Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 06/19/1989 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 19, 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7 :30 p.m. Monday, June 19, 1989 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Anne Biteman Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Carol Stoner Raymond Ward Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager Carol Proud, Planner Ken Astrein, Planner Stephen Clifton, Planner Lauri Anderson, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 27 , 1989 Commissioner Ward MOVED that the minutes of the March 27 , 1989 Planning Commission meeting be approved as printed. Commissioner Forner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chairman Martinez asked for a member to join her at a meeting in Tukwila City Hall on June 29 at 7 p.m. regarding the regional transportation plan and development strategy which is being developed by the Puget Sound Council of Governments. PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS AMENDED Chairman Martinez presented the current requirement that five Planning Commission members must be present at a meeting in order to constitute a quorum. She suggested that a majority of the members appointed and seated on the Commission would be a more workable requirement. Commissioner Forner MOVED that the bylaws be changed to state that the majority of the members who are appointed and seated on the Commission must be present to constitute a quorum. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Discussion followed. Kent Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 1989 Commissioner Forner MOVED that the amendment to the bylaws be reworded to state that the Commission could function with a majority of members present based on the actual number of appointed members, but a minimum of three commissioners must be in attendance to constitute a quorum. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. EAST VALLEY ZONING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CPA 88-3 Ken Astrein presented the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the East Valley Zoning Implementation. This is a written statement acknowledging the facts presented during the public hearings and stating the Conclusions drawn by the Commission, including the Commission's recommendations to Council. For the East Valley Zoning Implementation the City Council authorized the Planning Commission, rather than the Hearing Examiner, to conduct the hearings and make recommendations. The procedure was stated in Ordinance 2809 passed in October 1988. This ordinance required the Commission to receive and examine available information, conduct public hearings, prepare a record, and enter findings of fact and conclusions based upon those facts together with a recommendation to the City Council. This is the format normally used by the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Stoner MOVED to adopt the findings and conclusions presented by the Planning staff. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the public meeting be closed. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. PUBLIC NOTICE BOARDS--ZCA 89-2 Chairman Martinez opened the public hearing. Carol Proud presented the Council's request to research options for providing on-site posting of public notices which would be more visible to the community and less subject to vandalism than the present system. Council members also expressed a desire to increase the awareness of citizens regarding proposed land use actions without overburdening City staff or the development community. Kent land use codes require the posting of public notices for rezones, conditional use permits, variances, subdivisions, shoreline permits and planned unit developments. Currently the notice must be posted in three conspicuous places on or adjacent to the subject property at least ten days prior to the date of the 2 Kent Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 1989 public hearing. The codes do not specifically address the format or size of the notice. Ms. Proud presented the current notice board, compared these with the code requirements and procedures of six local jurisdictions, and showed slides and diagrams illustrating each. Ms. Proud presented three alternatives to the Commission. Each would be installed with two 4" x 4" x 8 ' posts. Alternative A - 4 ' x 81 Plywood face custom notice board. The color and lettering would be consistent for all signs with prescribed content for each land use action. The applicant would be responsible for purchasing and installing the sign to City specifications at the applicant's cost ($200-$500 plus installation cost) and would submit to the City a certificate of installation. This would be costly to the applicant and could create a hardship for smaller projects. In addition, these signs would create potential traffic hazards. Alternative B - 4 ' x 4 ' plywood face custom notice board. The color, lettering, and content would be consistent for all land use actions. The City would be responsible for painting, screening, and installing new signs for each action at an approximate cost of $100 to $200. The boards and posts would be reusable. In addition to Planning staff time, this would require using either an in- house graphics shop or a commercial sign company. Alternative C - 4 ' x 4 ' plywood face generic notice board. The color and generic heading would be the same for all signs. The applicant would deposit $60 with the City and install the sign. Staff would post the laminated notice sheets and a vinyl packet and then refund $45 to the applicant. The $15 non-refundable fee would recover the City's cost of initial sign fabrication. The costs would be shared equitably by the City and the applicant and would require minimal staff time. The generic sign would be reusable and would be prominent and visible to the public. This plan would require the City to store the signs and establish a monetary deposit and refund system. Discussion followed. Ms. Proud suggested a yellow sign to differentiate from Engineering signs and those of other jurisdictions. Chairman Martinez presented the following petition: "The undersigned would like to urge the Planning Commission to adopt the recommendation of staff regarding the Public Notice Boards for rezoning and land development. " Signed by Leona Orr, Kathy Myers, Al Silva, Kevin Platt, Jim Flick, Jim Orr, Jeff Merganthol, Jacqueline D. Silva and Laurie Sundsted. 