Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 03/25/1991 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 25, 1991 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Faust at 7:30 p.m. March 25, 1991 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Faust, Chair Linda Martinez, Vice Chair Gwen Dahle Albert Haylor Edward Heineman, Jr. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS EXCUSED: Christopher Grant PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Greenstreet Raymond Ward PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Lauri Anderson, Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill, Planner Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 25, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the minutes of the February 25, 1991 meeting be approved as presented. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. AMENDMENT OF BY-LAWS Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the by-laws be amended to change the meeting time for workshops and public hearings from 7 : 30 p.m. to 7: 00 p.m. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT Chair Faust presented a Certificate of Appointment to Commissioner Haylor. Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 KENT DOWNTOWN PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM - ZCA 90-6 (Verbatim Minutes) Chair Faust: And now we' ll begin the public hearing. Is there a staff presentation? James Harris: Yes there is and Lauri Anderson will kick this part of the meeting off. Chair Faust: Thank you. Lauri Anderson: Good evening. I 'm Lauri Anderson with the Planning Department and I ' ll be giving part of this evening's staff part of the presentation. Kevin O'Neill will also be speaking, another Planner in the Planning Department. Tonight, in the interest of giving people plenty of time to testify, we would like to spend about an hour. This is a very complicated report and we've tried to condense as much as we can, but to get this on the record and describe the staff proposal we think will take about an hour if we reduce it as much as possible. So I 'm going to be starting out providing history on the process of this work program, tell you where the Downtown Plan came from and how we set up this work program and then Kevin is going to describe the proposed zoning districts and the zoning map, then both Kevin and I will be talking about the proposed development standards to go with the zoning districts. Before we get started, I want to make sure you all have a copy of the green report and also the memo addressed to Tracy Faust and the Planning Commissioners dated the 25th. For those of you in the audience who don't have a copy of those, I believe there are extras up here and it would probably help you follow along. If you'd like to come up and get one, I'd encourage you to do so. I also. . . last week at the workshop, you requested some information on nonconforming developments, so I have that to hand out to you, so why don't I. OK, I think we' ll go ahead and get started. In 1986, a Mayor's Task Force was established to talk about downtown revitalization and make some recommendations and one of the recommendations of that Task Force was that the Downtown Plan, which is part of our Comprehensive Plan in the City of Kent, be updated. That plan had not been updated since 1974 and the Task Force felt that it was time to look again at the goals for the downtown area. So, as a result of that recommendation, the Planning Department developed a proposal and a revised plan was forwarded to the Planning Commission in 1988. OK. The Planning Commission held almost a year's worth of workshops and hearings on that plan. Some of you, I think, were involved in that. And then in March of 189, the Planning Commission unanimously sent the new 2 - Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Plan to the City Council, who passed it in May of that year, so that was May of 1989. The work program that we have in front of us tonight is kind of the second step in the implementation of the Downtown Plan. The Comprehensive Plan sets out the goals, objectives and policies the citizens desire for the future of the City and in this case, the downtown planning area. The zoning changes. . . zoning is actually the legal tool that is used to make the changes or to effect the changes outlined in the Plan and so tonight what we're talking about are changes to the zoning code as opposed to the Comprehensive Plan. But the Plan is really the foundation of this whole thing and I want to go over just the four major elements of the Downtown Plan to tell you where we got a lot of our background information. There are four elements in the Downtown Plan, the land use element, the circulation element, the housing element and the economic element. As you can see, the land use goals and policies contain an overall goal--"Promote the planned use of the Kent downtown area for the present and future needs of the citizens of Kent for living, recreation, working, and shopping and create an environment for future growth and development" . The circulation goals and policies "Provide for safe, efficient and identifiable access to and movement within the planning area by planned routes for pedestrian and vehicular traffic, recognizing the necessity of relating circulation to land-use and associated activities" . The overall goal of the housing element is to "Acknowledge the importance of creating and maintaining sound, viable, attractive residential neighborhoods within and around the planning area" . And the fourth major element is designed to "Promote the economic health and the planned growth and development of downtown Kent. Through joint private/public partnerships, encourage innovative options for downtown development of retail, office, financial and governmental activities while at the same time recognizing the need to support the unique specialty uses in the area" . Now these are the overall goals of the Downtown Plan. Under each of these major headings are a number of objectives and policies and we have again a copy of the Downtown Plan up here at the front for those of you who have not seen it. As I mentioned, this Downtown Plan came about as a result of a whole year of workshops and public input and reading through the goals, objectives and policies, we were given a very clear direction on how we were to proceed with our project. 3 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Along with the elements, there's also a map that is attached and that map outlines where the downtown planning area is. As you can see, it starts on the southern border at Willis Street, moves to the north along James Street, the western border runs along SR 167, the Valley Freeway, and then the eastern border follows Titus Street. OK, on this map are several designations, and you can see they're written here and there's another copy up on the board at the front of the room that you might want to take a look at. The industrial designation, a large area targeted for mixed use, a commercial designation, several community facilities, you may recognize the Senior Center, Kent Commons over here, an office area and then a business park area over here to the southwest. So this really told the Planning Department where certain types of uses were to go and that was the basis for our recommendations for the zoning districts and Kevin will go into that a little bit later. There was another source of input to this process. Another Mayor's Task Force, the Enterprise Zone Committee, was set up last year and that Committee met from January. . .well actually it was appointed in January. . . it met from February through August and they had chosen the downtown planning area as their focus of study. This Committee was looking at ways to revitalize downtown and they came up with recommendations in five different areas: development incentives, mitigation, land use, transportation and staffing. Of particular note are their recommendations related to building height, mixed use, senior housing and the performing arts center, and treatment of the industrial areas. The Enterprise Zone recommendations are outlined a little bit in the Plan and that report, I think, was handed out to you earlier for your reference. Committee members included Jerry Prouty, who represented the Chamber of Commerce, Bill Stewart, Dee Moschel, Don Bogard, Tracy Faust was on that Committee, Jack Cosby, Councilmember Leona Orr and Gary Volchuk, just to give you an idea of those Committee members. They had some very specific recommendations and I would like to read just six of them for you. They wanted the City to place the senior housing downtown. They wanted to encourage the performing or cultural arts center to locate downtown. They wanted to encourage residential development near the downtown, encourage mixed use development in the downtown, expand uses permitted in the M-2 or industrial zoning district and develop mid-block pedestrian connectors. Those were the recommendations that came to us as the Planning Department and which we have tried to implement through our recommendations of this zoning program. There were two broad themes that really stood out when looking at the Plan and when looking at the Enterprise Zone Committee recommendations. One was to amend the current zoning code to provide for mixed use. Mixed use, in zoning terms, is an area 4 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 where commercial and office and residential, sometimes industrial uses, can all kind of live together. What it does is to create a very vibrant community. People live where they work and shop, that kind of thing. Another theme was to amend the current development standards, particularly to address pedestrian orientation. That came through again and again. To look at density, site design and parking. The Planning Department also gathered a whole bunch of other information and again that's outlined in the report, so I won't spend time on it, but we looked at existing land uses, existing mixed uses, street level land use patterns, the orientation of buildings on the lots, the orientation of parking on the lots, parking patterns and existing landscaping and some of the maps in that report show you where the lot lines are--what size the current parcels are, where the buildings sit relative to the street and to each other. So that's helpful information when you're trying to come up with a zoning program. Another major component of our work program was public participation and I want to go through some of the steps that we took to make sure the public was notified and involved because we did want to address the comments and concerns of property owners and tenants in the downtown planning area. On August 2, we held a public kickoff meeting--this was last August 2. We mailed out flyers. Public notices and press releases were sent out. We hand delivered flyers to the downtown Merchants' Association through their president and to members of the Enterprise Zone Committee, the people whose recommendations had come to us. We also mailed flyers to the Kent Downtown Association members. The Kent Downtown Association is a division of the Kent Chamber of Commerce and they provided us with a list of persons we should mail the information to, which we did. On October 25, that was a few months later when we were farther along, we'd come up with alternatives for the zoning proposal. We held a public open house. Again that public open house was advertised and the mailing, both to the people who had come to the first meeting and those KDA members, was sent out. We discussed the process of the Downtown Plan and the progress of it at four separate meetings with the Kent Downtown Association. We took our (unclear) , we had a whole series of them, to that group