Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 01/25/2010 (3) Land Use and Planning Board Hearing January 25, 2010 Page 1 of 4 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES January 25, 2010 Board Members Present: Vice-Chair Jack Ottini, Steve Dowell, Navdeep Gill, Aleanna Kondelis- Halpin, Barbara Phillips Board Members Absent: Chair Dana Ralph (Excused), Jon Johnson (Excused) Staff Members Present: Fred Satterstrom, Mike Gillespie, William D Osborne, Kim Adams Pratt and Molly Bartlemay 3. Approval of Minutes Dowell MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a motion to approve the January 11, 2010 Minutes. Motion PASSED 5-0. 4. Added Items None 5. Communications None 6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings None 7. AZ-2009-1 Panther Lake Annexation Comprehensive Plan Land Use & Zoning Maps Planning Director Fred Satterstrom stated that this is the first public hearing on annexation zoning anticipating that City Council will hold two additional hearings in March and April, with annexation zoning scheduled for adoption one month prior to the official July 1st annexation date. Planner William Osborne stated that the annexation area is approximately 5 ¼ square miles in size and consists of 3350 acres with commercial and residential similar to Kent. The site is located generally north and northeast of existing city limits, adjacent to Big Soos Creek and the Gary Grant Soos Creek Park, bounded north by 192nd at the City of Renton’s boundaries. Most of the area is currently designated for residential development , with about 20% as green belt/urban separator and 1-2% being commercial in either community business or neighborhood business designations. Osborne stated that Kent is considering two alternatives. The first alternative is to look at existing County zoning then applying a City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation to that zone that is most consistent. Osborne stated that Kent has Mobile Home Park (MHP) designations that would apply to four (4) mobile home parks. Osborne stated that the second alternative is similar to Alternative 1, with the exception of changing the old Panther Lake Elementary site. Alternative 2 amends the existing map and changes the Panther Lake Elementary School site from a comprehensive plan land use map designation of Low Density Multifamily (LDMF) to Mixed-Use (MU); and the zoning to Community Commercial Mixed-Use (CCMU) similar to the zoning adjacent to the East. Osborne stated that staff received a proposal from RE Ruth to change zoning at 192 nd and Benson to Community Commercial (CC) for a southeast portion of the parcel, which would unify zoning for this parcel under CC but would create split zoning on two parcels. Osborne noted the differences between Kent and King County zoning. Kent’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use map includes separate single family residential designations for each density increment, distinct mobile home park designations, and multifamily residential townhouse zoning requiring home ownership. King County allows density bonuses and attached housing in single family residential zones outside of Planned Unit Developments. Kent’s Neighborhood Services (NS) land use plan map designation and Neighborhood Convenience Commercial (NCC) zones do not allow mixed-use. Osborne noted similarities in base densities for single family residences, community scale commercial and green belts in King County that are much like urban separators in Kent. Land Use and Planning Board Hearing January 25, 2010 Page 2 of 4 Ottini declared the Public Hearing open. George Curtusan, 21216 132nd Ave SE, Kent WA 98042 spoke on behalf of his father who resides on 132nd Avenue, on property zoned R1 and wanted to know if zoning would be changed to allow more than one structure per acre. Camille O’Brien 19619 116th Ave SE Renton WA 98058 stated she is zoned one house per acre and that zoning across the street is six (6) houses per acre. O’Brien stated that cu rrent zoning should conform to a geographical outline, something other than a road, and zoning should reflect current usage. She voiced her opposition to allowing different zoning for separate parcels located on opposing sides of a street. Jon Ruth 19400 108th Ave SE Renton stated that he represents the Ruth Proposal. He stated that the Ruth property is located on the southeast corner of Benson and 192nd and has a King County zoning designation of Neighborhood Business. Ruth stated that preliminary work has been completed on the parcel including conceptual design. He stated that the Department of Transportation has issued their approval on a road design. Ruth stated that the new zoning that Kent would implement will impose height restriction constraints on his property and disallow drive-thru’s. Ruth stated that they included additional properties as part of their proposal in anticipation of long range planning. He stated that the parcels are not split zoned. Ruth noted that they are not asking for anything greater than what they would have been allowed under King County’s jurisdiction. Janet Herman 21617 132nd AVE SE stated that she resides near Soos Creek Elementary School and understands that her property is zoned SF 4.5. She questioned how to seek a zoning change to SF 6 stating that she and her neighbor would like to develop their property. She questioned if the new zoning would change the number of houses that could be developed. She questioned if there were any plans to widen 132nd. Jim Dojan 11213SE 196th St stated that high density zoning will aggravate flooding problems. He stated that there are major backups on 208th and access from any future development from the former Panther Lake site should not be off of 208th. Arlene Jenson 13224 SE 230th St questioned if neighborhood covenants or zoning supersedes. Paul Morford, PO BOX 6345, Kent 98063 stated that the Panther Lake area is now an urban area versus a rural area. He recommended that staff consider higher densities for marginal areas such as commercial property, the Ruth property and the Panther Lake property. Morford encouraged staff to apply zoning that complies with Growth Management further stating that the split zoning on those properties within the Urban Growth Boundary should be eliminated. John McAllister, 9739 S 208th St, Kent, WA raised questioned regarding streets including 100th, 208th, and 216th. Charles Garner 29811 Marine View Dr. SW, Federal Way, WA stated that he owns six (6) acres in the annexation area used as a farm and voiced concerns about being able to keep his animals under the new Kent zoning. Garner questioned if areas that have been preliminarily platted are still allowed. Don Leever 13725 SE 233rd St, Kent, WA 98042 stated that 4 acres of open land (Lake Jolie area) south of his property have been considered by King County as undevelopable for several years because of water fowl, migration, wetlands, and an eagle nesting area. He voiced his concern that Alternative 1 indicates that this area would be zoned as FS-6, questioning if the City or the County