HomeMy WebLinkAbout1767Resolution No. 1767
(Amending or Repealing Resolutions)
CFN = 121 -Rezones
Passed -6/19/2007
Ell1s Rezone -Demal
RESOLUTION NO. 17~7
A RESOLUTION of the City council of the City of
Kent, Washmgton, denymg the rezone appl1cat1on for
property located at 12824 SE 2561h Street from SR-4 5
(Smgle-Fam1ly Res1dent1al, 4.5 un1ts per acre) to SR-6
(Smgle-Fam1ly Res1dent1al, 6 un1ts per acre). (Ellis
Landmg RZ -2006-11)
RECITALS
A. An appl1cat1on was f1led on September 21, 2006, to rezone
approximately 5.67 acres of property located at 12824 SE 2561h Street from SR-
4.5 (Smgle-Fam1ly Res1dent1al, 4.5 un1ts per acre) to SR-6 (Smgle-Fam1ly
Res1dent1al, 6 un1ts per acre). (Ellis Rezone RZ-2006-11).
B. The City's SEPA responsible off1c1al issued a M1t1gated
Determmat1on of Nons1gmf1cance (MONS) (#ENV-2006-73) for the proposed
rezone on March 17, 2007.
C. A public hearing on the rezone was held before the hearing
exammer on May 2, 2007. On May 16, 2007, the heanng exam1ner 1ssued
Fmdmgs and Conclusions and Recommended approval of the rezone.
D. Havmg reviewed the record before it on the matter, the Kent City
Council voted to deny the Ellis Rezone on June 5, 2007. The council found that
the ev1dence presented 1n the record showed that the proposed SR-6 zon1ng and
subsequent development was mcompat1ble w1th development 1n the VICinity.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT,
WASHINGTON, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1 EJ/is Rezone -Denial
RESOLUTION
SECTION 1. -Incorporation of ReCitals. The preceding rec1tals are
mcorporated.
SECTION 2. -Rezone Denial.
A. The Kent City Counc1l den1es the Ell1s rezone application because the
proposed rezone does not sat1sfy all of the cntena established m the Kent City
Code (KCC) for the grantmg of a rezone. KCC 15.09.050(C). While Council
reJects the heanng exammer's Recommendation, Council accepts the heanng
exam1ner's Fmd1ngs and Conclusions except to the extent that those Fmdmgs and
Conclusions are reJected or contradicted m th1s resolution.
B. The proposed rezone 1s cons1stent w1th the comprehensive plan land use
map des1gnat1on of SF-6, but that only speaks to part1ally of one of the f1ve
cntena considered for grant1ng a rezone. 15.09 050(C)(l). In general,
comprehensive plan des1gnat1ons may be cons1stent w1th more than one zonmg
des1gnat1on. The Land Use Element of our 2004 Comprehensive Plan provides
that: "[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
un1ts 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. A SR-6
zomng des1gnat1on IS not necessanly needed to Implement a SF-6 comprehensive
plan des1gnat1on.
C. In add1t1on to consistency w1th the comprehensive plan, we must analyze
whether the proposed rezone and subsequent development 1s compatible w1th
development 1n the VICinity. KCC 15.09.050(C)(2) In that regard, Council makes
the follow1ng F1ndmgs in add1t1onal to those made by the Hearmg Exam1ner m h1s
Fmdmg 8. Along the ent1re eastern boundary of the subJect s1te there are homes
developed at 4. 5 dwelling un1ts per acre. Likewise, there are homes developed at
4.5 dwellmg umts per acre along the western boundary of the s1te, and to the
2 Ellis Rezone -Denial
north homes are developed at lower dens1t1es. The remammg boundary to the
south borders Southeast 256th Street. Ellis Property Plat Map.
D. Havmg made these add1t1onal Fmdmgs, Council d1sagrees w1th the Heanng
Exammer's Conclusion 2 and Concludes that the proposed rezone and subsequent
development of the s1te would not be compatible w1th development 1n the V1c1n1ty.
The fact that a proposed development IS smgle-fam1ly does not necessanly make 1t
compatible w1th every smgle-fam1ly neighborhood m the VICinity. We must apply
the factors for cons1denng a change m zon1ng to the particular Circumstances of
each appl1cat1on, lookmg at the actual neighborhoods Involved. Also, the fact that
the proposed plat currently shows 27 lots rather than 36 w1th SR-6 zonmg IS g1ven
little we1ght m the rezone analysis because the developer IS not bound to bu1ld
only 27 lots. The Applicant's current prel1mmary plat proposal may not be the
f1nal development built on th1s s1te. The dens1ty and allowable lot s1zes w1th SR-6
zonmg IS not compatible With the dens1t1es and larger lots that charactenze th1s
ex1stmg ne1g hborhood.
E. Dunng the Council d1scuss1on of the mot1on at the June 4, 2007, council
meeting, Council members expressed concern regardmg traffic congestion on area
roads. Wh1le traffic concurrency IS a top1c of great concern for the Council,
Council recogn1zes that a MDNS was 1ssued for the rezone and that w1th the
MDNS cond1t1ons and application of c1ty code the traffic Impacts of any future
development on th1s s1te w1ll be addressed.
SECTION 3. -Severabtlitv. If any sect1on, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause or phrase of th1s resolution IS declared unconst1tut1onal or mvalld
for any reason, such dec1s1on shall not affect the val1d1ty of the remammg port1ons
of th1s resolution.
SECTION 4. -Effective Date. Th1s resolution shall take effect and be in
force 1mmed1ately upon 1ts passage.
3 Ellis Rezone -Denial
PASSED at a regular open public meetmg by the City council of the City of
Kent, Washington, th1s ( 1 day of June, 2007.
CONCURRED 1n by the mayor of the City of Kent this (4 day of June,
2007.
ATTEST:
~~~~~
BRENDAJACOBER,CI CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
. -------:· ...... ,
,M· .... _, .....
... . .. .. . .
I hereby cert1fy that th1s IS a true and correct copy of Resolution No. / ?b 7
passed by the City council of the c1ty of Kent, Washmgton, the ICJ day of June,
2007.
~6~~ BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CL K
P \C,vii\Resolutlon\EIIIB-RuoneDenlal doc
4 Ellis Rezone -Denial