and let them give us their feedback. We also went to two meetings of the Kent Merchants' Association to get some feedback from them. The zoning alternatives and proposed development standards were presented for their comment and that comment was helpful. In addition, another target group, one that had been very concerned when the original Downtown Plan came through, was specially contacted, and that was the three primary manufacturers in the downtown industrial area. Their comments were solicited. We met with them on a couple of occasions to get some feedback. On 5 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 November 15 at the Town Hall meeting, we had a display of the downtown alternatives with the opportunity for members who were attending the Town Hall to comment on that. On February 5, we went to the KDA Board of Directors meeting and told them that the City report was out, that our recommendation on the downtown zoning was ready for review, and that the workshops in front of the Planning Commission were coming up. And then we presented that information to the Chamber of Commerce's City Governance Committee in March. . .March 13 . In terms of other general public notification which is done for all hearings, we mailed out notices to the property owners and the tenants. There were about 1300 people who were notified, both in the planning area and surrounding the planning area to let them know that this hearing was coming up. And then the workshops all were advertised as well that the Planning Commission has held. So we think we tried to get as much feedback as we could and that feedback was certainly taken into consideration. In fact, some of the changes that are in front of you tonight were as a result of public participation in the process. So with that, I 'm going to turn it over to Kevin and he's going to talk about the zoning districts and proposed permitted uses and then we' ll be splitting up the development standards that I mentioned earlier. Thank you. Kevin O'Neill: Thank you. My name is Kevin O'Neill. I'm a Planner in the Kent Planning Department and I 'm one of the staff people that worked on preparing the report. What I 'm going to be speaking to is the staffs recommendation as noted in this memo dated March 25. I 'm also going to be referencing material in the staff report, which hopefully all the members of the audience have. So getting right into the staff recommendations, the first thing I 'd like to talk about is our proposed zoning map and the background on that is outlined on pages 13 through 16 of the green staff report, which again, hopefully you all have. First of all, just in terms of some background, this is the existing zoning in the downtown planning area. And again, up on the board there, that top map, or rather the middle map, shows the same thing. There are currently nine zoning districts in the downtown area and as you can see they cover a wide variety of uses. There's a Downtown Commercial 1 zone in this core area of the downtown; a Downtown Commercial 2 zone; M2, which is a limited manufacturing zone which permits a broad range of manufacturing activities; CM zone, which is Commercial Manufacturing; General Commercial, which is a large area on the eastern part of the downtown; two Multifamily Residential zones--a Medium Density one and a High Density one; a very small Office zone which incorporates only one block in the downtown area; and a Single Family Residential zone up here. R17 .2 6 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 refers to the minimum lot size as being 7200 square feet, but this permits only single family development. Our proposed zoning reduces the number of zoning districts in the downtown from nine to five. The existing General Commercial zone here and here along Central Avenue, would remain, as would the Single Family zoning district. So I want to concentrate on the three changes, which would be revised Downtown Commercial zone, which is right here; a Mixed Use zone, which would be a new zoning district which would incorporate a large portion of the downtown on both sides of the tracks; and another new zoning district, which is called Downtown Limited Manufacturing, which would be in this area here and also in this area down here. So what I 'd like to do is briefly go through each one of those three. And what I would refer the members of the Planning Commission to at this time and people in the audience is the March 25 memo, specifically the last seven or eight pages which is titled Exhibit A towards the end of this. What this first page under Exhibit A shows is Downtown Commercial (DC) as we're proposing it would appear in the zoning code if adopted and amended. The Downtown Commercial zone as we're proposing is very similar to the existing DC-1 zoning district. In fact, what you see here is the existing purpose language and permitted uses in that DC-1 zoning district with some revisions that we're recommending. But the foundation of this zoning district, is the existing DC-1 zoning district. The reason for that is because the existing DC-1 zoning district is a very pedestrian oriented zoning district, both with the uses that are permitted and the development standards that are contained in there. So we felt in making our recommendation, that since the existing zoning district in that area met many of the goals and policies in the Plan, that that downtown core district should remain. In terms of purpose language, the only amendments would be again to stress the varied nature of uses in that area and to make specific reference to the Downtown Plan. So what I want to do is just go through some of the changes that would be in place if this was adopted versus the existing regulations. Probably one of the most significant changes, if not the most significant change, is the first thing referenced under Principally Permitted Uses in DC Zone under subsection A there which states "the uses listed below are permitted in the DC zoning district, excepting that in the area designated in Appendix A, the ground level or street level portion of all buildings must be retail or pedestrian-oriented service/repair uses". Appendix A is referenced in page 21 of the green report. It's not in the memorandum. Essentially this is the result of public comments we received at our first public forum back in August with merchants on some of the streets in the downtown core area expressing concerns about certain types of uses that could come in, specifically on the ground floor as vacancies 7 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 occur as a way to try to preserve sort of strips of pedestrian oriented use. As you can see on page 21, this would only refer to certain streets only within the downtown core area of the downtown. It would not apply to the entire DC zone and it would not apply to any of the other recommended zoning districts within the Downtown Plan. Another change that we're recommending in the DC zoning district is that currently multifamily residential uses in this area are permitted only by conditional use permit. Since the Downtown Plan makes a lot of references, Lauri said, to encouraging residential use within the downtown, we're recommending under number 12 there that multifamily residential uses, when established in buildings with commercial or office uses on the ground floor at least, be permitted outright as opposed to having to go through the conditional use procedure. We're also recommending that senior citizen housing, which was a recommendation that came out of both the Enterprise Zone Committee and as a policy referenced in the Downtown Plan document itself, be permitted outright in that zoning district. So essentially, those would be the only changes, what we're recommending in the DC areas opposed to DC. . .what's allowed in DC-1 currently. You' ll also note that the principally permitted uses in the DC-2 zone are being recommended to be deleted since we're recommending rezoning that area to Mixed Use. Now I'd like to talk about the Mixed Use zoning district which is noted in the next section of that March 25 memorandum. The Mixed Use zoning district, one of the things that recurred again and again in going through the Plan, as Lauri previously referenced, is encouraging mixed use zoning or mixed use development throughout the Downtown Plan area. There's a specific implementation goal that says "implement a mixed use zoning district in the downtown area" . That whole thought recurs probably more than any other goal and policy in the Plan. So in looking at our recommendation, we actually went a little further than the Downtown Plan map did in the location of this Mixed Use zoning district. As you can see in the Downtown Plan map, this area is currently designated for Mixed Use, but that stops essentially at the Burlington Northern tracks. What we're recommending is a Mixed Use zoning district which goes not only in that area, but also comes over into much of this area that's currently zoned Commercial Manufacturing and General Commercial. That's our recommendation for several reasons. First of all, there's a goal/policy in the Downtown Plan that specifically encourages linkages to the east and western portions of the railroad tracks. Certainly one way to do that is through a common zoning district. Another major impetus to our recommendation is, as you can see under the existing zoning designation in that part of the downtown specifically, there are several different zoning districts which segregate different types 8 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 of uses, this being a Retail Commercial zone, this being an Office zone, these being Multifamily Residential zones. Since the Downtown Plan encourages all of those types of uses in the downtown planning area, it was our recommendation to simply have one zoning district in that area which would allow all of those uses to occur in that area. So those were the essential reasons for our recommendation to have the Mixed Use zoning in this area as well as the area designated in the Plan. Now the purpose language in the Mixed Use zoning district, and I'm emphasizing the purpose language in all of these because I think that's very important in making interpretations down the road in terms of uses that would be permitted in these areas. The purpose language reads "The purpose of this district is to encourage and promote a variety and mixture of compatible retail, commercial, residential, civic, recreational, and service activities in the downtown area, to enhance the pedestrian-oriented character of the downtown, and to implement the goals and policies of the Downtown Plan" . There are several principal uses listed on the next. . .on the rest of the page including retail commercial, personal services, restaurants, food related shops, professional and administrative offices, business and technical schools, business service establishments, multifamily residential uses which would be permitted outright and that includes single use, multifamily projects, banks, hotels, motels, civic uses, and a variety of other things. One recommendation we're making to encourage Mixed Use development is shown in subsection (A) there, that uses listed 1 through 6 would be permitted outright only if located in Mixed Use development which either contains two or more of those uses or if combined with multifamily residential use or if combined with one of the other uses referenced in 8 through 13 there. We also have in 14 the specific reference to permitting mixed uses if the non- residential uses are consistent with uses listed in this section of the Code. So that would again let the Planning Director do interpretations on allowing other uses which may not be specifically listed in here. So again that's an approach we haven't