Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 04/25/1988 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 25, 1988 The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Badger at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, April 25, 1988, in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT; Robert Badger, Chairman Linda Martinez, Vice Chairwoman Anne Biteman Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Nancy Rudy Carol Stoner Raymond Ward PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Senior Planner Carol Proud, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT Chairman Badger presented to Commissioner Forner the Certificate of Appointment to the Planning Commission. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 29, 1988 Commissioner Martinez MOVED and Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion to approve the minutes of the February 29, 1988 Planning Commission public hearing as printed. Motion carried. PLANNING DEPARTMENT AWARD FOR STUDY ON 20 PERCENT REDUCTION The Kent Planning Department has received a merit award from the Washington Chapter of the American Planning Association and the Planning Association of Washington for the study recently completed on the multifamily reduction issue. Chairman Badger opened the public hearing. 1 Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1988 EAST VALLEY STUDY: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE VALLEY FLOOR PLAN MAP Mr. Satterstrom presented the six amendments to the Valley Floor Plan Map. The East Valley study area contains approximately 1,950 acres, or three square miles. The boundaries of the area include the Union Pacific Railroad tracks on the west, South 180th on the north, the Kent city limits on the east, and S.R. 167 and South 228th Street on the south. The valley lowland is designated for industrial land use. There are two classifications for these uses, M2 and M3. East of SR 167 the slopes of East Hill are designated Residential Agricultural. Staff believes that the RA designation does little to guide future land use decisions in this area. The Planning Department recommends the following six amendments to the Valley Floor Plan. 1. Reduction of Industrial Designation The area indicated in Amendment Area #1 is currently designated Industrial. The staff recommends that this area be amended to indicate an Industrial Park designation. This change would better conform to existing zoning since the boundary between M2 and M3 zoning is the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. This change would also have the effect of containing the heaviest industrial uses to that area between the UP and BN railroad tracks north of South 212th Street. 2. Commercial Designation at South 180th/East Valley Highway The area indicated in Amendment Area #2 is currently designated for industrial purposes. However, the current land use pattern as well as the existing zoning in the area is commercial. The Planning Department recommends that this area be changed to indicate a Commercial designation on the Valley Floor Plan map. The proposed boundaries of the Commercial designation correspond to the limits of existing General Commercial zoning in this area. 3 . Commercial Corridor Along South East Valley Highway The area indicated in Amendment Area #3 is currently designated Industrial Park on the Valley Floor Plan map. This industrial designation exists despite the fact that the south part of this amendment area is currently zoned for commercial use (GC) . The Planning Department recommends that this area be changed to indicate a commercial designation on the Valley Floor Plan map. As discussed in the East Valley Study, this change would better respond to development pressures in the area while serving to provide an improved visual quality to the south end of the East Valley corridor. 2 Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1988 As a comprehensive plan amendment, the precise depth of the Commercial designation is not specified at this time. It is anticipated that a zoning implementation effort will be commenced following the adoption of these plan amendments, and the depth of the commercial designation will be defined through this process. 4. Office Designation East of SR 167 Between 208th/212th Street The area indicated in Amendment Area #4 is currently designated Residential Agricultural on the Valley Floor Plan map. However, the site was rezoned several years ago for a mobile home park. The site has been graded and is generally flat except along its eastern boundary. The Planning Department recommends that this area be changed to indicate an Office designation on the Valley Floor Plan map. As discussed in the East Valley Study, this change would be consistent with plan policies while maintaining compatibility with low-density use in the vicinity. 5. Single-family Designation East of SR 167. The area indicated in Amendment Area #5 is currently designated Residential Agricultural on the Valley Floor Plan map. The Planning Department recommends that this area (which consists of two parts, as shown on Map 3) be changed to indicate Single Family Residential designation on the plan map. This change would be consistent with current land use patterns and zoning in the area. Further, it removes the "holding zone" connotation of the current RA designation. 