Mr. McDonald responded that there has been a problem since at least 1966. Commissioner Ward asked if any of the residents of the area had made requests of the Engineering Department for improvements in this area on 112th. -10- Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1985 Mr. McDonald expressed confusion regarding the agency responsible for this problem. Commissioner Ward questioned the ability of the residents of the area to control a person's investment in a given piece of property. Mr. McDonald realized that the LeBlanc property would be a residential develop- ment in the future, but felt that the traffic problems were so great that he was expressing only the desire for a restriction to the number of units that would be built in this area, which he felt would minimize the number of additional cars at this time. This was because the roads were inadequate for the children walking to schools in addition to the traffic problems on the same roadways. Commissioner Ward summarized by saying that he understood that the major objec- tion to the development was the need for street improvements. Commissioner Lambert asked how many residents had appeared before the County Board of Public Works with a complaint about 112th. He asked how many residents would dedicate ten feet of their property to widen the street so that there would be adequate funds to have the sidewalks and curbs installed. Mr. Harris clarified which streets were in the City of Kent and which were in the County. Commissioner Lambert pointed out that in new developments cities usually require that the roads be widened and that traffic signals be installed before the grant- ing of building permits. This was one of the requirements of the City of Kent. Mr. McDonald concluded by stating that he hoped that the Commission would realize that the decision regarding the subject property would affect the property values of the surrounding area. He suggested 30 units on the LeBlanc property instead of 72 units. Tom Hughes, 11206 SE 235th Place, pointed out that the water table is high in the area and that he already has a water problem. He felt that more concrete in the area would bring an even greater water problem. He also felt that the additional units would require additional parking which would not only elimin- ate the trees but require additional paving for the cars to park. He added that this past month he was informed that his water bill would be increased by 22 percent in the immediate future. He felt that this water problem should be solved before annexing more property into the City of Kent. He concluded by stating that Mr. LeBlanc would profit from the development, as would the City of Kent because of the additional revenue that would be received, but the majority of the citizens of the area would not benefit. Mr. Lambert asked why reference had been made several times to 72 units. He pointed out that even though a specified number of units were designated for a particular area, this did not mean that the developer would be allowed to develop that number of units on the site. Mr. Hansen stated that this hearing was being held to consider possible amend- ment to the East Hill Plan for a site in King County. The intent was f ° -11- ; . Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1985 to consider the possible future land use of that parcel of land which has not yet been annexed into the City of Kent. He emphasized that this was not a rezone issue, that this hearing was being held to consider changing the density of the parcel on the comprehensive plan. Annexation is a lengthy process that takes from six to eight months. The first step would be to petition the City. The zoning would be established only after the annexation decision had been made by the City Council . At that time the staff would look at the comprehen- sive plan to determine the zoning that would most closely fit the designation specified on the comprehensive plan, or they could make a recommendation that would include a condition that would be attached to the parcel limiting the density to 12 units per acre. Mr. Hansen continued to explain that the Planning Department was recommending a change in the density to take advantage of what the staff considered to be a unique opportunity for the City of Kent to save at least a portion of the former botanical garden. The incentive for the City in taking on the extra density would be that at least a portion of the trees would be saved. In answer to the question of guarantees he responded that even if this request to amend the East Hill Plan were approved, the applicant would still be responsible to initiate the petition for annexation. It would be only if the Council voted to annex the area into the City of Kent that the Planning Department would deter- mine the zoning. It would be at this time that the staff could attach conditions regarding the density and the ultimate buildout. They could also include a con- dition regarding a plan for the trees. The applicant would probably not wish to be held to a precise tree plan, because in order to sell the property one buyer may differ from another as to the development configuration in relation- ship to the existing trees. Mr. Ramos mentioned that they had been advised by the Kent Engineering Depart- ment that they would be required to sign an L. I.D. covenant agreeing not to protest any future L.I .D. for any future improvements on 112th Avenue if they were ever annexed into the City of Kent. At the time of development ten feet would be dedicated for utilities and sidewalks. In response to the traffic problems on 240th, he felt that this was a main arterial for access into Kent and to the freeways, along with Kent Kangley. He felt that alternative routes could take even longer and make the roadways more dangerous for children. He agreed that most developers would tend to maximize the number of units in a development, but pointed out that the developer would be subject to develop- ment plan approval and subject to the requirements and restrictions in land use that develop as a result of going through each step in the process. He mentioned again that the house with the Japanese garden would