used in other zoning districts, but we felt that since the Plan makes so much emphasis on encouraging mixed uses, this would be one mechanism for doing that. The only other things I want to point out related to the Mixed Use or recommended Mixed Use zoning district is that under conditional uses, drive-through restaurants and businesses would be permitted, but they would be permitted with conditional use permit only. It was felt that in trying to create pedestrian-oriented downtown area, and we' ll be getting into that more when we get into the development standards, drive-through businesses particularly such as restaurants, for instance, with curb cuts and lots of traffic going through, really detract from the pedestrian nature of the 9 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 downtown area. So they would be permitted, but they would have to go through a conditional use process where they would be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. Our third new zoning district would be a Downtown Limited Manufacturing zoning district. In going through again the Downtown Plan, the Plan designates this area here as industrial and this area here as business park, however in the business park area, what the plan map explains in that area is that it would include limited industrial uses with office and commercial uses also permitted. The Downtown Plan goals and policies also make reference to existing manufacturing uses in that area being a vital part of the downtown. So since that area is designated as industrial, we felt it was very important to have an industrial zoning district in that area. However, it was also our feeling that since this is also the Downtown Plan and since the Downtown Plan goals and policies don't anywhere else encourage additional manufacturing uses to locate, that perhaps a new zoning district should come into place which would permit uses which may be more compatible with the other uses in the downtown planning area since the existing M2 zoning allows a broad range of industrial uses. Also the Enterprise Zone report which Lauri made reference to had a specific recommendation in terms of allowing more uses into that area which is currently zoned M2 . So that was another major impetus to this recommended zoning change. The proposed purpose language would be "It is the purpose of this zoning district to provide for light industrial land uses which may coexist with retail, business, residential and service land uses in the downtown area. This district is intended to provide areas for those light manufacturing activities that desire to conduct business in proximity to a variety of land uses such as is possible only in the downtown community". Among the principally permitted uses in this zoning district would be retail uses intended primarily to serve the needs of the manufacturing areas and this is actually currently permitted in the M2 zoning district, a reference specifically to light manufacturing, assembly and packaging uses which generate low levels of noise, dust, vibration, truck traffic, or odors. I'd like to draw your attention to number 3 and also to number 10, the portion which is crossed out. As referenced previously, there are three major manufacturing uses located in that area which the Downtown Plan makes specific reference to recognizing that those are a vital part of the planning area. Therefore, it was the intent of staff in that original language in number 10 which reads "Existing manufacturing uses located in this district as of" whatever date the ordinance is passed, would be permitted in this zoning district. However, the intent of that language was also that new heavy manufacturing uses would not be permitted. So it would make the distinction. In meeting with the manufacturers and their attorney, they brought up some concern with this language that we had recommended. We asked 10 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 our City Attorney and she concurred that the language that we had recommended was ambiguous and was not language that would probably hold up if challenged. So what we're recommending in number 3 and I' ll read it, is "Establishments engaged in the manufacture, processing, assembly and sale of contract construction and home improvement products, such as wood panels and flooring, cabinetry, heating ducts, adhesives, ceramic tiles and products of a similar character" . The intent of that language is to serve hopefully several purposes. One, that those primary manufacturers would fit under that description and therefore by primarily permitted. Second, that this language as we've crafted would also be consistent with the purpose language of the DIM zone and consistent with the other permitted uses in that zoning district. One concern our attorney expressed was that if we simply said for instance "manufacture of metal products" or that other uses which may be of a similar nature in terms of the scale of the development which would not be specifically listed may create. . .cause a concern that that specific use was listed whereas another use might not be. It was also her contention that perhaps listing those that way would not meet the purpose language of the DIM zoning district. So it's our intent to make those uses permitted uses through this language, but also come up with language which meets the intent of the overall zoning district purpose language and permitted uses, as well as to try to limit other heavy manufacturing uses from locating in that area since there's nothing in the Downtown Plan goals and policies that encourages additional manufacturing uses. Just some other points I 'd like to make about the DIM zone and then I ' ll turn it back to Lauri for discussion of development standards. Under "Accessory Uses", the first one, retail uses operating in conjunction with and incidental to permitted uses would be permitted. This is something that is not permitted in any of our other manufacturing zoning districts, but it's a way again of trying to recognize that this is a manufacturing zoning district located within a downtown area. Also, under "Conditional Uses", multifamily residential and general retail commercial uses would also be permitted. They would be permitted only by conditional use permit which would give the Planning Department and the Hearing Examiner the opportunity to look at the specific development to see how they were trying to make themselves compatible with other surrounding uses. But again it was felt as specifically a result of the Enterprise Zone Committee recommendation on increasing the number of uses allowed in that area, that they should at least be permitted by conditional use permit. 11 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 So that summarizes the three zoning districts. What the rest of this March 25 memo really gets at is development standards and I ' ll turn it back over to Lauri for a brief presentation on that. Commissioner Martinez: May I ask a question? Kevin O'Neill: Yes. Commissioner Martinez: In the Mixed Use Kevin O'Neill: Um hum. Commissioner Martinez: Accessory uses and buildings customarily, etc. , etc. , you have listed storage facilities, enclosed loading and unloading areas. Kevin O'Neill: Um hum. Commissioner Martinez: You have not done that in the DLM. Is there a reason.) Kevin O'Neill: Essentially, the only distinction there is the language you see under "Accessory Uses" in the Mixed Use zone is very similarly to the accessory uses language taken in other commercial zoning districts, whereas the accessory use language in the DLM zone, which is other accessory uses and buildings customarily appurtenant to a principally permitted use, is the exact wording that is used in our three other manufacturing zones. So that was the only reason for the distinction. Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. Kevin O'Neill: Um hum. Chair Faust: Does anyone have any more questions for Kevin? Thank you Kevin. Lauri. Lauri Anderson: Kevin will be back so you can get him again if you need to. The development standards are the individual requirements which lay out such things as setbacks, building heights, landscaping, parking requirements, etc. for the individual zoning districts and again, as Kevin mentioned, I 'm going to be going over these as listed in the March 25 memo. There's a more complete description of the rationale behind some of these things on pages 30 through 48 of the green report for those of you in the audience and the Commissioners. 12 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 So if you' ll look to the memo, number C, the recommended action is to amend the Kent zoning code to adopt development standards for the DC, MU and DLM zoning districts as follows: and I 'm just going to run through these and then I hope that if you have questions on specific ones, you'll let me know so I can go into them in more detail so we can try to economize on time. Minimum lot size is the first thing. That's how big the lot can be that you're going to build on. . .what the minimum is. In the DC zone, we're recommending the minimum lot of record which is the same as the existing Downtown Commercial. In the MU zone, we recommending a 5, 000 square foot minimum lot size and in the DIM zone, a 10, 000 square foot minimum lot size. In the DLM, that's 10, 000 feet less than is required in the current M2 , which is 20, 000 square feet. We're recommending these smaller lot sizes in the MU and the DIM because in the MU zone there are a lot of existing lots that are that size. The lots downtown tend to be smaller than in other areas of the City and we wanted to recognize that pattern and give the opportunity for some infill development. We're also in the DIM zone hoping to encourage some smaller scale manufacturing and that we can accomplish by putting in a 10, 000 square foot instead of a 20, 000 square foot minimum. Number 2 , maximum site coverage. This tells you how much of the lot your building and other structures can cover. In the DC zone, we're recommending 100%. Again, that's the same as in the existing DC-1. In the MU zone, we're recommending 100% thinking that those smaller lots need more site coverage and with some of the proposed reductions in parking and landscaping we're requiring, it may be possible for someone to achieve development in an infill pattern in this area. With the DLM zone, currently in M2 you have a 65% maximum site coverage. We're proposing a 75% maximum site coverage to allow again more coverage in the area to bring the building, hopefully, up closer to the street. But we're not going to suggest that we reduce that maximum, or I 'm sorry, increase that maximum as much as we have in the other zones because in manufacturing areas you probably do have more maneuvering area required in that kind of thing. OK. On the next page, we talk about setback requirements and there are several components to this: minimum setback, a maximum setback, a pedestrian plan - all three of those things work together to give you your setbacks. OK? The minimum setback requirements are standard in all the current zoning districts. In the DC zone, we're recommending a zero foot setback unless it abuts a residential district and this is the distance that the building can be from the property line. So we're saying a building can build right to the property line unless they're against a residential use. OK? 13 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 The MU zone, again we're recommending that zero foot setback. The MU zone, as we mentioned earlier, is really targeted for pedestrians and one of the things that pedestrians like is to have a building up against the sidewalk rather than facing a sea of parking and you cross the parking to get to the front door of the establishment you want to