6. Multifamily Residential Designation East of SR 167 The area indicated in Amendment Area #6 is currently designated Residential on the Valley Floor Plan map. The Planning Department recommends that this area be changed to indicate a Multifamily Residential designation on the plan map. Approximately half of this area is presently zoned for multifamily residential, with the other half zoned for single-family residential. Single-family use generally is not compatible with the industrial and commercial manufacturing uses in the vicinity. Even multifamiliy residential use will require protection from adverse impacts of industrial use. Lawrence Campbell, Architect, asked for clarification of the terms "Industrial Park" and "Industry". He suggested that the Planning Department note the difference between the area on the hill above the toe of the slope and the valley area. He felt the land east of the freeway is not suitable or marketable for single family dwellings. He felt there is enough difference between the character of this area and the area further up on the hill that it would not fit into the single family designation. 3 Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1988 Harold James, owner of a six-acre parcel south of 212th and east of the Valley Freeway Project and the wetlands area, feels that a Garden Density Multifamily Residential designation would be appropriate for this area. He did not feel that traffic would be much greater with this designation than with the Single Family Residential designation. Gary Young, Polygon Corporation, 4020 Lake Washington Boulevard NE, Suite 201, Kirkland, Washington 98003, stated that Polygon Corporation is presently planning the development of the Valley Freeway Property identified as Area #4 . He submitted a letter dated April 25, 1988 to the Commission and for the record. He verbalized support of the staff recommendation relating to their property. He felt that either office or commercial use would be suitable for this property. A professional noise evaluation indicated the property is unsuitable for residential development but suitable for office or commercial use. The Valley Freeway off- and on-ramps intersect with South 212th at the edge of this property. A new street into this potential development could be constructed at this intersection. He pointed out that there is a shortage of land designated for commercial and office use that is located near a freeway interchange. He concluded by stating that the development of the Valley Freeway Property should meet the needs of the community and the market place. If it is found at a later time that there is significant commercial need for this property, they would like to present this request to the Planning Commission at that time. Commissioner Rudy asked if the adjacent property would have the same noise problem. Mr. Young responded that the adjacent area had not been analyzed, and he did not know if there would be a reflection of noise. The decibel level on the Valley Freeway Property was found to be approximately 70 DBA. Commissioner Stoner asked how the cemetery would be buffered from this development. Mr. Young felt that the trees and rockery would have a buffering effect on the cemetery area. Commissioner Stoner asked if there would be consideration for providing parking for those who wish to visit the cemetery. Mr. Young responded that the entry street would be on a public street and that people would be able to park on the street and in the parking area of the development for short-term visits. The proposed development would most likely be two or three stories high. He pointed out that the cemetery is located at a higher elevation. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the term "Industrial Park" corresponded roughly to M2, and that the term "Industrial" corresponded roughly to M3 . He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan does not affect the exact zoning boundaries. 4 Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1988 Commissioner Rudy asked why the long narrow strip along the freeway was designated as Single Family Residential. Mr. Satterstrom responded that the strip is currently designated Residential Agricultural. Staff believes now is the time to give it a more permanent designation. There are residential areas adjacent to 405 and I-5 which were developed after the freeways were built. The strip is adjacent to a single family area higher on the hill, Evergreen Hills Plat. If the land were flatter, not adjacent to single family, and did not have environmental constraints, a higher land use designation might have been appropriate. Mr. Badger and Commissioner Forner asked about the possibility of the light being synchronized at the Valley Freeway Property site. Mr. Morris responded that the light is controlled by the State, not by the City of Kent, and is located in a limited access area. In order for adjacent property to obtain access to this intersection, it would be necessary to go through both the State and the City to obtain an access permit at the signalized area. He realized that there had been accidents at this location. Part of the cause of the backup could be the timing of the signal, but he felt he could work with the State regarding this matter. He did not forsee a significant capacity problem. Commissioner Forner expressed concern about emergency vehicles reaching this area. Mr. Morris felt that the Valley Freeway could be used easily in the afternoon. Chairman Badger wondered if there would be sufficient landscaping on the site to take care of the visual problems of a two or three-story building. Mr. Satterstrom responded that there would be natural vegetation with woods wrapped partially around the site. Trees along 208th would help to screen the development from the roadway. Commissioner Biteman asked whether this area would be used strictly for offices or if commercial use would be part of this development. Mr. Satterstrom explained that office designation is proposed, but office zoning allows be up to 50 percent commercial uses with a conditional use permit. Commercial zoning would allow more flexibility, but staff did not propose commercial because of its incompatibility with the residential area. Commissioner Ward asked if staff would reconsider the designation. He expressed concern about buffering. Mr. Satterstrom responded staff believes the site proposed for office is flatter, more accessible and is already graded and ready for development. Also, office zoning would be compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Ward felt that this site was not removed from the industrial area, which is the entire area on the opposite side of the freeway. 