HomeMy WebLinkAbout1752Resolution No. 1752
(Amending or Repealing Resolutions)
CFN = 121-Rezones
Passed -4/3/2007
Vista Landmg Rezone-Demal
RESOLUTION NO. I z ,)..;2,
A RESOLUTION of the City council of the City of
Kent, Washmgton, deny1ng the rezone appl1cat1on for
property located at 10040 SE 267th Street from SR 4.5
(Smgle-Fam1ly Res1dent1al, 4.5 un1ts per acre) to SR 6
(Smgle-Fam1ly Res1dent1al, 6 umts per acre). (V1sta
Landmg RZ-2006-9)
RECITALS
A. An appl1cat1on was f1led on July 27, 2006, to rezone approximately
3 acres of property located at 10040 SE 267th Street from SR 4.5 (Smgle-Fam1ly
Res1dent1al, 4.5 un1ts per acre) to SR 6 (Smgle-Fam1ly Res1dent1al, 6 un1ts per
acre). (V1sta Landmg RZ-2006-9).
B. A public heanng on the rezone was held before the heanng
exammer on February 21, 2007. On March 6, 2007, the heanng exammer 1ssued
fmd1ngs and conclusions and recommended approval of the rezone.
C. Hav1ng rev1ewed the record before it on the matter, the Kent City
Council voted to deny the V1sta Land1ng Rezone on Apnl 3, 2007. The counc1l
found that the ev1dence presented m the record showed that the proposed SR 6
zon1ng was mcompat1ble w1th development m the VICinity.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CilY COUNCIL OF THE CilY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1 Vista Landing Rezone -Denial
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1. -lncorporatton of Recitals. The preceding recitals are
incorporated.
SECTION 2. -Rezone.
A. The Kent City Council den1es the V1sta Landmg rezone applicat1on
because the proposed rezone does not sat1sfy all of the cntena established m Kent
City Code (KCC) 15.09.050(C). The rezone application IS consistent w1th the
comprehensive plan des1gnat1on, but does not sat1sfy all of the f1ve cntena
requ1red for grantmg a rezone. KCC 15.09.050(C)(1). In general, comprehens1ve
plan des1gnat1ons may be consistent w1th more than one zon1ng des1gnat1on. The
comprehensive plan 1s the broader gu1del1ne to wh1ch the zonmg des1gnat1ons
must conform. In the case of the SF-6 comprehensive plan des1gnat1on, there are
two zonmg des1gnat10ns that are consistent: the current zonmg of Smgle-Fam1ly
Res1dent1al, 4.5 un1ts per acre, and the proposed zonmg of Smgle-Fam1ly
Res1dent1al, 6 umts per acre.
B. Pol1cy H-2.1 of the City's 2004 Comprehensive Plan, Housmg
Element prov1des essent1al gu1dance to th1s analySIS and dec1s1on. Th1s Pol1cy
d1rects that we must "[p]reserve and enhance the 1ntegnty and qual1ty of ex1stmg
res1dent1al neighborhoods." Pol1cy H-2.1 at page 6-11. Council disagrees w1th the
heanng exammer's conclus1on and fmds that the proposed rezone and subsequent
development of the s1te would be compatible w1th development m the VICinity,
KCC 15.09.050(C)(2), for the followmg reasons:
1. The staff report states, on page 2, that "adJacent properties
mall d1rect1ons are zoned SR 4.5.
2. Development 1n the nearby VICinity IS generally charactenzed
by established large-lot development. Most of these lots range m s1ze from
10,000 to 12,000 square feet. Under the current rezone proposal, new lot
development would be allowed at 5700 square feet per lot, w1th street frontage
w1dths as small as 50 feet. Th1s IS not compatible w1th the development m the
subJect neighborhood, and th1s lack of compat1b111ty IS reflected m the record on
th1s proposal:
2 Vista Landing Rezone -Denial
• "Our neighborhood consists of lots that are pnmanly 10,000
square feet or larger w1th homes that allow for pnvacy ."
February 14, 2007, email from Sally Mendel to Sharon
Clamp.