enter. If that entrance is along the sidewalk, the pedestrian doesn't have to contend with cars to get there. So by making a zero foot minimum setback, we're hoping to encourage buildings to build up to the sidewalk to be more pedestrian friendly. In the DLM zone, again the zero foot minimum setback unless the property is abutted by a residential district. Currently in the M2, that's a 10-40 foot setback depending on which lot line it is. So this is quite a significant change. Maximum setback requirements are something new. We don't have these in other zoning districts. A maximum setback requirement says that a building can only set so far back from the street and in this way we really are hoping to control where parking goes. If you say a building can only set back a certain number of feet, and if that footage is too small for parking to go in front, well the parking goes at the side or the parking goes at the back. In the DC zone and in fact in all of the zones, we're recommending a maximum setback requirement of 20 feet. So a building can locate itself between the property line and 20 feet back and we're saying further that if the building chooses to locate back from the street, that that area should either be landscaped or should be a usable pedestrian space, someplace that pedestrians would feel comfortable, again to encourage pedestrian users. The third component of the setbacks is what's called the Pedestrian Plan Overlay and I 'm going to show a map of this. For those of you who want to look at that, that's on page 35 of the green book. The Pedestrian Plan Overlay idea is/was designed really to give prediction and control to the character of the street frontage and work further to encourage pedestrian usage and to develop pedestrian amenities for those who are walking in the downtown area. In the pedestrian plan, there are two street types proposed: Class A pedestrian streets and Class B pedestrian streets and those two different class types have different requirements. In the Class A pedestrian streets, structures, buildings in other words, must front on or occupy the front setback area, in other words, that 20 feet between the zero feet and the 20 feet for 100% of their lot frontage. In other words, you essentially have to build from your side lot line to your side lot line and you would create a wall of buildings. The exceptions to that are when a 14 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 through lot pedestrian connector is provided so we want to allow a building to leave a space for a pedestrian connector or unless a vehicular access way is provided. Other requirements on the Class A street, awnings must be provided along the length of the facade fronting the Class A street to protect pedestrians from the weather and windows allowing visual access to and from the building must make up the greatest percentage of street level facade area. The interactive nature of the standard retail area is between the pedestrian on the sidewalk and whatever is happening in that building, whether it's retail displays, or it's people working and walking, it's a sense of being connected to the interior of the building and really the only way to achieve that is through windows. Some other components or important issues on the Class A street is that vehicular access is not allowed from -a Class A street if the property has a frontage on a Class B street or a non-designated street. In other words, you cannot access your property from the Class A street if there's another way to do that, either from a Class B street or a non-designated street or an access from an alley right-if-way is feasible and that last one is really up to the determination of the Public Works Department. And we're also encouraging shared access ways between adjacent property owners to limit the number of curb cuts. If two property owners want to share a common driveway, that's preferable to having two driveways side by side. On the Class B pedestrian streets, those are the ones with the sort of hatched shading, the structures must front on or occupy the front setback area for a minimum of 50% of the frontage. 100% in the Class A, 50% of the Class B. That means half of your lot that faces on the street must be filled by a building. OK? Through-lot pedestrian connectors and vehicular access may be provided within the remaining street frontage, the remaining 50%. Again, shared access ways are preferable and windows allowing visual access to and from the building must make up the greatest percentage of street level facade along the Class B street. The difference really between the Class A and the Class B street is on a Class A street you would probably see a wall of buildings as you were walking down the street, with maybe a few driveways and some pedestrian connectors. On a Class B street, you'd likely see maybe some parking on the side of a building. You'd have a building and then a parking lot and then maybe a long building and then a parking lot. It's broken up. It's not that single wall of buildings as you walk along. OK. The next section is height and that's where we control the height of buildings. Currently there is not height limit in the downtown area. There is a four story outright permitted height and then the 15 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Planning Director can approve additional stories as can the Planning Commission. So there's no limit beyond which you cannot go. You can always go to the Planning Director or Commission to ask for a higher building. What we're proposing is a minimum height requirement. That again is something new. We don't have that in other zoning districts and what we're saying is that we, to encourage density and to encourage a pedestrian wall, would like to see buildings of a minimum height of 25, I'm sorry, of two stories or 25 feet, whichever is smaller. And the same holds in all of the proposed zoning districts. Now there is a difference here from what was presented in the report and that is that we're suggesting that this minimum height requirement should only apply within the first 25 feet of the property frontage. When we were looking over our standards, we realized that really what we want is that height against the street and that there may be cases, particularly in manufacturing areas, where there are buildings to the interior of the site or in a retail area where there may be appurtenant buildings that would more appropriately be one story. They're behind another building or they're way off in the middle of a site and I guess, fundamentally, we weren't so concerned about how tall they were. Where we were concerned about the height, was up against the street where the interaction with the pedestrian occurs. So we've changed that minimum height requirement to apply only within the first 25 feet of the property frontage. OK? We're also going to the maximum height requirements and we're suggesting a floor area ratio. OK? A floor ratio can best be described by an illustration. Floor area ratio has to do with the floor area as compared with the size of the lot and what's illustrated on this overhead is a floor area ratio of one and what that can mean in a variety of settings. What we're proposing for the zoning districts in the downtown planning area is a floor area ratio of four. OK? With a floor area ratio of one, you essentially have the square footage of your lot to play with in terms of height. You could have a one story building that covered 100% of your lot. If you wanted to cover 50% of your lot, you could have a two story building. In other words, let's assume that this is a 100 square foot lot, extremely small. This building is 100 square feet. This building is 50 square feet, but it's two stories, 50 times 2 is 100. Here's another example of that. This building is 50 square feet times 2, but it's a different shape, as is this one. OK? So with a floor area ratio, if you chose to have a floor area ratio of four, you could cover your lot for 100% of your lot area and you could have a four story building. If you wanted to only cover 50% of your lot, you could have an eight story building. If you chose to have a 25% coverage of your lot, and again it depends on the size of your lot, the kind of determinations you would make, you could have potentially a sixteen story building. OK? 16 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 We're also giving the opportunity for individuals to obtain bonuses and this is something that's real common in other jurisdictions and the bonuses are outlined. You get bonuses. . 6 floor area ratio, if you are in a mixed use building. You can achieve bonuses for structured parking as opposed to surface parking. You can achieve bonuses for providing usable public open space, for providing usable private or semi-private space for residential uses, balconies or courtyards, and you can get .2 FAR (floor area ratio) for providing an on-site day care facility. In other words, you can go higher if you give the community something. Commissioner Martinez: I would like to ask a question about the day care. Lauri Anderson: Yes. Commissioner Martinez: Even though one. . . let's say you were building a building for speculation. . . Lauri Anderson: Um hum. Commissioner Martinez: Even downtown. You could designate a day care. You could get the height FAR, but there's nothing says that the guy who buys it has to put a day care in. Is that correct? Lauri Anderson: It would depend. In many cases we have property owners covenant that they will provide certain amenities in order to get a permit, so I would assume that that would be a legal requirement. Commissioner Martinez: OK. Thank you. Lauri Anderson: Um hum. Chair Faust: Any other questions for Lauri before she continues? Commissioner Martinez: I have another one. Lauri Anderson: Sure. Commissioner Martinez: Is it clear to everyone but me that minimum height requirements within the first 25 feet of property frontage means perpendicular to the frontage. That was not exactly clear to me. Lauri Anderson: Oh. OK. Usually we mean perpendicular when we're talking about setbacks, but that might be a point that we need to clarify. 17 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Commissioner Martinez: Maybe. I 'm just suggesting that I didn't understand it. Lauri Anderson: OK. Chair Faust: What do you want? The word perpendicular thrown in there somewhere? Commissioner Martinez: Somehow so that I or people that are interpreting this know. . .both agree that that's what is meant. Lauri Anderson: OK. Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Dahle: I have a question on that also. Lauri Anderson: Sure. Commissioner Dahle: When you say just for the first floor does that mean that you have to be so far back on the first floor and then you can come out above it on the second floor. Lauri Anderson: I think I 'm confused. We're saying that for the first 25 feet of the building itself, against the lot. So in the first 25 feet from your property line back, your building has to be two stories tall. Commissioner Dahle: OK. I 'm seeing an overhang on the third floor up. Lauri Anderson: OK. Commissioner Dahle: There's three floors. That's what I 'm looking at. Lauri Anderson: Yeah. And in fact, such a lead in to the next point, which is number 3 where we're talking about adopting a facade setback requirement. OK? I think this will kind of address your point. Thinking of the historic character of Kent's downtown where the most buildings are two stories tall, we wanted to keep a facade cornice line, in other words, where the building meets the roof, that was of an approximate scale to replicate that historic pattern and that area is between two and four stories. So what we're recommending in the setback. . .facade setback requirement, is that once your building goes up two. . .between two and four stories, you have to. . . in other words, beyond four stories or sixty feet, you have to set your building back ten feet to give that cornice 18 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 line an even pattern. And then the building has to be set back, not forward, but back. OK? Commissioner Dahle: You had me confused there for a minute on that. Lauri Anderson: The reason for doing that is really a pedestrian scale issue. When you're on the sidewalk and you're walking along, it's very intimidating to be standing a twelve or a sixteen or in this more likely case, an eight story building and a wall of eight story buildings. If you have between two and four feet of setback so that you can't see necessarily how tall, you don't have that impression of tallness. That makes the pedestrian environment more comfortable. Commissioner Martinez: Lauri, I did have a question about that. Lauri Anderson: Sure. Commissioner Martinez: Is it clear to the folks who would be designing the building that we mean to go up straight for a while and then go back or that. . . is that what you meant? Lauri Anderson: Um hum. Commissioner Martinez: Or is it more likely to be interpreted that you would be having to move back from the property line to build the first two to four stories? Lauri Anderson: I think we tried to address that by saying that any building facade area above four stories or sixty feet will be required to set back a minimum of ten feet from the vertical plane occupied by the facade below it. This is getting really technical. Commissioner Martinez: I 'm sorry. I missed below. Thank you. Lauri Anderson: You're welcome. OK. I 'm almost done. Landscaping is the next major section for the three zoning districts and we're again proposing similar standards for all three. In the current regulations for the DC zone, you usually require either street trees or three feet of landscaping between the building front and the sidewalk. What we're recommending here is that the three foot landscaping strip be eliminated and that street trees be required for all development in the downtown area. We do put in one condition that the three foot landscape buffer should be provided along parking lots, between the sidewalk and the parking, again to screen the pedestrians from the impression of being surrounded by cars, and we also have a note that the 19 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 perimeter properties abutting a residential district shall be landscaped to a minimum depth of ten feet and that's also currently in the zoning code. Kevin is going to talk about signage and parking. I have just a couple last things. Development plan review, which is number 7 on the next page, is an administrative review that's done currently in the Planning Department when plans come in and we look at things like pedestrian circulation, storm drainage, etc. This review is done for all zoning districts and we plan to continue to apply this to projects in the DC, MU and DIM zoning districts. Administrative design review which follows, is currently only used for multifamily transition areas. OK? And what we're suggesting here is that through the administrative design review process, we would like to give staff the opportunity to look at three things: - projects which apply for a bonus floor area ratio. In other words staff would look at it to determine whether it indeed met the criteria to receive a floor area ratio bonus; we would want to look at projects which wish to provide landscaping or usable open space within the maximum setback area to make sure that they're meeting that; and - those which have frontage on streets where retail is required on the street level. So those are three areas where we feel that a little more comprehensive analysis needs to be done because we're giving something away to get something back and we want to make sure that if we give it away, that we're getting what we wanted. My last recommendation is really a whole category recommendation and that's subcategory number D which is on page 9 of this memo, which is a recommendation from staff that you direct the Planning Department to study and make recommendations on the feasibility of design review for the downtown planning area. Design review is something that is done in many jurisdictions that that we're considering now for multifamily projects. But design review is actually a situation where you work with the developer or the architect or the proponent of a project to get down into the nuts and bolts of that project in terms of its design to see if it meets criteria that you've laid out and that goes beyond development standards and we would like to recommend that you ask the Department to look into that for the future of the downtown planning area. So, unless you have questions, Kevin's going to talk about parking and signage and we will be finished. 20 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Chair Faust: Questions commissioners? OK. Kevin. Kevin O'Neill: Thank you. I'm going to be very brief so that we can get into the public testimony. Signage. . .very simply. We're not recommending any change to any of the regulations at all in the sign code. However, since we are recommending new zoning districts, it's important to put those into the existing sign code. So what we're recommending for the DC zone, and this is on number 6 on page 7, is the sign code already has a section specifically dealing with the Downtown Commercial zoning district, so that simply stays the same. We're recommending that for the Mixed Use zone, that those Downtown Commercial regulations also would apply to the Mixed Use zone. And in the DIM zone, we're recommending that the existing M2 standards apply to the DIM zone, so there would be no change in those regulations either. Under parking. In making our recommendations, we did some background research both on prevailing parking patterns in other downtown areas and in our own and starting on page 42 of the report, there's a summary of some of the research that we did including inventorying the number of public parking spaces in the downtown area and that's shown on the map on page 45 of the report, as well as looking at an inventory that our Public Works Department did in the summer of 1989 relating to vacancy rates for those public parking spaces. So in making our recommendations, the first recommendation is that in the DC zone, there be no off-street parking required for uses. I was explaining previously in making our zoning map recommendations, that the DC zone, it was important we felt, to preserve a core area Downtown Commercial zone. Another very important component in making that recommendation is that currently in the existing DC-1 zone, there are no off-street parking requirements at all for uses within that area. That's due in large part to the fact that there was an LID done in the early 1970 's to pay for the two public off-street parking spaces which are shown on that map on page 45, one being between Smith and Harrison and the other one being off of Titus Street. So just to show you that again in this area currently there's no off-street parking required and we would recommend that in the Downtown Commercial zone that be preserved. Now in the existing DC-2 zone, there isn't a 100% parking. . .off- street parking reduction, but there is a 50% off-street parking reduction. So again that would apply to all development which is in this area and over here in this DC-2 area. What we're recommending is that 50% reduction be applied to all of the MU zoned area, or area that would be zoned MU under the proposal to the west of the Burlington Northern tracks, again, due in large part to the large portion of public off-street and on-street parking spaces that are located in that part of the planning area. 21 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 One exception to that would be for multifamily residential development. Currently our zoning code requires one parking space per unit, one off-street parking space per unit, for multifamily development within the central business district. We're recommending that that would be preserved and that would include also the Downtown Commercial zoning district where uses are generally exempt from parking requirements. There was a lot of concern at our public forums, especially from merchants in having residents of the downtown not tying up those valuable on-street parking spaces. In making our recommendations on parking, in looking at the size of the parcels in the downtown area and trying to encourage further infill development, and with the number of public parking spaces in the downtown area, we also thought one way to both encourage more density, which is a goal and policy of the Downtown Plan, and also to encourage infill development, is to also allow off-street parking reductions for this portion of the planning area that would be zoned MU. Those would not apply to the GC zoning districts since General Commercial zoning is, by definition, an automobile oriented commercial zoning, but that some reductions in here would tend to encourage both higher densities in terms of lot coverage and encourage infill development in that area. Now it was felt by staff that it wasn't appropriate to offer the same type of reduction in that area simply because, as you can see on the map on page 45, there aren't as many public parking spaces in this part of the planning area as there are over here. So what staff is recommending is a 25% off-street parking reduction in this part of the planning area. In the proposed DIM zoning district, there are no parking reductions recommended at all. Again, it was staff s feeling that in trying to encourage densities and encourage greater lot coverage in the downtown area, one thing that probably worked against that on working on a specific site more than anything was surface. . .was requiring surface parking. Another thing that the Plan talks about is not encouraging more and more small, private off-street parking lots. So another recommendation that we're making is that in addition to the requirements or reductions that I 've just referenced, that there also be surface parking maximums of three off-street parking spaces per thousand square feet of gross floor area. The reason for that is again to try to get away from large, impervious surfaces with surface parking lots detracting from the pedestrian-oriented nature of the downtown area, not breaking up street frontage, etc. Those maximums would not apply to multifamily residential projects. They would not apply if somebody wanted to have structured parking as 22 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 part of their developments. Structured parking is encouraged very much in the Downtown Plan. So that summarizes our parking recommendations and unless there are any other questions, that concludes our staff presentation. Chair Faust: Any questions for Kevin? Commissioner Havlor: I have a question. Chair Faust: Al. Commissioner Haylor: Back to signage. Kevin O'Neill: OK. Commissioner Haylor: You say there's basically no change in regulations and so forth going to the zones DC, MU and DLM, but in actuality you can have a change by. . .you're recommending moving some boundaries and so forth. . .some of the zoning. . . Kevin O'Neill: Um hum. Commissioner Haylor: If you did move one of the boundaries and it pertained to a sign say from DC into a MU zone, would that sign be grandfathered in originally if it's still up? Kevin O'Neill: Well, if it was in a. . .to answer your question, yes it would and if it was in a DC zone, then it would. . .the regulations that were in effect when that sign went up, would be the same as they would be through the change. Commissioner Haylor: Even