Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 04/24/1995 (3) L"CITY Of �1� KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES V7RCIT April 24, 1995 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Morrill at 7:00 PM on April 24, 1995 in the Kent City Hall, Chambers West. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Morrill, Chair Russ Stringham, Vice-Chair Gwen Dahle Kenneth Dozier Connie Epperly Edward Heineman, Jr. Bob MacIsaac Janet Nuss PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER ABSENT: Mike Pattison, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Planning Department Laurie Evezich, Law Department Curt Palowitz, Public Works Department Chris Holden, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A MOTION was made to accept the March 17, 1995 minutes as presented. Commissioner Dahle requested a correction be made, changing the wording from "...U. S. Supreme Court to U. S. District Court". MOTION was SECONDED. Motion CARRIED. ADDED ITEMS: None, COMMUNICATIONS: None. NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS: No meetings are scheduled at this time. #ZCA-95-1 Adult Use Zoning #AZ-95-2 Beck Annexation Zoning 1 Kent Planning Commission April 24, 1995 #ZCA-95-1 ADULT USE ZONING Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department, presented a brief history of the previous hearings on this matter. Mr. Satterstrom commented this item was discussed at the Planning Commission workshop on April 13. Mr. Satterstrom briefly reviewed the history of adult use regulation in the City of Kent. Prior to 1980 there were no special regulations in effect regarding adult uses In 1986 adult use regulations were adopted based on a comprehensive study done in 1982. The essence of the regulations are the protection of residential neighborhoods. Thus, for any adult entertainment use to locate in the City of Kent the existing regulations require that it be at least 1,000 feet from any park, school, church, library or residential zone and use. In 1994, a topless dancing club was proposed to be developed in a GWC, Gateway Commercial, zone. However, the site was not located more than a 1,000 feet from a residential use. Therefore, the permit was denied. The developer of the club took the City of Kent to the U. S. District Court and the City lost the lawsuit. The Court found that the City of Kent ordinance was constitutional but the Court also found that there was an insufficient number of sites for adult use entertainment and, therefore, found in favor of the developer. The City Council declared a six-month moratorium on adult entertainment uses. This moratorium has been extended. Mr. Satterstrom commented that the City Council, the Planning Commission and staff are not in favor of allowing this kind of use anywhere in the City. However, the U. S. District Court says we have to allow this type of use in the City. Four zoning area alternatives have been identified in the staff report. Under all the alternatives, this type of use will only be allowed in commercial zones. On the East and West Hill, no sites are available due to the proximity of residential uses to commercial uses. Thus, the only sites available for adult use entertainment are commercial zoned sites in the valley. The two zones where this type of use is allowed are the GC, General Commercial and GWC, Gateway Commercial. The four alternatives are: Alternative 1: The no action alternative. This would allow one site in the City that could be used for adult use entertainment. Alternative 2: There would be a reduction of the 1,000 foot buffer around non- conforming residential uses in the commercial or industrial zones to 250 feet. This would result in 12 potential sites. #ZCA-95-1 Adult Use Zoning #AZ-95-2 Beck Annexation Zoning 2 Kent Planning Commission April 24, 1995 Alternative 3: This would allow the use in the MI-C, Industrial Park- C suffix zone and would also reduce the 1,000 foot required buffer around non-conforming residential uses to 250 feet. This would result in 19 potential sites Alternative 4: This would provide a zero-buffer for non-conforming residences when they are in commercial and industrial zones. This would result in 32 potential sites. Each of these alternatives would still maintain the 1,000 foot setback for residential zones, schools, churches and libraries. Staff is recommending alternative #4. Chair Morrill asked if anyone would like to comment on this matter. MARILYN CARETTI, 4604 Somerset Court, Kent, WA 98032, concurs with staff s recommendation for alternative 4. She commented that 32 sites sounds like quite a few sites; however, the sites are all confined to a small area in the City. Thus, there probably wouldn't be 32 adult uses located there because the sites aren't large enough. There was no further public testimony. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Nuss read into the record her statement regarding a brief survey she made of other cities regarding adult use entertainment. The statement also included some personal interviews. Commissioner Nuss MOVED to accept the staff's recommendation of alternative #4. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED. Motion failed. Commissioner Maclsaac MOVED to accept alternative#2. Motion failed for a lack of a second. Commissioner Stringham MOVED to accept alternative #1. Commissioner Epperly SECONDED. Motion failed. Chair Morrill read into the record a letter from James Harris, Planning Director. This letter forwarded the adult use entertainment matter to the City Council with no action taken by the Planning Commission. #ZCA-95-1 Adult Use Zoning #AZ-95-2 Beck Annexation Zoning 3 Kent Planning Commission April 24, 1995 Chair Morrill commented that each of the Commissioners, if they so wished, could submit a minority report to the City Council. Chair Morrill requested that a minority report be prepared for his signature. Commissioner Nuss requested that her name be added to the report. The hearing was closed at 7:30 PM. BECK ANNEXATION ZONING #AZ-95-2 Kevin O'Neill, Planning Department, presented the Beck annexation zoning report. Mr. O'Neill gave a brief history of the area. A viewfoil was shown depicting the location of the potential annexation and the topography of the area. This area was originally in King County's Soos Creek Community planning area. There are three zoning alternatives recommended by staff: Alternative 1: This alternative would simply convert the previous King County zoning of R6 to the Kent zoning designation of R1-7.2 for the entire annexation area. Alternative 2: In this alternative the western edge of the annexation area would be designated R1-12 while the remainder of the area would be designated Rl- 7.2. Alternative 3: This alternative is similar to Alternative 2, except that the most extreme slopes along the western edge of the property would be designated R1-20, with the southwester portion of the area being zoned R1-12. The remainder of the area would be zoned R1-7.2. Staff recommended Alternative 2. Chair Morrill called for public comment. ROBERT KIGA, 9440 S. 233rd Place, Kent, WA 98031, commented his major concern with development along 94th Avenue S. is the availability of a wide enough road. Presently 94th Avenue narrows as it migrates towards James Street. He felt the road should be widened if there is any development in the area. JUDITH MCDOUGALL, 23405 94TH AVENUE S., Kent, WA 98031, commented she lives on the west side of 94th. Ms. McDougall stated 94th is not wide enough to handle any traffic. THEODORE POLK, 24415 64TH AVENUE S., KENT, WA 98031, asked if the zoning Rl- 12, allows one residence per acre. #ZCA-95-1 Adult Use Zoning #AZ-95-2 Beck Annexation Zoning 4 Kent Planning Commission April 24, 1995 Mr. O'Neill commented R1-12 allows one dwelling unit per 12,000 square feet or about three and a half units per acre. JIM MUIR, 23007 96TH AVENUE S., KENT, WA 98031, asked what was the difference between the County's zoning and the City's. Mr. O'Neill explained that under King County's development regulations, R-6 zoning means six units per acre. The units can be placed anywhere on the site as long as the minimum development standards are met. However, Kent's R1-7.2 means each lot needs to be at least 7,200 square feet. As the Commission is aware, the staff is reviewing policies in its Comprehensive Plan to support lot averaging and clustering. A proposal concerning this type of development will be brought to the Commission next month for consideration. Mr. Muir commented that if lot averaging was allowed, either alternative 2 or 3 would be acceptable. AMY FORBIS, 23306 94TH COURT S., KENT WA 98031, commented she is against lot clustering or more multifamily construction in the area. She recommends that the Commission adopt alternative 3. MIKE ROBINSON, 9409 S. 232ND, KENT, WA 98031, was not in favor of any of the alternatives. He felt the lots should be larger. Mr. Robinson thought that the area should be zoned R1-20. No further public comments were made. Chair Morrill requested Kevin O'Neill respond to some of the questions asked by the public. Mr. O'Neill commented that 94th Avenue is currently widest in the areas adjacent to existing plats. As additional properties bordering 94th Avenue develop, road widening would take place. Mr. O'Neill wasn't aware of any City plans to independently widen the road at this time. Mr. O'Neill reiterated that the Comprehensive Plan cluster housing proposal has not been considered by the Planning Commission. He remarked that it is not the intent of the "clustering" proposal to allow multifamily as part of the clustering development The use of the land would be single family but the way the units would be configured on the property would allow more flexibility in development. Commissioner Stringham asked if the area was zoned R1-20 could it potentially create problems for those property owners whose property is currently less than 20,000 square feet in size. #ZCA-95-1 Adult Use Zoning #AZ-95-2 Beck Annexation Zoning 5 Kent Planning Commission April 24, 1995 Mr. O'Neill stated that if the property was zoned R1-20, any lots that would be less than 20,000 square feet in size would be considered legal nonconforming. Mr. O'Neill explained that staff is recommending Alternative #2 because there is already R1-12 zoning in place to the north of this area. Staff tries not to create disjointed zoning designations. There is no R1-20 zoning directly bordering this area. This area has very steep slopes and the parcels that have steep slopes will be difficult to develop regardless of the zoning designation because of the City's current hazard area regulations. The intent of the R1-12 zoning designation is to provide some limited development potential in this area. Commissioner Dahle MOVED and Commissioner Nuss SECONDED to a cept Alternative #3. Commissioner Stringham made a friendly amendment to change the one 1-12 area to R1-20. Commissioner Dahle accepted the amendment. MOTION carried with six votes for and one vote against motion. Mr. Satterstrom explained this item will be placed on the May 16, 1995 City Council agenda. There also will be another hearing 30 days from the May 16th date. Commissioner Dahle MOVED and Commission Nuss SECONDED to close the hearing at 8:25 PM. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, 0escrdin arras eog Sec retary c.pcmin4 24 #ZCA-95-1 Adult Use Zoning #AZ-95-2 Beck Annexation Zoning 6