5 Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1988 Commissioner Biteman pointed out that much of the West Hill is multifamily and wondered why this area was not the same. Mr. Satterstrom responded that the multifamily designation would not relieve the problems that exist in this area. Along 92nd Avenue there is a view over the valley that would be considered by many as an amenity. Mr. Campbell felt that this area is similar to an M2 zone and wished United Truck Lines could expand into this area. Mr. James stated that there are two slopes and that his rezone proposal included slopes no greater than approximately 16 per cent. He felt he could get a viable garden density development without touching the slopes. Chairman Badger responded that the proposed PUD ordinance is again under consideration and that this proposed ordinance could grant density credit for the slopes. Commissioner Rudy asked Mr. James if another entry into the area had been considered. He responded that this had been considered and that it is impossible because the hill that separates the property is wet and very steep. Commissioner Stoner MOVED and Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Rudy MOVED that Number 1 Reduction of Industrial designation be approved as recommended by staff. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Stoner MOVED that Number 2 Commercial designation at South 180th/EV Highway be approved as recommended by staff. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Ward moved that Number 3 Commercial corridor along south East Valley Highway be approved as recommended by staff. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Martinez expressed concern about the breadth and depth of the area. Chairman Badger explained that the precise lines are defined when the area is zoned. Mr. Harris added that generalized lines are intentional when dealing with the Comprehensive Plan, but are defined when the zoning is determined. 6 Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1988 Commissioner Rudy MOVED that Number 4 Office designation east of SR 167 between 208thf212th Streets be approved as recommended by staff. Commissioner Stoner SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Greenstreet suggested that numbers 4, 5 and 6 be studied more carefully before making a decision. Commissioner Stoner pointed out that the Number 4 site is a bare site that is isolated from the area around it. She did not envision it as a single family residential site. She did not feel that this site would be suitable for multifamily use because of the freeway and lack of buffering. She did not see any other appropriate use for the property. Commissioner Forner was concerned about the traffic generated. Discussion followed regarding the turning lanes. Commissioner Greenstreet felt that office buildings at that site seemed to be natural but felt that these would impact the residents in the area. He suggested extra time to consider the situation. Commissioner Stoner asked what King County had planned for the land east of the single family area. Mr. Satterstrom responded that low-density single family is planned. Commissioner Ward suggested that the motion be amended in order to further study Numbers 4, 5 and 6. There was no second to that suggestion. Chairman Badger called for the vote: five voted for the motion and three against the motion. (Commissioners Biteman, Greenstreet and Ward) . Motion carried. Commissioner Stoner MOVED that Number 5 Single-family designation east of SR 167 be approved as recommended by staff. No second was made. Commissioner Ward MOVED that Numbers 5 and 6 be set aside for further study. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Forner asked for additional rationale regarding the Rl designation. Mr. Harris responded that this additional information would be presented at the next Planning Commission public hearing. Commissioner Rudy was concerned about the single family designation acting as a holding designation so the zoning could be changed at a later time. Commissioner Stoner amended the motion to read Numbers 5 and 6 be set aside for the next public hearing (May) . Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the amendment. Amended motion carried unanimously. EAST VALLEY STUDY; PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE KENT ZONING ORDINANCE The public hearing was opened by Chairman Badger. 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 25, 1988 Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the ordinance text be continued to the next public hearing in May. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT The public hearing was opened by Chairman Badger. Commissioner Rudy MOVED that the Central Business District be continued to the next public hearing in May. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Forner asked if she could share at a future time the process Everett used to acquire rights of way for the future transit system. Commissioner Ward suggested that the Planning Commission write a letter to City Council regarding the 20 percent reduction. Discussion followed. Commissioner Badger stated that he would write a letter and have it ready for all the commissioners to sign. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Ward MOVED and Commissioner Rudy SECONDED a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. e;PfTarlrig, ully submitted, Jam s Secretary 8