• "The proposed rezone request does not match the
neighborhood. . .. [W]e're guess1ng that the houses are
actually bUilt at approximately two to three per acre. How
can addmg a sect1on of the neighborhood w1th SIX houses per
acre f1t m?" February 2, 2007, letter from Den1se and Brett
S1mpson.
• "The Scen1c H1ll area of Kent is an older established
neighborhood of s1ngle fam1ly homes on average or above
average lots .... [T]he dens1ty has been set for many years."
September 11, 2006, letter from Kev1n Tucker.
• "Mature neighborhood and new houses w1ll not f1t in .... Sizes
of lots do not f1t the established neighborhood .... Lot s1zes
w1ll be too small ." Letter rece1ved September 11, 2006,
from Roger and Wendy Hurst.
3. The staff report states, at page 10, "uses in the areas are
predommantly detached smgle fam1ly res1dent1al w1th some mult1-fam1ly and
commercial development m close prox1m1ty to the subJect s1te." We disagree w1th
th1s conclus1on, although there IS some mult1-fam1ly and commercial development
1n the localized area, 1t IS not m "close prox1m1ty" to th1s s1te. For example, the
SRS mult1-fam1ly development referenced 1n the record l1es on the east s1de of
1041h Avenue SE. 1041h 1s a s1gn1f1cant artenal m our c1ty that effectively
separates the mult1-fam1ly use from the neighborhood charactenst1cs of the
SUbJeCt Site.
4. The Land Use Element of our 2004 Comprehensive Plan,
w1thm the meanmg of 1ts defm1t1on of the s1ngle fam1ly res1dent1al land use map
category, states: "[I]t should be stressed that these des1gnat1ons represent a
range of dens1t1es, w1th the des1gnat1on bemg the max1mum allowable dens1ty.
For example, the SF-6 des1gnat1on allows zonmg wh1ch could accommodate up to
6 un~ts per acre; 1t also could accommodate less than that." 2004 Comprehensive
Plan, Land Use Element, page 4-55. The Council f1nds 1t necessary to stress, once
agam, that the SF-6 des1gnat1on contemplates a range of dens1t1es; 1t does not
3 Vista Landing Rezone -Denial
constitute a "free t1cket" to the max1mum allowable dens1ty provided m that plan
des1gnat1on. We have to look at all the factors des1gnated m our code. We must
preserve and enhance the mtegnty and quality of ex1stmg res1dent1al
neighborhoods. S1m1lanty of land uses (1.e. smgle fam1ly res1dent1al at one dens1ty
compared to smgle fam1ly res1dent1al at another dens1ty) does not necessanly
constitute compat1b1l1ty of uses. We must apply the factors for cons1denng a
change m zonmg to the part1cular Circumstances of each application, lookmg at the
actual neighborhoods mvolved. The dens1ty and the allowable lot s1zes of the
proposed new development are not compatible w1th the larger lots and the long
established homes that charactenze th1s neighborhood.
SECTION 3. -Severabiltty. If any sect1on, subsect1on, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of th1s resolution 1s declared unconst1tut1onal or mval1d
for any reason, such dec1s1on shall not affect the val1d1ty of the remammg port1ons
of th1s resolution.
SECTION 4. -Effecttve Date. Th1s resolut1on shall take effect and be m
force 1mmed1ately upon 1ts passage.
PASSED at a regular open public meet1ng by the c1ty council of the c1ty of
Kent, Washmgton, th1s fl_ day of Apnl, 2007.
CONCURRED m by the mayor of the City of Kent this ___ day of April,
2007.
SUZETTE COOKE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
4 Vista Landing Rezone -Denial
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ro{1f.iJ~ ~1~~;-
I hereby certify that th1s 1s a true and correct copy of Resolution No. /'75" :Z
passed by the c1ty council of the c1ty of Kent, Washmgton, the / Z day of Apnl,
2007.
P \Clvti\P.Isolutlon\VIstiiUndlng-FWzonel;)emal doc
-.
-........ -
5 Vista Landing Rezone -Denial