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 1989 Commissioner Ward MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Forner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Forner MOVED to accept the proposed Alternative C as presented by staff. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Forner commended staff for providing a much-improved notification plan for the public. Chairman Martinez emphasized that the timing rules and expectations of the applicant must be clearly stated at the beginning of the process so that the applicant would not experience delays in meetings resulting from inadequate posting of notices. Discussion continued regarding the time requirement for installation of signs. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner MOVED that the motion be amended to add that notice boards must be installed 14 days prior to the hearing date so that the public notice can be posted ten days prior to the hearing date. Commissioner Stoner SECONDED the amendment. Motion carried unanimously. CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT Chairman Martinez presented Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner a Certificate of Appointment to Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Forner MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 4ames . Harris; Secretary 4 Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1989 not occur in the same degree in uses where a previously treated meat or seafood product is processed and packaged. The Planning staff offered the following options for review and consideration: Alternative A: Allow as Principally, Permitted Use. Under this alternative, meat and seafood products processing (without rendering) , packaging and freezing would be a principally permitted use in the M2 and M3 zones. Activities involving slaughtering, rendering, and curing would remain as conditional uses in the M3 zone. Alternative B: Allow as a Conditional Use. Under this alternative, meat and seafood products processing, packaging and freezing would be added as a conditional use in the M2 zone. Alternative C: No action. Under this alternative, meat and seafood products packaging, freezing, curing, canning, processing, rendering and slaughtering activities would not be allowed in the M2 zone and would be conditional uses in the M3 zone. Glen Laney, Architect, Food Plant Engineering, Inc. , 1710 South 24th Avenue, Yakima, WA 98902, representing his client, Harvey Baer of King's Command Meats, Inc. , commented that the request was not for processing in the usual sense, but for the preparation of the meat only. Commissioner Greenstreet asked if he would be willing to obtain a conditional use permit for this activity. Mr. Laney had no objection to the conditional use permit requirement if an appeal process were available. Mr. Satterstrom commented that he did not feel that a conditional use permit should be necessary for this type of use. Commissioner Greenstreet MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Ward MOVED to amend the zoning code to allow meat and seafood products processing, packaging and freezing as a principally permitted use in the M2 zone. Commissioner Forner SECONDED the motion. 2 Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1989 Commissioner Forner felt that this use would be compatible with other uses in the area, and a conditional use permit would create unnecessary paperwork. Commissioner Greenstreet did not feel that food processing should be permitted outright in the M2 zone, because it may not be suitable at every M2 site and the trucking and other support activities of this use also would not be compatible with other uses in the M2 zone. He did feel that this use would be suitable as a conditional use in this zone and that this use was suitable outright as an M3 use. He supported Alternative B. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner did not foresee any problems in this specific case but considering future requests, she supported Alternative B. Commissioner Ward felt that the conditional use permit process would be an expensive and unneeded one for food and seafood processing. He supported the staff's Alternative A. Commissioner Forner felt that food and seafood processing would be more desirable than a dry cleaning operation in the M2 zone. She supported Alternative A. Chair Martinez felt that food processing would be compatible with other uses in the area as long as slaughtering and rendering were not part of the operation. She supported Alternative A. Motion carried. (Commissioners Uhlar-Heffner and Greenstreet opposed the motion. ) Ms. McClung pointed out that the staff recommendation was to allow food processing in both the M2 and M3 zones. Commissioner Ward reworded the motion to state that meat and seafood products processing, packaging and freezing be a principally permitted use in the M2 and M3 zones according to staff Recommendation A. Commissioner Forner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. (Commissioners Uhlar-Heffner and Greenstreet opposed the motion. ) DOWNTOWN KENT PLAN - Continued (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) Chair Martinez opened the public hearing. Mayor Kelleher suggested that the manufacturing businesses be allowed to continue to operate in the downtown area as they have been able to do for many years. 