HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 07/26/2010 (4)Land Use and Planning Board Hearing
Minutes July 26, 2010
Page 1 of 6
LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
July 26, 2010
1. Call to Order Chair Ralph Called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
2. Board Members Present/Absent: Chair Dana Ralph, Vice-Chair Jack Ottini, Steve Dowell,
Navdeep Gill-Absent/Excused, Aleanna Kondelis-Halpin, Jon Johnson-Absent/Excused, Barbara Phillips
Staff Members Present: Charlene Anderson, William Osborne, Kim Adams Pratt, and Pamela
Mottram
3. Approval of Minutes
Ottini MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to approve the April 26, 2010 Minutes as
amended; changing a portion of Brad Corner’s testimony to read “and believes it would not block
any views” rather than “as long as it does not limit anyone’s views”. Motion PASSED 5-0.
4. Added Items None
5. Communications None
6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings None
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
7.1 CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2 DCE Height Limits
Long-Range Planner William D. Osborne submitted the following Exhibits for the record related to Docket
Item Dkt-2009-1.
(Exhibit No. 1) a series of Email correspondence between Osborne and Michael Johnson (Docket 2009-1
applicant) dated May 13-19th,
(Exhibit No. 2) email correspondence from Julie Brown dated May 17 supporting Option 4B with further
email dated May 19 requesting clarification on a couple of points,
(Exhibit No. 3) email correspondence from Michael Johnson dated May 18 including a letter addressed to
Fred Satterstrom ranking Height Regulation Options , indicating Mill Creek residents support of Option 4
for a transition overlay with amendments,
(Exhibit No. 4) email correspondence from Dan and Sandy Ulrey, Mill Creek residents, dated May 18
favoring Option 4,
(Exhibit No. 5) email correspondence from Scott Bundren, DCE property owner , dated June 15, favoring
existing standards adding an amendment that would alleviate buffer concerns within single-family zoned
areas,
(Exhibit No. 6) email correspondence from Michael W. Johnson dated June 18 summarizing the Mill
Creek residents’ position on DCE Heights,
(Exhibit No. 7) email correspondence from Daniel Daoura dated July 6-14 suggesting an additional
Option 7 and clarifications thereto,
(Exhibit No. 8) Letter from Edward H Kosnoski dated June 29 opposed to the implementation of
regulations that would discourage development in the DCE zone.
(Exhibit No. 9) email correspondence from Julie Brown dated July 15 with attached letter dated July 14
outlining 8 areas of concern in regards to downtown building heights and adjacency to single family
residential.
(Exhibit No. 10) email correspondence from Robert Slattery, Mondo Development, dated July 26, in
opposition to any changes within the DCE Zone.
Osborne stated that the ECDC approved a docket amendment application to be processed in the 2009
annual amendment cycle and the scope of the project was set to address possible amendment of the
DCE zoning where adjacent to single family residential zoning. Planning staff researched how other
jurisdictions with designated urban centers addressed similar issues and met with neighbors and property
owners in two community meetings to identify key issues and values underpinning resident concerns
about building heights. Some attendees commented on view protection, restricting or mixing of land
uses, solar access impacts of taller buildings, and establishing an appropriate scale of development
depending on the proximity to single family residential neighborhoods.
Osborne stated that options were formulated within a framework that considered the goals and policies of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Strategic Action Plan relating to urban center
Land Use and Planning Board Hearing
Minutes July 26, 2010
Page 2 of 6
development. During this Board’s workshop process, staff prepared graphics to highlight the comparison
of options that address concerns about view protection.
Osborne noted a correction in terms of the options matrix in that the ground setback for front yards on
Option 4b should have the word ‘lot line’ instead of ‘street centerline’ which would be consistent with the
portion with regard to upper floor setbacks. Option 4b is about distances from lot lines rather than
technically from the zoning boundaries.
Osborne presented the following options:
Option 1 – (The Johnson docket proposal) calls for any portion of DCE zoned properties located within
300 feet of a single family residential zone to have a building height restricted t o no higher than that of the
adjacent single family residential zone or 35 feet for the SR-6 zone. The docket proposal did not include
restrictions on permitted land uses.