though if it was moved into a MU zone, it would stay the same? Kevin O'Neill: Um hum. Commissioner Haylor: OK. Thank you. Chair Faust: Any more questions for Kevin? Thank you Kevin and thank you Lauri. Well, we've now heard from staff and it's time to hear from the folks who've come from the audience. I ' ll apologize in advance for mangling any names. When you come up to the mike and there's a mike right there. . .when you come up to the mike, I 'd like for each of you to identify yourself by your name and also to state your address. And also, some folks may have signed up to speak and changed their minds, so I 'll call all the names and ask you whether you still want to speak or if you've just signed up to receive materials, but you've changed your mind on that, you can 23 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 certainly come up and speak. The first person who signed up is Richard McCann. Richard McCann: May I use the lectern? Chair Faust: You may. Richard McCann: Thank you. My name is Dick McCann. I 'm an attorney with Perkins Coie, 1201 3rd Avenue, 40th Floor, Seattle, WA. I 'm here tonight on behalf of Northwest Metal Products, the Borden Company and Howard Manufacturing. Barry Miller of Northwest Metals is here with me this evening. Rico Yingling and Chuck Howard of Howard Manufacturing and Borden could not be here tonight. They are out of town. Before I begin, I have a memorandum I would like to submit into the record if I may. Chair Faust: That's fine. Mr. McCann, and I should have said this before I began too, since we have an awful lot of people signed up and it's a quarter til nine, I 'd appreciate it if you could try to keep your remarks to about five minutes. If it turns out that it has to be more than that, fine, but I would appreciate it so that we can get everybody on these pages who wants to speak, I would appreciate it if you could keep your remarks limited. Mr. McCann we' ll need five. I think you just gave us four. Richard McCann: The manufacturers that I represent have three primary areas of concern. One is the process that's underway even here this evening, one are the restrictions that are being proposed for the new DLM zone, and the third are some unanswered questions that this proposed rezone gives rise to. Let me start with the process, Madame Chairman, and let me first begin with your request that we limit our comments to five minutes. We have only this evening seen new language being proposed by this downtown rezone. We have only this evening, and members of the public had the one hour that has been occupied by the staff report to consider those language changes. We first of all request that this hearing be continued. I don't mean to stop it this evening, but simply that it be carried over or at least the record held open for an opportunity for the public to make comments after having an opportunity to consider these changes so that you do, in fact, have the opinion and the comments of your public. Secondly, this is the first public hearing and perhaps the last on this issue. These changes are very significant to the property owners of this City and those of us who appear here tonight to speak may very well have more than we will have the opportunity to say in five minutes. The staff has taken a little better than an hour to explain this program. I respectfully request that I and 24 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 other members who are speaking here this evening be given an opportunity to fully explain their concerns to the Commission. Let me begin with the restrictions that are contained in the DIM zone and as they affect these manufacturers. You will recall that your Comprehensive Plan contains a policy that reads "to recognize the existing manufacturers are a vital part of the planning area and should be encouraged to participate in the development and growth of the planning area" . You will recall that Miss Anderson indicated that one of the recommendations of the Enterprise Committee was that the existing uses in the M2 zone be expanded. We submit to you that the restrictions being imposed on the DLM zone do not meet those objectives. First of all let me being with the permitted uses in the DIM zone. There are uses offered in the DIM zone which are not presently contained in the M2 zone. That's true. There are, however, a number of uses currently permitted in the D. . . in the M2 zone which are simply deleted from the M2 zone. We submit to you that removing a number of uses and substituting those uses with others is not an expansion, it's simply a trade in uses and that does not meet the intent or the goals of either the Enterprise Committee or the Comprehensive Plan. I would also suggest that you look at the map that is contained as a part of your comprehensive zone. The land use indicated for this area, is industrial. The current zone is M2 . You have only one other higher industrial use--M3. But the zone that's being proposed is Downtown Limited Manufacturing. It removes a substantial number of those uses and I would call your attention to the permitted uses in your current M2 zone, that's on page 66 of your current zoning code. It's an extensive, detailed list of industrial and manufacturing uses. If you compare that list of uses with the uses that are being proposed in the DLM zone, and you will find those in this amended staff report that we received this evening, you will find that there is not, in fact, an expansion of M2 uses. There is a substantial restriction of M2 uses and an addition of other much lighter, if you will, uses. We have also suggested to the Planning staff that the language used to permit existing manufacturing uses was inaccurate and inappropriate and they have taken that suggestion and offered new language tonight and have stated to you their intent that that is to cover the existing uses, the existing manufacturing uses. It does not do so. There are uses on these properties which we've described in a letter to the Planning Commission, or to the Planning staff and which I 've given you this evening, that are listed that simply are not included in this description. If the Comprehensive Plan's intent is to allow existing manufacturing uses and the staffs stated intent is to implement the Comprehensive Plan, then it would seem to be a fairly easy matter to inventory 25 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 the existing uses and to list them. They have not done that and we respectfully request that this change reflect that. We had recommended that accessory use language be added. That has been done. In this DIM zone, there are a number of other uses as I 've indicated. One of those uses is quite an enumeration of residential type uses that may very well be appropriate in some portions of this zone. But it is difficult to imagine that a residential use should abut or be even near a manufacturing use. Because of that, we have suggested that all residential uses should be restricted within 300 feet of manufacturing uses. We submit to you that's a reasonable request. It's certainly in keeping with good land use planning in terms of separating incompatible uses.and we also suggest that relying upon the conditional use permit process for that 300 feet is simply unnecessary, that most of us now can sit and see what might happen and agree that day cares, multifamily homes within 300 feet of manufacturing uses is simply inappropriate and should be prohibited. That's an easy change to make, but could have substantial consequences to the manufacturers, would certainly ease the burden and make more clear the intend of the com. . .of the zoning code. The setback issue is another one that raises some question. The proposed zero setback and maximum 20 feet setback for manufacturing uses seems particularly inappropriate. It will be very difficult for a 40 foot trailer to operate in a 20 foot setback area. Those trucks currently use manufacturing space and, again, repeating the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Department, the intent is to allow those existing manufacturers to be able to continue to operate. We submit that that 20 foot setback maximum and the zero setback with the pedestrian overlay ought to be admitted for manufacturing uses. There is a proposed minimum height which has been modified tonight. We have not had a chance to study that. From what Miss Anderson said, that sounds like an acceptable resolution, but again, we would like an opportunity to review that language and be sure that it meets the needs of the manufacturers and other users in the DIM zone. The pedestrian overlay will create a situation on Class B streets, 4th Avenue included, in the manufacturing zone which will require that buildings be placed on street frontage for 50% of the lot. That and the setback requirement will turn these manufacturers into nonconforming uses. A nonconforming use, according to the Kent City code, is one that cannot be expanded or enlarged or intensified because the intent is to gradually eliminate that use. 26 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Now I 'm saying use. The word is really structure in this case because it's structures that will be made nonconforming and not the uses. That, the effect of that, to make these uses nonconforming, is sometimes downplayed and we have received some assurances from staff that that again was not their intent. Perhaps not, but it is certainly one of the results of what is being proposed. If you have any doubt about how the law feels about nonconforming uses and structures, I want to read you some very brief words from a case that came down just last month, this year. Chair Faust: (Unclear) , Counselor. Richard McCann: Choi v. Fife Chair Faust: Citation? Richard McCann: Pardon me. Chair Faust: Citation? Richard McCann: Choi, C-H-O-I, v. Fife, 60 Washington appellate, 458, decided January, 1991. The quote is from page 462 . "Nonconforming uses are not favored in the law and unless the continuation is necessary to avoid injustice, the nonconforming use will be prohibited" . That language applies to structures as well. In this case the Chois had sold their property, a manufacturing business, to some people who then went bankrupt, lost it and by the time the Chois were able to recover it and restart the manufacturing business, it had been made a nonconforming use and it had been unoccupied for several months. They lost the use of that business and the court concludes the nonconforming use is terminated. Let me move for a few minutes to. . .away from the particular restrictions of the DLM zone and talk about some broader issues. The Planning Commission, at its workshop, asked a couple of questions about the consequences of this rezone. You' ll recall that someone had asked about the cost of maintaining street trees and what that did to sidewalks, and you' ll recall there were some other questions about parking and just exactly what that. . .what this rezone might do to the availability of parking on downtown streets. Those are good questions and we don't have answers for them. As we look at the proposed rezone, there are a number of other questions that come to mind. This rezone, it covers 305 acres. It includes 584 separate parcels of land. How many of those parcels of land and how many of those owners will now have nonconforming uses? How many will have nonconforming structures? How many pieces of property are really being adversely affected by this rezone? Have they been notified that their uses may become 27 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 nonconforming or that their structures may become nonconforming? Have they been given a copy of the nonconforming ordinance of the City of Kent so they understand exactly what this rezone means to their property and to