would prevail over the zoning. He reiterated his concerns with the wetlands, whereby Land Use and Planning Board Hearing January 25, 2010 Page 3 of 4 Osborne advised Leever to contact planning staff, suggesting that he submit comment to the Planning Division with his recommendations. Osborne stated that those areas designated as R1 are very likely designated as Greenbelt or Urban Separator in King County. He stated that Kent is proposing to designate those areas as urban separator areas. Osborne cited Kent’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal LU-3, Policy LU 31.1, and Policy LU 31.2 with respect to establishing urban separators. Osborne cited Countywide Planning Policy LU-27 and read from a document submitted to the Boundary Review Board as part of Kent’s Notice of Intent to meet the criteria that the annexation would be consistent with countywide planning policies. Staff proposes to take King County's existing zoning along with any associated constraints on that zoning such as urban separators and apply Kent’s equivalent zoning. In response to comments associated with drive-thru uses, Osborne stated that retail drive-thru eateries or beverage drive-thrus are prohibited in NCC zones. However, other commercial retail uses such as banking drive-thrus would require a conditional use permit. Osborne stated that the City submitted a report of priority projects to the Pu get Sound Regional Council (PSRC), a regional transportation planning organization that allocates funds from the Federal Government to local jurisdictions and counties based on project scoring. Kent identified the completion of 132nd Avenue as high priori ty, as well as identifying this project in Kent’s Transportation Master Plan. Public Works Development Engineering Manager Mike Gillespie stated that portions of 132nd Avenue have been included in the Transportation Improvement Plan. He stated that staff will complete an analysis over the next year for both 132 nd and 116th, using that information to determine projects to include in the Capital Improvement Program. Osborne addressed the issue of split-designated parcels identified in the annexation area. He stated that unless property owners approach the city to request some remediation to make the designations whole for their parcels, the city is looking at applying King County’s existing zoning. Assistant City Attorney Kim Adams Pratt addressed split designations with respect to covenants for zoning. She stated that current case law is that homeowners association or subdivision covenants trump any zoning citing that if covenants say that the property allows 5 units per acre, those covenants would override zoning that allows 6 units per acre. Osborne stated that staff found property located in the southeast corner of the Panther Lake Annexation area to be designated as SR-6 by King County after reviewing King County assessor’s data. In response to Garner’s concerns with keeping animals in urban separator designated areas, Osborne stated that the SR-1 zone in Kent is considered a residential agriculture district which permits farm animal use. In response to concerns to protect a 4 acre parcel of property from development due to migratory habitat, Osborne stated that the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance, Storm Water Design Manual , along with the Department of Ecology’s impending approval of the City’s Shoreline Master Plan will have some implications for protection of critical areas associated with habitat, water quality and quantity. Osborne submitted King County Ordinance No 10197 for the record, relating to comprehensive planning, adopting the Soos Creek Community Plan Update, adopting the Soos Creek area zoning, and amending the King County Sewage General Plan. Land Use and Planning Board Hearing January 25, 2010 Page 4 of 4 Dowell MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to accept the submittal of King County Ordinance No. 10197 for the record. Motion PASSED. Satterstrom stated that when cities annex land, they have complete authority in terms of policing, serving, and zoning that territory as long as they are working with the Growth Management Act and satisfy State mandates except in the case of Urban Separators. Urban separators cannot be changed at a local jurisdictional level. Satterstrom explained that urban separators were adopted by King County and the Growth Management Planning Council of King County as a Countywide Planning Policy meaning that 30% of the jurisdictions in King County representing 70% of the population ratified that as a policy. Satterstrom stated that were Kent not to abide by this policy, the city could be subject to an appeal and brought before the Growth Management Hearings Board as adopting planning and zoning regulations that are not consistent with countywide planning policies. Satterstrom recommended that the Board not deviate from this policy. Dowell MOVED to Recommend Approval of Alternative 2 as described in the staff report which provides for comprehensive plan land use map an d zoning map designations for the Panther Lake Annexation area and to forward such recommendation to the Kent City Council for adoption with a change to the parcels located on the southeast corner of 108th and 192nd from Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) to Community Commercial (CC) along with the surrounding parcels. Motion died for lack of a Second. Discussion ensued over whether a zoning amendment could be included as part of the Board’s recommendation. After consulting with Legal Council, Satterstrom stated that Community Commercial was not one of the alternatives considered for this property and could not be considered for change this evening. Satterstrom stated that at least two more hearings will be held and felt that there was no reason that the Land Use & Planning Board could not make their recommendation based on Alternative 2. He stated that the Board could send a recommendation as part of their motion to City Council that they consider analyzing and reviewing the merits of the alternative presented by Mr. Ruth for the Council’s consideration at a later public hearing. This would allow property owners involved to be notified. Kondelis-Halpin MOVED to recommend approval of Alternative 2 as described in the staff report which provides for Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map Designations for the Panther Lake Annexation area with an amendment that we recommend to Council that they follow up with other proposals with Mr. Ruth’s and others as we have heard tonight, any applications or proposals that would come through in their next review of this map and designation. Phillips SECONDED the Motion. Motion PASSED 5-0. Adjournment Kondelis-Halpin MOVED and Dowell SECONDED a Motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion PASSED 5-0. Ottini declared the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. ___________________________________ Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Secretary of the Board P:\Planning\LUPB\2010\Minutes\01-25-10-LUPB-Minutes.doc