Option 2 – This option was generated to accommodate concerns about intensive mixed use development.
The Townhouse 16 dwelling unit per acre (MR-T 16) zone would be applied to whole parcels whether
wholly located or partially located within a 300 foot proximity buffer as suggested by the Johnson
proposal.
Option 3 –This option was generated to accommodate concerns about intensive residential development.
A general commercial (GC) zoning district would be applied to whole parcels whether located wholly or
partially within a 300 foot proximity buffer.
Option 4, 4b and 5 - share a common geographic scope in terms of applying development regulations to
entire parcels within a DCE transitional overlay district whether located wholly or partially within the 300
foot proximity buffer from single family residential zoning districts.
Option 4– This option has similar characteristics to that of SeaTac’s regulations with ground floor
setbacks and upper floor setbacks to reduce upper floor bulk . Option 4b does the same as Option 4,
except that it applies a similar regulation from the lot line of parcels not from the street centerline, which
would add an additional 25 perhaps 30 feet or more to the upper floor setback.
Option 5 – Option 4, 4b and 5 provide for a discrete height limit within designated DCE transitional
overlay areas (DCE-T) of four stories and fifty feet. These options differ primarily in how they address
side yard, front yard, and upper floor setbacks. Option 5 addresses upper floor and balcony setbacks
through the Downtown Design Review Guidelines by requiring upper floor setback and balcony
treatments currently optional.
Option 6 – This option has been established at the request of the Land Use and Planning Board, would
establish an overlay for the DCE Zoning District where adjacent to single family residential zones and all
parcels within the overlay would be identified as DCE -T. Special regulations of the DCE-T would only be
applied within 300 feet proximity from single family residential zones. Any remaining portions of DCE -T
designated parcels outside of this buffer could be developed to full DCE standards.
Option 7 – This option is the result of receiving a proposal from Daniel Daoura to consider a buffer of
Townhouse 16 zoning extending into single family residential zones adjacent to DCE zoning. This
proposal would affect areas outside of the designated Urban Center and staff would need to amend the
policies and land use map of the comprehensive plan as well as the zoning districts map and might be
more appropriate to address in a separate legislative process.
Option 8 – Board Member Ottini proposed an option that would retract the urban center boundary and
DCE zoning to Central Avenue. This proposal would affect areas outside the geographic scope of the
project and as with Option 7, the policies and land use map of the com prehensive plan would need to be
amended as well as the zoning districts map. This would be more appropriately addressed in a separate
legislative process.
Osborne stated that staff recommends adoption of Option 6, as the Comprehensive Plan and the
Downtown Strategic Action Plan both call for the city to consider how to address intense development
adjacent to single family. The DSAP calls for us to address edge issues, particularly in the East Frame
District.
Staff is proposing a discrete building height limit of four stories and fifty feet which makes the connection
for those people who are living in the building to have recognition of folks who are at street level. Staff is
looking for more of a vertical orientation of buildings in relationship to the street. Having low density
buildings in the downtown commercial enterprise zone does not make sense in terms of policy but having
an extremely tall building adjacent to single family also does not make sense. Staff is offering middle
ground to address that relationship between building and street and also the impact on people who are
living in the community.
Land Use and Planning Board Hearing
Minutes July 26, 2010
Page 3 of 6
Design Review Options for upper floor setbacks and balconies would be considered required
components. This could provide some surety to a process already in place, would address the concerns
of the neighbors and minimize some of the impacts on property owners in the Downtown Commercial
Enterprise Zone, and does not exclude any uses currently allowed in the DCE zone. This also supports a
more intensive development capacity than anything which has been developed over the last 20 years in
downtown Kent.
Kondelis-Halpin MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to enter Exhibits 1-10 into the record.
Motion Carried 6-0.
Chair Ralph declared the Public Hearing open.
Len McCaughan, 623 E. Titus spoke in opposition to any changes and asked that the city not impose
building restrictions. Mr. McCaughan referenced the letter submitted by Mr. Edward Kosnoski.
Robert Slattery, Mondo Development, PO Box Box 5028, Bellevue, WA is defacto owner of 620 E.