their ability to make a livelihood with their property? The MU portion of this rezone will add a good deal of residential use if the staff's intent is fulfilled. Do you know how many acres of residential property that will mean? The MU zone allows 100% of use of the surface. Do you know how much water that's going to create in terms of your storm drain system? Any idea whether the storm drain system can handle it? Any idea about the number of cars that those residential uses will generate for the streets? Your City Council, interestingly enough, is considering an ordinance that reads like this "all City departments are directed to continue the practice of reviewing all notifications of proposed development in King County with the objective of determining and identifying anticipated impacts upon the City's transportation facilities and traffic levels" . Why? Because the City's increasing traffic problems as a result of development, both within and outside the City limits, are causing the City to explore and implement all available measures to affect relief on its transportation system. Now your Council is concerned about your traffic situation and before the Commission tonight is a rezone that will have, I suspect, a substantial impact upon that traffic and transportation system. But we don't know how much. We don't know how many cars. We don't know how many new street lights are going to be required. We don't know what level of service is going to be affected at what intersections. And we certainly don't know how much all of this is going to cost or who's going to pay for it. Residential uses, as you all know, generate students. We don't have any data about the number of students that will be generated from these new houses. There's no indication in any of the documents that I've read about whether or not the Kent schools can handle those students. We do know that the Kent School District is actively considering an impact fee ordinance because it feels that its district is at capacity and wants to be prepared to charge developers impact fees for new residential uses. Has the school district been informed of the number of new residences that will be allowed and permitted under this rezone? Do they have the schools to handle those kids? Do we know what the impact fees will be? Do we know what impact that will have on this revitalization effort that was started all of these years ago? Will impact fees and traffic problems and no answers to those problems really serve to revitalize downtown Kent? Miss Anderson indicated that with the absence of a height restriction on buildings, you might even see a sixteen story building. That's true. on a five acre parcel, you could easily 28 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 see a building in excess of forty stories. Does your Fire Department know that? How would your Fire Department react if you told them they had to fight fire in a forty story building, or a sixteen story building? Fire codes generally require substantially increased fire protection measures and specialized equipment over about seventy or eighty feet. One of the consequences of this rezone will be to drastically increase the needs for equipment and manpower of your Fire Department and with the increased population and density that's being discussed, of your Police Department. The Plan suggests, or at least some of the documents indicate, that if the Plan is carried out, there will be a 35% increase in the density of downtown Kent. That, I suggest, is a significant impact that raises questions and issues that really ought to be considered before a particular plan is adopted. And I come back to where I started with process. It's really difficult to expect members of the public to understand and intelligently comment upon a Plan when its consequences are simply unknown. We respectfully submit and request that the public be given an opportunity to either receive the data about the consequences of the Plan, to have time to comment on it and to provide you with their advice. I close though, by coming back to the DIM restrictions. For purposes of these manufacturers, those few changes to those restrictions will fulfill the promise the City gave them in adopting the Comprehensive Plan. They are minor changes to the code. . .or to the proposed code. They certainly do not affect the overall intent of the staff. They do fulfill the intent of the staff, ad they've stated, to recognize that these manufacturers are existing and vital portions of your downtown area and those changes can be accomplished relatively easily and we make that request. I renew my request that this hearing be continued for another week or at least the record held open for an opportunity to comment. With that I conclude and thank you for your time. Chair Faust: Thank you Mr. McCann. Any questions, Commissioners, for Mr. McCann? Thank you too for your document and we will make sure that we read it thoroughly. The next person who has signed up to speak is Mr. Hugh Leiper. Voice• Unclear. Chair Faust: Sure. Hugh Leiper: Good evening. My name is Hugh Leiper. My firm is American Commercial Industries, Inc. We're real estate consultants. Over the years, you know, we've talked a great deal about downtown. A lot of effort, a lot of time and a lot of money 29 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 has been spent in trying to find ways and means to bring about the revitalization of downtown Kent. With that thought in mind, I would like to ask each one of you three questions, simply because we need to set the stage under which we're trying to accomplish and I ' ll pass these out to you and then I' ll read them. Now these are rather simple questions. Question number one - Do you believe that downtown Kent should be the true business center and the focal point of the area? 2. What would you. . .what would be your definition of a true business center? 3. What do you believe it takes or requires to have a true business center? Would you like to start. Chair Faust: Mr. Leiper, we're not here to answer questions. We're here to take testimony. These are very interesting questions and thought provocative and I assure you we will think about them, but we're not here to give you our answers to these questions. Hugh Leiner: You're going to have to give me answers to these questions and I ' ll tell you why. Because of the fact that if we're going to really define what we're trying to do, we need to define exactly what we're trying to accomplish because otherwise, rules, regulations and zonings, don't mean anything. It's what you have to get to, it's the end result of what you're trying to establish. You keep saying that you want to revitalize downtown. Alright now this is a very simple. . . if you' ll just bear with me, these are all simple questions and it shouldn't take any time at all to do it and when we get through with this exercise, I ' ll tell you why I 'm doing it. so. . . Chair Faust: I ' ll repeat. We are not here to answer any questions that you pose to us. We're here to take public testimony. Now if you'd like to tell us what you think about these, I 'd be very interested in hearing your response. Hugh Leiper: No. I 'm more interested in finding out what your's is first and then I ' ll give you mine. Are we going to have a stand off? Commissioner Martinez: Madam Chair? I, for one, would personally rather hear what you have to say because you will hear later on in our deliberations what we're trying to do and we're trying to figure out what the public wants. Hugh Leiper: Well, in order to really get at this thing now you see you have to have a dialogue and that's what I 'm trying to get at. We have not been able to have a dialogue with the people who are in charge of trying to implement these different things. Now we need that dialogue. This is a free country and I can tell you for one, forty-five years ago I didn't lay my line on the line. . .my 30 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 life on the line for simply to be rebutted by not being able to talk. Chair Faust: We're not preventing you from talking. Hugh Leiper: I know you're not here to do that. Chair Faust: I ' ll reiterate for the third and final time, we're here to take your testimony and I 'd be very interested in hearing what you have to say about this, but we're not here, in this forum, to tell you what we think about these particular three questions that you've posited, interesting as they are and important as they are. That is not what this forum is for. Hugh Leiner: Well (unclear) what it's for, then the time needs to be changed in which we can all dialogue together. I ' ll give you my definition of what the true business center is. All right? A true business center is the location of an area that is easily to identify and has availability all the goods and services in sufficient quantity, quality and competitively priced and to the extent that the people within the area find it totally and completely unnecessary to go outside the area to fulfill their needs. All right, now a shorter definition of that is simply a true business center contains all the goods and services that fulfill the total needs of the people so that it's not necessary to go elsewhere for their needs. All right now, if you can really. . . if you truly mean to produce a downtown area that is a truly a business center, you've got to consider all those factors. All right, now I ' ll tell you why I 'm talking this way. On your page 16, the good gentlemen before talked about the DM. . .the Dim zoning. Now these manufacturers are there. They need to be protected for doing whatever they're doing right now until they continue on and not do it any longer. Then after that period of time, then it should revert to something that is totally compatible with what you're trying to do downtown. If you'd really develop downtown, really do, then these manufacturers generally are in all instances will be leaving. They're going to be gone probably in the next ten years. All right, then this zoning that you have, DLM, must be compatible with what you're trying to do with downtown. This is what I 'm trying to get at. All right? Any questions? Commissioner Dahle: I have one question for you. Hugh Leiper• Yes. Commissioner Dahle: You're saying that the downtown area should compromise a place for the people to do all their shopping and all their expenses, whatever they want to do, without leaving the City. 31 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 But I have a question for you. The way you're talking, there's no. . .there's no place for these people to live in downtown Kent. So if they're living outside of downtown Kent, they're going to shop where they live. You're not allowing any. . .what you're saying is you're not allowing any residential area in downtown Hugh Leiper: No, no, no, no. I'm not saying that at all. What I'm simply saying is if you're going to develop an area that you're going to try to say that it's a true business area, it's going to affect the entire trade area of Kent. That's not only the City limits, but it's also the areas under which its influence is. Commissioner Dahle: Now I want to ask you one more question. Hugh Leiper• Sure. Commissioner Dahle: What do you have north of the downtown core area in Kent? Hugh Leiper: Right now you have north of the core area you simply have some manufacturers. All right? Commissioner Dahle: And what do you have south? Hugh Leiper: South you have some. . .some homes. Commissioner Dahle: Not many. Hugh Leiper: Not many. Commissioner Dahle: Not many. Hugh Leiper: Now, eventually I can see if you really do downtown, really do downtown, I can see the areas north of. . .or where the manufacturers are now can be hotels, can be high rise apartments, can be high rise condominiums, you can have a first class City. Commissioner Dahle: I don't see a first class City without homes, residential area. I 'm sorry. What you're talking about is nothing but manufacturing and business in the valley. Hugh Leiper: Down in this valley you have second only to Seattle in terms of industrial manufacturing. We have more than forty million square feet of warehouse and manufacturing in this valley and these people that are working in these areas live (unclear) on East Hill or West Hill. And that is why we have the traffic problem. One of the things we're going to have to do really is admit one thing. We brought the industry here. We need to take care of the people that we brought because of the industry. 