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1989 Dick McCann, attorney with Perkins Coie, 1201 Third Avenue, Seattle, referred to a letter dated March 22, 1989 in which the history of the Downtown Kent Plan hearings was reviewed. He pointed out that the hearings began with two opposing positions and ended nine months later with a compromise. He felt the overlay would be inappropriate for this type of zoning. Jerry Hann, Wilsey and Ham, Pacific 1980 112th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98009, stated that even though overlays are often used, they can be confusing and lead to much argument and debate, particularly when conflicting issues are involved in the overlay. If approved, this overlay would require frequent interpretation. Redevelopment of the downtown area is dependent on its economic vitality. Amenities and living improvements must be supported by the economic vitality. There have been many beautification grants that have torn down blighted areas, and these areas have turned into vacant blighted areas. Everett recently amended its comprehensive plan to add about 200 acres of manufacturing east of the downtown area. He pointed out that in Vancouver B. C. False Creek and Granville Island have a vital retail center. In order to get to this retail center from a very expensive hotel, it is necessary to walk past a rock crushing and processing plant. This is an example of a very heavy industry that is working compatibly with a successful retail center. Manufacturing uses can encourage carpooling, swing shifts, flex-shift times, and remote park-and-shuttle systems which can help significantly in reducing the traffic in the area. An office complex couldn't organize sufficiently to have a significant impact on the traffic situation. Chair Martinez asked what kind of manufacturing uses were compatible with a retail area. Mr. Hanna responded that real compatibility comes with economic compatibility. If you have two uses that are not visually compatible, because they feed on each other economically, they can create a mix that is vital. It isn't the street trees and beautification that makes the downtown vital; it is the feeling of the community that this is the heart of the city. When this occurs, beautification is not difficult to achieve. He felt that the comprehensive plan should set the goals of what the Commission wants to achieve, but the Commission should not try to determine how these goals will be implemented. The Commission cannot accomplish everything, because it takes the cooperation of both the private sector and the public sector. Charles Howard, President of Howard Manufacturing Company, 421 Sixth Avenue North, Kent, submitted a letter dated March 24, 1989 (Exhibit 1) to Chair Martinez and the Commissioners as a response to Chair Martinez ' request of February 27, 1989 that the 4 Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1989 manufacturers state in writing their commitment regarding the implementation of the Kent Downtown Plan. The monetary contribution of Howard Manufacturing, Northwest Metals and Borden Chemical was included with details of combined payroll figures and numbers of employees in all three plants, their collective participation and support of civic, charitable and government committees and organizations, and Kent Chamber of Commerce. The following is quoted from the letter: "Our participation throughout this long planning process demonstrates, we hope, our commitment to the revitalization of Downtown Kent. More specifically, Northwest Metal, for several years, has been engaged in continuously upgrading its property. It has refurbished the exterior of its plant, painted, blacktopped, landscaped, and generally enhanced the appearance of its facilities. Recently, it has also rerouted truck delivery traffic to keep congestion off Fourth Avenue in front of its plant. Northwest Metal is committed to continue to upgrade and maintain its plant and to comply with the spirit and letter of the amendments to the Downtown Kent Comprehensive Plan. Frankly, we believe that the Northwest Metal plant is one of the most attractive facilities in Downtown Kent. Howard Manufacturing also has taken steps to enhance its appearance. The fencing and landscaping along James Street is a big improvement. In addition, Howard Manufacturing has removed the sticks of wood pallets and otherwise generally cleaned up its yard. It also has recently installed a gas pipeline which will eliminate offensive smoke stack emissions and improve the quality of air. Although grandfathered under the law, it also has agreed to remove the Howard Manufacturing sign on top of its plant in the spirit of cooperating with the final adoption of the amendment to th Downtown Kent Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Land Use Plan Ma . Howard Manufacturing also is prepared to discuss and im lement other reasonable ways of improving the appearance of its pl nt. Bo den also has taken steps to begin to improve its visual ap earance to the community. It has recently cut and is now ma'ntaining the open space adjacent to its plant. Of the 18 acres ow ed or leased by Borden, only six acres are actually used for its pl nt. This leaves 12 acres to buffer the plant facilities, for which extensive landscaping plans are under way. Borden is ready an willing to take other reasonable steps to enhance its ap earance to the community. " 