Temperance Street. He stated that he entered into a contract to buy two parcels on Smith Street; 603
and 623 E Smith Street in December 2007. In 2008 he stated that he worked with Mayor Cooke, Ben
Wolters, Kurt Hanson, and several planning staff during predevelopment to ensure that any potential
project that we looked at would meet the City of Kent’s vision for new quality urban development including
incorporating the new DDR Guidelines.
He stated that toward the end of 2008, economic factors required the design to change. We
compensated by adding more units to improve density and maximize the use of the site. In early 2009 we
changed architects, and met with Mayor Cooke, Ben Wolters, Kurt Hanson and staff f rom ECD to revisit
our preliminary design work. Based on that meeting, we moved forward with our current design, a 167-
unit mixed-use project dubbed Station 601.
On April 16, 2009, Slattery stated that he met with the Mill Creek Neighborhood Group to dis cuss his
plans and acquire feedback. He stated that in September 2009 the state of the banking industry required
him to hold off on submitting his project for construction financing. In early 2010, Slattery stated that he
continued discussing the project with banks and identified a handful of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) backed lenders interested in funding th e construction of Station 601. Additional details remain to
be worked out. He stated that they are close to having a package ready to submit to HUD. Once the
project is approved by HUD, the banks will prioritize approximately 30 million dollars for construction in
the City of Kent.
Slattery requested that the record be kept open to allow his attorney and planner time to submit
comments by the end of next week. He voiced his opposition to any further changes to the DCE zoning
district stating that further restrictions would further decrease development in Kent. Any project submittal
must go through a SEPA process that allows citizens to voice their concerns at that time.
Michael Johnson, 436 Jason Ave N stated that he submitted the Docket 2009-1 proposal on behalf of
many of the Mill Creek residents. It requests a 300 foot buffer between the single family zone and the
Downtown Commercial Enterprise zone with a height limitation of 35 feet. The principal reason for this
docket request is that no other South King County city allows unlimited heights adjacent to single family
dwellings; rather each one of those cities has a height restriction transition area. Johnson stated that an
unlimited height building next to a single residential zone is untenable to residents of that zone.
Johnson stated that their community prefers Option 1. He stated that their community would support
adoption of Option 4 or 4b as a compromise, as those options were patterned after the SeaTac
regulations. He stated that their community would support high density and high rises starting from the
town’s core area.
Greg Gorder, 318 Jason Ave stated that the proposed building height in the DCE zone would completely
block the view from his home. He spoke in favor of 4b.
Laura Gorder, 318 Jason Ave stated that her home is located about 60 feet from the current DCE zone.
She spoke in support of Option 1 but would support Option 4b. She submitted a two-page study that
reflects what the effects of shadowing would be if the proposed complex was built.
Land Use and Planning Board Hearing
Minutes July 26, 2010
Page 4 of 6
Bob Cryan, 11041 Durland Ave NE, Seattle, WA spoke in opposition to any amendments to the Zoning
Code stating that the Comprehensive Plan was voted into service in 1993 and was thoroughly vetted by
the community at that time. Cryan stated that the Zoning Code includes processes through SEPA and
Design Review Regulations to guide and address issues with respect to development.
Brad Corner, 14205 SE 36th St. Suite 100, Bellevue, WA 98006 stated that he is the managing partner of
Kent Military Road and Kent Highway commercial and has been a Kent land owner since 1983 holding
commercial zoned property in Midway and in downtown Kent. He voiced support for the ‘No Action’
approach stating that SEPA and Design Review are in place to regulate development. Corner spoke in
support of Mr. Slattery’s proposed development
Corner opined that a middle ground is possible without the need to go through the process of imposing
additional development restrictions than those already in place. Corner opined the unfairness of the City
not giving exemptions or grandfathering to those proponents who had submitted proposals in the last 2.5
years. Corner recommended that the City consider an amendment to grandfather in anybody who has
made a submittal for a project in the transitional area in the past 2.5 years during the recession.
Vern Schultz, 704 E Temperance St spoke strongly in favor of Option 1, would support Option 4b as a
reasonable compromise, and strongly voiced his opposition to Option 6.
Daniel Daoura, 112 Kennebeck Ave S spoke in opposition to any changes on behalf of property owners
and investors within the DCE zone from whom he acquired signatures on a petition acknowledging their
opposition. Daoura stated that he would favor Option 7 which would give rights to the DCE property
owners and investors.