remain, which would leave only five acres. The maximum number of units that could be developed would be 60 units. Mr. Mohle quoted from page 9 of the staff report: "By retaining a significant amount of the existing vegetation, a feeling of open space can be provided." He quoted the following from page of the staff report: -12- Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1985 "Part of the original homestead was sold off for the development of Park Orchard." r He believed that this took place in the early 1960's. He claimed that the topsoil in the former apple orchards had been stripped off and sold and that the houses were built on clay. He pointed out that there was no guarantee that any of the beautiful trees and rhododendrons would be retained by the developer. He realized that there wouldn't be any guarantee with single family housing or with multiple family housing, but felt that single family housing would fit better into the present neighborhood. Kent Paul , 23515 109th SE, felt that one viable alternative had been missed, the purchase of the site for a park. He felt that the City of Kent should look at the possibility of acquiring the site for a future park. Mr. McDonald suggested that additional time be given to the citizens of Park '. Orchard to contemplate the situation. i Commissioner Ward explained to those present that the Planning Commission is made up of nine appointed persons from different areas of Kent, both inside and outside of the city limits, who are interested in trying to make the City of Kent a better place to live. Mr. Hughes added that this is a beautiful park-like area and wished that the City of Kent would consider making it a park. This area of Kent is growing rapidly and there are not enough parks on the east side. He felt this was an unusual opportunity to add a park in an area which needed more parks . Chairman Cullen read into the record a letter from Ms. Rudy and Mr. Byrne re- garding the possibility of delaying the decision on the LeBlanc request to amend the East Hill Plan. Commissioner MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Spier requested that she abstain from voting on the motion until she could have the opportunity to investigate more thoroughly the LeBlanc request. Commissioner Ward MOVED to delay the decision regarding the LeBlanc request to amend the East Hill Plan until the fourth Tuesday of February. Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Lambert agreed that a delay would make it possible to study the issue further. Motion carried. -13- ,l Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1985 PROPOSED CENTRAL BUSINESS Mr. Satterstrom began his staff DISTRICT ZONING CHANGES presentation stating that this issue had been discussed at the December 18, 1984, Planninq Commission workshop. He noted that there were no changes suggested to the existing zoning map. The City Council requested that the Planning Department explore opportunities for more flexible use in existing commercial districts, The objectives for Phase One, which includes the Central Business District and Central Avenue Corridor, are as follows : 1 . To examine and strive for more flexible use in the Central Business District (i .e. , the DC zone) ; 2. To examine and strive for more flexible use of vacant buildings in the Central Business District; and 3. To examine alternative scenarios for the Central Corridor. The Central Business District covers approximately 100 acres in the central retail core at Meeker and Gowe. The Central Corridor extends from James Street 1 to the Green River Bridge. The proposal would not change the boundaries exist- ing currently in the DC-1 and DC-2 areas in the downtown area or the CM boundary in the Central Corridor. DC-1 uses would remain the same; DC-2 uses would expand. - Page 26, 15.04.110 DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL OR DC now reads as follows : Purpose: It is the purpose of this district to provide a place and create environmental conditions which will encourage location of business , civic and recreational activities which will benefit and contribute to the vitality of a central "downtown" location. In the DC-1 area permitted uses should be primarily pedestrian oriented and able to take advantage of off-street parking lots, while both auto and pedestrian-oriented uses may prevail in the DC-2 area. A. Principally Permitted Uses in the DC-1 Zone 1 . Retail establishments, including convenience goods, shopping goods such as "soft lines" (clothing , variety, shoes) and "hard lines" (hardware, furniture, appliances) . 2. Personal services such as barber and beauty shops , launderettes, dry cleaning, television and radio repair, shoe repair. 3. Restaurants (excluding drive-in restaurants) , nightclubs, taverns. 4. Professional , administrative and financial offices. 5. Business and technical schools . 6. Recreational uses such as theaters , bowling alleys, dance halls (must be enclosed) . -14- Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1985 7. Hotels and motels. 8. Printing establishments, business services such as copy services . 9. Mortuaries. 10. Any other use that is determined by the Planning Director to be of the same general character as the above permitted uses and in accordance with the stated purpose of the district. On page 27 the following has been added: Principally Permitted Uses in the DC-2 Zone 1 . All of the principally permitted uses in the DC-1 zone. 2. Automobile wash services. 3. Food lockers (with or without food preparation facilities). 4. Automobile rental services. 5. Sales of tire and auto accessories with on-site installation. 6. Marine craft sales and accessories. 7. Motor vehicle sales (new and used) . 8. Motion picture distribution and services. 9. Upholstery and furniture repair services. Mr. Satterstrom pointed out that the DC-2 area could begin to take on an auto- mobile-oriented character; however, gasoline service stations would be a prohibited use in the DC-2 area. The following are the conditional uses: 1 . Multifamily residential uses. 2. Commercial parking lots or structures. 3. Railway and bus depots, taxi stands. 