5 I Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1989 This letter was signed by William Kramer of Borden Company, Charles Howard of Howard Manufacturing Company, and Barry Miller of Northwest Metal Products Company. Commissioner Greenstreet asked if Mr. Howard liked the overlay. Mr. Howard responded "No, he did not. " Bill Kramer presented a preliminary landscaping plan which depicted the entire Borden site showing the location of structures and proposed landscaping. He pointed out that Fourth Avenue is the busiest frontage; consequently, it would receive the heaviest landscaping treatment. First Avenue would receive lighter treatment. The plan included green grass, trails through the site and numerous trees. He pointed out that the landscaping would not hide the plant but would contrast it. There would be other visual treatment used to make the site more attractive. He pointed out that the company would not make this type of commitment unless it felt Borden would be able to continue operation at this site. Jack Strother, Attorney with Graham and Dunn, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, representing Howard Manufacturing, Northwest Metal and Borden Chemical, admitted Exhibit 1, dated March 24, 1989, into the record and noted that his March 22, 1989 letter should be admitted as Exhibit 2. He pointed out the original division of philosophy with respect to the manufacturers' role and contrasted this with the strong consensus at this point, 10 months later. During this time the Chamber Task Force, Chamber Government Committee and the Chamber Board of Directors all unanimously adopted a plan substantially the same as the one unanimously adopted by the Planning Commission. The manufacturers support the staff recommended Downtown Land Use Plan Map. He opposed the overlay stating it was inconsistent with Policy 1 and would create confusion and uncertainty. Under Goal 5 the land use goals would be reviewed as appropriate, but not less than every five years. He felt this was adequate. He emphasized that the three manufacturers are committed to the City of Kent to do whatever they can, and this should start with economic vitality. Bill Stewart, 224 West Meeker, owner of Stewart's Jewelry and the property at this location, felt uncomfortable about the proposed overlay. He felt it would put a cloud on a piece of property in the years to come. Commissioner Greenstreet expressed concern that the downtown area should appear vital and affluent. He hoped the manufacturers would live up to their commitment. 6 Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1989 Dee Moschel, 448 Alpine Way, and owner of property in the downtown area, stated that she would like to see Area A (Metro Park and Ride) be retained as a Community Facility rather than be designated as Mixed Use. Commissioner Ward MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Forner MOVED that the Commission adopt the Land Use Goals and Policies as presented and previously approved. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner pointed out the following implementation statement: "Review this document as appropriate (at least every five years. ) " She amended the MOTION to reword this implementation statement as follows: "Review this document at least every five years. Certain sections of this document may be reviewed every year or at the discretion of the Planning Commission. " She expressed particular concern regarding transportation. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Forner supported the original wording because she felt the Commission has the authority to ask for a review as appropriate. She considered the amendment to be redundant and felt the updates would be counterproductive if they were provided at a time when the Commission was not considering that specific update issue. Commissioner Ward agreed with the intent of the amendment but felt that reviewing the implementation annually would be unnecessary. Commissioner Greenstreet was concerned about the general appearance of the manufacturing area and agreed that an annual update would be appropriate. Chair Martinez presented Commissioner Stoner's concerns regarding the review process which included listing specific concerns and periodically obtaining a detailed progress report regarding these concerns. She was hopeful that the downtown uses would be compatible, and she also expressed concern about transportation. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner felt that implementation follow up was very important. Mr. Satterstrom presented the following statements suggested by Commissioner Stoner: "The Planning Department shall work with existing manufacturers and other groups to promote the compatibility of existing manufacturing uses with other 7 Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1989 non-industrial uses. The Planning Department shall prepare an annual report to the Planning Commission on the progress of such efforts. " Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner concurred with this statement but wished to have the issue of transportation included. Chair Martinez felt that an annual update was a reasonable request. Discussion followed. Commissioner Ward felt that if the Commission wants to maintain manufacturing as a viable member of the downtown area, manufacturers should not be required to report each year on their compliance with the plan. Commissioner Greenstreet explained that he desires to have a healthy and vibrant downtown. New businesses might not wish to locate next to manufacturing uses. He agreed that the plan should be reviewed each year. Discussion followed. The amended motion was repeated: Review this document at least every five years. Certain sections of this document may be reviewed every year or at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Motion carried. (Commissioners Forner and Ward opposed the motion. ) The original motion was repeated: The Planning Commission adopt the Land Use Goals and Policies as presented and amended. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Forner MOVED that the Commission adopt the Staff Proposed Downtown Land Use Map. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner supported the motion and felt that the annual review could accommodate change. 8 Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet supported the motion but moved to amend the map to designate the Park and Ride Lot as Community Facility rather than Mixed Use. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner SECONDED the motion. Mr. Satterstrom responded that as long as the site remains a park and ride lot, the zoning is unimportant. If the use should change, the existing M2 zoning would prevail if the zoning were changed to Community Facility. If Mixed Use designation is adopted, the property might be designated as commercial. Commissioner Greenstreet rescinded the amendment. The previous motion to adopt the Staff Proposed Downtown Land Use Map as presented was carried unanimously. Chair Martinez asked for a commendation to go to Council detailing how much work has come from the community and commending the community for that participation. She noted that this issue started with two opposing sides and has ended with a compromise which the Commission strongly recommends to Council. She emphasized that the Commission would be reviewing their decisions on an annual basis, and that they care very much about the downtown area and how it develops. She thanked those who had persevered for ten arduous months. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, F ed N. Satterstrom Acting Planning Director 9 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 19, 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7:30 p.m. Monday, June 19, 1989 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Anne Biteman Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Carol Stoner Raymond Ward Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager Carol Proud, Planner Ken Astrein, Planner Stephen Clifton, Planner Lauri Anderson, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 27 , 1989 Commissioner Ward MOVED that the minutes of the March 27, 1989 Planning Commission meeting be approved as printed. Commissioner Forner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chairman Martinez asked for a member to join her at a meeting in Tukwila City Hall on June 29 at 7 p.m. regarding the regional transportation plan and development strategy which is being developed by the Puget Sound Council of Governments. PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS AMENDED Chairman Martinez presented the current requirement that five Planning Commission members must be present at a meeting in order to constitute a quorum. She suggested that a majority of the members appointed and seated on the Commission would be a more workable requirement. Commissioner Forner MOVED that the bylaws be changed to state that the majority of the members who are appointed and seated on the Commission must be present to constitute a quorum. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Discussion followed. Kent Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 1989 Commissioner Forner MOVED that the amendment to the bylaws be reworded to state that the Commission could function with a majority of members present based on the actual number of appointed members, but a minimum of three commissioners must be in attendance to constitute a quorum. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. EAST VALLEY ZONING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CPA 88-3 Ken Astrein presented the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the East Valley Zoning Implementation. This is a written statement acknowledging the facts presented during the public hearings and stating the Conclusions drawn by the Commission, including the Commission's recommendations to Council. For the East Valley Zoning Implementation the City Council authorized the Planning Commission, rather than the Hearing Examiner, to conduct the hearings and make recommendations. The procedure was stated in Ordinance 2809 passed in October 1988 . This ordinance required the Commission to receive and examine available information, conduct public hearings, prepare a record, and enter findings of fact and conclusions based upon those facts together with a recommendation to the City Council. This is the format normally used by the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Stoner MOVED to adopt the findings and conclusions presented by the Planning staff. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the public meeting be closed. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. PUBLIC NOTICE BOARDS--ZCA 89-2 Chairman Martinez opened the public hearing. Carol Proud presented the Council 's request to research options for providing on-site posting of public notices which would be more visible to the community and less subject to vandalism than the present system. Council members also expressed a desire to increase the awareness of citizens regarding proposed land use actions without overburdening City staff or the development community. Kent land use codes require the posting of public notices for rezones, conditional use permits, variances, subdivisions, shoreline permits and planned unit developments. Currently the notice must be posted in three conspicuous places on or adjacent to the subject property at least ten days prior to the date of the 2