Stephen Cluphf, 21805 116th Ave SE spoke on behalf of his son Jon Cluphf residing at 316 Clark Avenue
N voicing opposition to any changes or restrictions that would reduce commercial property value .
Ngoc Dzung Smith, 425 Jason Ave N spoke in favor of Michael Johnson’s Docket Option 1 but would
compromise in support of Option 4b. She encouraged the City to not jeopardize the value of historic
neighborhoods and encouraged the City to build out within the downtown core area. She emphasized the
need for the City to implement a responsible height restriction to protect and preserve the in vestment of
families, of homes for those residential neighborhoods adjacent to DCE zones.
Stacey Kroeze, 701 E. Temperance St. spoke in favor of manageable not unrestricted growth. She
stated that she resides in a home adjacent to the proposed DCE development site, voicing concern with
loss of sun exposure and encouraging the city to consider a gradual progression of development in stair
step fashion, building up the downtown core first.
Brian Friedle, 929 E Temperance St spoke in support of Option 4b with a 60 foot buffer and encouraged
the City to consider a reasonable compromise concerning urban development.
Derrick Dooley, 417 Clark Ave N opined that mixed use development in the DCE zone is not compatible
with the surrounding historic neighborhood and that development of a large building would block
sunshine, phone and television reception. He voiced support for a height restriction and adequate
setback stating that if a 20-story development were to occur adjacent to his community and an
earthquake occurred his neighborhood would be destroyed.
Charlotte Kibbie, 614 Hazel Ave N spoke in favor of Option 4b and encouraged development beginning in
the downtown core and not on the fringe of the DCE zone.
Mary Jacob, 426 Prospect Ave N voiced her objection to high rise buildings near single family residential
neighborhoods as they restrict view and create traffic congestion.
John Kohler, 602 Prospect Ave N stated that he supports downtown development, voicing support for
Michael Johnson’s original proposal as he believes it to be an amenable compromise between the
development and the rights of the people who want to build their properties and profit from it and those
who live here.
Ben Davenport, 106 Kennebeck Ave N voiced opposition to rezoning as it would decrease the value of
his property.
Land Use and Planning Board Hearing
Minutes July 26, 2010
Page 5 of 6
Hal O’Brien, 418 Hazel Ave voiced opposition to large development on a single family residential
boundary which would decrease property values. Where is the market, where is the demand? This is
speculation at its most naked.
Carolyn Clayton, 604 E Temperance St. spoke in opposition to Slattery’s proposed development adjacent
to her community. She voiced support for Option 1 and 4b.
Debbie Smith, 420 Prospect Ave N spoke in support of Option 4b and in opposition to Option 6. She
stated that the City needs to implement responsible height restrictions.
Dan Ulrey, 332 Alvord Ave N spoke in support of Option 4b.
Kim Portera, 617 E Temperance St. stated that she lives directly across the street from the proposed
Slattery development. She stated that change is inevitable but encouraged the city to consider options in
terms of not diminishing property values for those homeowners adjacent to the DCE zone.
Dixie Dredlow, 512 N Jason Ave encouraged the city to consider options in ways that would not create a
detriment to the value and charm of the historic neighborhood community.
Dowell Moved and Ottini Seconded a Motion to close the public hearing. Chair Ralph closed the public
hearing.
Ottini Moved and Phillips Seconded a Motion to accept two pictures submitted by Laura Gorder
into the record as Exhibit 11. Motion Carried 5-0.
In response to Slattery’s request, Assistant City Attorney Kim Adams Pratt stated that appropriate notice
of the public hearing had been given and the Board was not required to keep the record open or hold a
second public hearing. Slattery and other members of the public are allowed to provide written comments
to the City Council during the legislative process.
The Board deliberated over Option 4b (favored as a compromise by the public) and staff’s recommended
Option 6. Pratt stated that were the public desirous of redefining the boundaries of the DCE zone, it
would move beyond just a development regulation amendment and would require a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, which would need to be submitted by September 1st, with anticipated review by the Board
beginning in January or February, or if deemed an emergency could be considered sooner by the City
Council.