4. General Conditional Uses as listed in Section 15.08.030. The following conditional uses have been added as follows: 5. Equipment rental and leasing service (DC-2 zone only) . 6. Automotive repair services , not to include body and fender repair s (DC-2 zone only) . -15- s' .r Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1985 q The following proposed changes are listed on page 28: 15.04.120 COMMERCIAL AND MANUFACTURING OR CM Purpose: It is the purpose of this district to provide locations for those types of developments which combine some characteristics of both retail establishments and small-scale, light industrial operations , heavy commercial and wholesale uses, and specialty manufacturing. A. Principally Permitted Uses s 1 . Any principally permitted use in the GC, General Commercial zone. 2. Outdoor storage such as trucking, transfer, contractor storage yards. 3. a. Manufacturing uses such as bottling, bakeries (primarily wholesale) , laundry and dyeing, welding shops. b. Specialty manufacturing such as custom sheet metal . 4. Small scale light manufacturing operations as follows: stamping, brazing, testing, electronic assembly, and kindred operations ) where the building, structure or total operation does not encompass more than 10,000 square feet of area. The 10,000 square foot total shall include all indoor and outdoor storage areas associated with the manufacturing operation. Only one 10,000 square foot manufac- turing operation shall be permitted per lot. i f 5. Mini-warehouses. 6. Complexes which include combinations of uses, including a mixture of office, light manufacturing, storage and commercial uses. Existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and otherwise changed for human occupancy. Accessory uses for existing dwellings may be constructed. Such uses are garages, carports, storage sheds and fences. Mr. Satterstrom pointed out that none of the present uses will be deleted. He suggested that the changes to the CM zone occur only in the area included in Phase I , not in the CM zoning throughout Kent. The other CM zones will be studied in the Phase II analysis. Audrey Beckman, 826 Woodland Way, Kent, expressed a desire to have the property which she owns, located behind the Kent Elementary School , changed to CM so that it would be easier for her to sell the property. She felt that this location was too far removed for retail uses but was well suited for small business contractors. Vergil Olson, 14428 157th Place S. E. , Renton, is employed by Capitol Tire and expressed support of the Planning staff's proposal . Capitol Tire is interested in the old Lamiglass Building on Meeker Street. The building would be suitable for the needs of Capitol Tire after refurbishing and painting the facility. -16- Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1985 He felt that the tire facility would bring pedestrian traffic into the other businesses in the area. He requested that the Commission recommend that the City Council pass the Droposed zoning changes in the Central Business District. He expressed a desire to open the tire facility in March. Commissioner Lambert asked if there was a parking problem regardinq the facility. Mr. Olson responded that they had met the parking requirements of the City of Kent. William Kennelly, 20839 S. E. 263rd Place, Kent, represented McKempsie Company, owners of the Lamiglass Building which has been unoccupied for approximately four years. They have been unable to rent the facility because of the current zoning. He expressed support of the recommendations of the Planning staff and asked that this proposal be given favorable consideration. Mr. Lambert asked Ms. Beckman if the proposed changes would affect her property. Ms. Beckman responded that she was located in the same area but the issue she was addressing was not included in the proposal by the Planning Department. She wished to have a small business contractor or subcontractor, such as a plumbing, electrical or drywall subcontractor, permitted to operate at this location. She felt her property was well situated for this purpose. She pointed out the precise location of her property on the map. Mr. Harris replied that the staff could not support CM in that location. He pointed out that the elementary school was situated behind her property and that they were adjacent to the Central Business District. Contracting businesses with outside storage were not appropriate for this location. Mr. Hansen pointed out that the proposed changes were in compliance with the comprehensive plan for the downtown area and with the CBD Plan. Ms . Beckman' s request would be a dramatic deviation from the comprehensive plan. Ms. Beckman asked about the longevity of the Kent Elementary School at its present location. Mr. Harris responded that there were no plans to close the school at the Dresent time. Mr. Ward expressed concern about an appropriate response that could be given to Ms. Beckman. Mr. Harris felt that as a Commission they could go beyond the staff recommenda- tion and recommend that contractors be allowed in the DC-2 zone. This was one option. Another option would be to write a letter to the City Council or the Planning Commission making a plea for a change in the zoning. If she wished to submit a formal rezone application, the comprehensive plan would need to be s changed first. Mr. Harris explained that the area could be used for a contractor's office at the present time if the storage yard were located in a different place. F Commissioner Ward MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Anderson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. -17- Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 15, 1985 ,4 Commissioner Ward MOVED that the Commission accept the recommendation of the Planning Department that had been presented in the Greater Downtown Commercial Planning and Zoning Report as presented by the staff and that the GC uses in the CM zone be limited to the Phase I area. Commissioner Anderson SECONDED the motion. Motion unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lambert MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Anderson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James P. Harris , ecretary I I I I -18- I