Osborne stated that if citizens were to submit a docket application, the Economic and Community
Development Committee would determine if that docket item would be incorporated into the work
program as a comprehensive plan or zoning code amendment or both, or whether that item should be put
into a different work program, has already been addressed in an existing work program , or should be
delayed until some future time.
Chair Ralph called for a motion and hearing none, conceded to move this item to August 23rd for a second
workshop to reconsider options and review additional public input.
7.2 ZCA-2010-1 Zoning Density – Rounding Calculations
Planning Manager Charlene Anderson presented six options (referencing her report) related to calculation
of maximum allowable density on property. Currently the City takes the entire square footage of property
and multiplies it by the allowable zoning density on a site. If you are in a SR-6 zone for example, you
have a total property area times 6.05 dwelling units per acre and that is how the maximum allowable
number of dwelling units is determined. All options utilize total allowable area to calculate density.
Anderson stated that staff recommends Option 3 as it seems like the concern is more with the smaller
number of dwelling units or lots, that it creates a greater perceived impact to neighborhoods.
After deliberations, Chair Ralph opened the public hearing.
Kathy Ekstrand, 26600 137th Ave SE stated that as a Lake Meridian resident, she was actively involved in
the successful 2007 down-zoning within Lake Meridian’s watershed and along the lake’s perimeters. At
that time the city was developing residential development standards. Ekstrand stated that she felt
mislead when she discovered that the residential development standards incorporated a density
Land Use and Planning Board Hearing
Minutes July 26, 2010
Page 6 of 6
calculator that made the downzone null and void, citing that density rounding would allow SR 4.5 zoned
property to contain a number of homes equivalent to SR 6.0.
Ekstrand stated that she supports Option 5 and that the current SR 4.5 and SR 3.0 zoning within the Lake
Meridian Watershed and around the lake’s perimeters should be retained and that density rounding
should not be allowed.
Brian McDonough, 26441 137th Ave SE spoke about inconsistencies with the use of density rounding
calculators. Implementation of density rounding would impact two or three acre house parcels. If those
parcels were broken down, a 4.5 acre zoning parcel could grow to 7.6 houses per acre. The density
rounding table should be thrown out.
Sally McDonough, 26441 137th Ave SE stated that on Dec 12, 2006, the LUPB assisted in the City
enacting a building permit moratorium on the Lake Meridian Watershed, Resolution 1746, as there was
major concern about so much building on the lake. From January to April 2007 the City held meetings
with respect to rezoning of the Lake Meridian area. Kent City Council successfully voted and adopted a
downzone for the Lake Meridian area on July 6, 2007.
McDonough stated that it seems that no one realized the implications of the density cal culations on
smaller parcels at the time that the residential development standards were passed. She stated that
there are problems with the density calculation. Kent’s building codes stated that you can’t do a lot line
adjustment to create an additional lot with the terms ‘Lot’ and ‘dwelling unit’ being interchanged. Kent
City Code states that “that no land may be so reduced in area that it would be in violation of minimum lot
size”. However, we are seeing that happen with these development calculations in that a SF 4.5 zoned
lot is accommodating over 6.0 dwelling units.
McDonough stated that it doesn’t make sense to use the density rounding calculations in the Lake
Meridian watershed or for other critical areas in Kent. She stated that she would be amenable to Option 5
with the addition of adding SR 4.5 into the mix, with a reference to the watershed area. Density
calculation rounding defeats the efforts the City has taken to lower densities around Lake Meridian.
Sharon Bosse, 25739 135th Ave SE, Unit #41 stated that the City needs to throw out the density rounding
calculations system as it is thoroughly misleading and the City’s current zoning requirements should
remain as they are.
Dowell Moved and Ottini 2nd a Motion to close the Public Hearing. Motion Carried 5-0.
Chair Ralph called for a Motion. Hearing none, Chair Ralph directed this item back to workshop on
August 23rd for further consideration.
Adjournment
Ottini Moved and Dowell 2nd a Motion to adjourn the meeting. Ralph declared the meeting
adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
___________________________________
Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager
Secretary of the Board
P:\Planning\LUPB\2010\Minutes\07-26-10-LUPB-Minutes.doc