32 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Commissioner Dahle: In downtown Kent. Hugh Leiper: In the entire area. Commissioner Dahle: We have plenty of it outside of downtown Kent. What I 'm worried about is that downtown Kent will have no homes or no families living. Hugh Leiper: You' ll have families in the future probably in terms of high rise condominiums. Commissioner Martinez: May I ask, are you speaking in favor of. . .of making the industrial areas nonconforming use and. . .and eliminating the DLM zone. Hugh Leiper: What I'm stating is this. The existing manufacturers shouldn't have total respect of what they're doing while they're doing it. At some future date, they're going to give those areas up because if, this is the big if, if downtown really develops. If it doesn't, it doesn't make any difference. Chair Faust: Any other questions? Commissioner Havlor: Yes, I have a question for you. Hugh Leiper: Yes sir. Commissioner Havlor: Do you live within the Kent area? Hugh Leiper: I sure do sir. Commissioner Havlor: OK. Is there any one particular piece of land or business that you're interested in in the M2 area? Hugh Leiper: No sir. Strictly in the DC area. Commissioner Haylor: The DC area? Can you tell us which one you might be representing? Hugh Leiper: Not. . .not at this point. Commissioner Haylor: OK, thank you. Chair Faust: Any other questions? Voice• (Unclear) Hugh Leiper: Yes. 33 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Chair Faust: Thank you very much. Hugh Leiner: Thank you for being patient, Tracy. Thank you. Chair Faust: Thank you. Now the next person on the list said he just wanted to be on the mailing list, but I'm going to give him an opportunity to speak anyway and that's Leonard McCaughan. Leonard McCaughan: No, I don't have anything to say Madam Chairman. I just want to be on the list. Chair Faust: Well, you will be. Now the next person did want to be both on the list and want to speak, so Mr. Dan Silvestri. Dan Silvestri: Planning Commission my name's Dan Silvestri. I live at 431 Scenic Way in Kent. Myself and my brother own a building that's adjacent to the Borden Chemical Company at 325 N. First in Kent. We first moved in there about eighteen years ago in 1972 and it was zoned industrial at that time. It was later changed to M2. In the current zoning plan, the proposal is to change it to Mixed Use. I'm concerned that we wouldn't be able to make the use of the building that we do now or maybe sell it in the future if it was in the Mixed Use zoning. I would request that we stay in the Limited Downtown Manufacturing. Did you locate it on the map there? All. . .there are several businesses similar to ours on Railroad Avenue and First Avenue that do similar types of things and they're all staying in the Limited Downtown Manufacturing zoning and it's simply my request that we just stay in that zoning also. Chair Faust: What is your business? Dan Silvestri: We operate ice cream vending scooters. I build them there. We do some automotive repair. The building's split into four sections and we have two sections currently for lease. We once had a retail business there and they moved out last summer because when First Avenue was blocked off, the amount of traffic decreased substantially on First Avenue. We get virtually no traffic there. I saw two cars go by today and it seems the emphasis of the Mixed Use zoning is retail. . . is retail and residential. Since we have no traffic no First Avenue, it's been blocked off adjacent to the City library, it's very inappropriate for retail use. You just get no traffic on the street and we're adjacent to the railroad tracks, so it's very inappropriate for residential use. It would be a terrible place to live. It' s extremely noisy. When the railroad train goes by, the entire building shakes and it has cracks in there from the moving of the railroad as do some of the other buildings along there. 34 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Commissioner Dahle: Are you saying that was between W. Smith Street and. . .where are you located again. Dan Silvestri: Well the building is located on First Avenue between Smith Street and James Street. Commissioner Dahle: Oh, OK. Dan Silvestri: Directly adjacent to the Borden Chemical Company manufacturing plant. The similar buildings to ours are across First Avenue, between there and the railroad tracks, and on Railroad Street across First Avenue, both between James and First Street. Chair Faust: Any other questions for Mr. Silvestri? Dan Silvestri: Thank you very much for your time. Chair Faust: Thank you. The next person has said that she just wants to be on the mailing list, but again I ' ll give her an opportunity to speak, Nell Marlatt? Nell Marlatt: Yes. I was going to ask about parking, but I've read about it and I 'm satisfied. I do want to remain on the (unclear) . Chair Faust: You will. Thank you. The next person likewise, Bill Stewart. Bill Stewart: Yes. Chair Faust: Would you like to speak Mr. Stewart. Bill Stewart: Yes, may I please? Chair Faust: Be my guest. Please do give us your name and your address. Bill Stewart: Is this working? My name is Bill Stewart. My address is 224 W. Meeker in Kent. I am here as a member of the Chamber of Commerce and the City Government Committee. I mailed a letter to you, Tracy, and the members of the Commission. You may not have received it yet, asking that, or commenting that many property owners in this area are not aware of what's going on. In fact, I think Lauri kind of made my case for me when she mentioned it in her opening remarks, that there were a lot in that. . .this new zoning oidinance and try to keep their remarks to an hour tonight. Most of the property owners, I think, in downtown Kent in this area have not had an opportunity to digest this plan and they. . .they 35 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 don't even know about it. And I would request the Commission to hold their hearings open for. . .not make a final decision for at least ninety days. We. . .I think there should be some more public hearings and that's what our. . .the decision of our Task Force that worked on the original Downtown Plan. Thank you. Chair Faust: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Stewart? Commissioner Martinez: Yes. Did you participate in the August 2 meeting or any of those meetings that were held with the Kent. . . Bill Stewart: No, I did not. I was on the. . .on the Enterprise Zone Committee, but somehow or other this just went by me and I didn't realize that this Plan was as far along as it was until about two weeks ago. Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Dahle: Did we have all these workshops advertised? Because we've had workshops, six of them in the last month and a half. Bill Stewart: I attended the last workshop, but that's the first one that I knew about that was about this. Commissioner Havlor: I have a question. Mr. Stewart, is there any particular thing you're concerned about or just the overall Plan? Bill Stewart: Kevin commented on. . .one of his comments was that the parking restrictions in the DC zone would, if I understood him correctly, he said that they would revert to the original DC-1 with no parking requirements and that was one of my questions is that those of us who paid for the LID, the parking LID, originally in the DC-1 zone, are now going to be required to provide additional parking if we provide living areas. . . living units. Commissioner Haylor: Well, what my understanding was at the last workshop on parking was that basically in the DC area it stayed the same. There would be no additional requirements. Bill Stewart: OK, if that's the way it is then I 'm. . .I was wrong in my. . . Commissioner Haylor: Is there any other concern? Bill Stewart: There's been at least two property owners in other zones that have some questions and they're both here tonight and I would expect that they would like to speak to their own problems. 36 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Commissioner Haylor: Well I would like to just say as a new Commissioner here tonight that I do think we that we probably should keep this hearing open after tonight. Bill Stewart: Good. Appreciate it. Commissioner Haylor: I 'm only one vote though. Chair Faust: Any other questions for Mr. Stewart? Staff, I'd like you please to respond to the issue that he raised if you would. Kevin O'Neill: Thank you. I can respond to that. First of all Mr. Stewart is correct that in the. . .what's recommended to be the new DC zone that 100% in reduction in off-street parking requirements would be preserved. Mr. Stewart's also correct that staff's recommending that for multifamily development within that area, there be one off-street parking space required per unit. However, that is an existing requirement that is in the zoning currently for multifamily development. So there would be no changes within that downtown core relating to parking requirements. Commissioner Martinez: Madam Chair? The current zoning, as it exists, exists beside the LID that Mr. Stewart has helped to pay for. Is that correct? Kevin O'Neill: I'm sorry? Commissioner Martinez: If he at this moment elected to turn his upstairs into multifamily, would he have to provide parking? Kevin O'Neill: According to the provisions of the zoning code, yes. Commissioner Martinez: The current? Kevin O'Neill: Yes. Commissioner Martinez: Thank you. OK. Chair Faust: Thank you for the clarification, Kevin. The next person on this list has asked just to be on the mailing list. Chris Kirsop? Chris Kirsop: I'd like to speak just briefly if I may. Chair Faust: Sure. Chris Kirsoy: My name's Chris Kirsop and my address is 804 W. Meeker Street and I may apologize from the outset for not being 37 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 more informed on all the workings that are going on. I attended the August hearing that was held and I did not go to your workshops and frankly, I was not aware of your workshops and did not go to the October meeting. But I might suggest that the west set of railroad tracks be treated the same as the east set or at least looked at the same as the east set of tracks in regarding the properties that are immediately adjacent to those tracks. On the west tracks there is a fairly substantial amount of land on both sides set aside for parks and other uses that are not buildings, retail or otherwise, and the majority of the land alongside the east tracks is set up the same way, either as DIM or open spaces, playgrounds and so forth, except one portion which is right where my building is that's being changed to a Mixed Use and I 'm concerned about becoming a nonconforming use under that Plan. I might suggest that being as close to the tracks as it is now, it would be best left in a DIM zoning. Thank you for your time. Commissioner Martinez: Can you specify, is it over by North Sixth Avenue? Is that where you're talking about? Chris Kirson: It's west of the tracks just on the other side of Sixth Avenue. Commissioner Martinez: Yeah, thanks. Chris Kirson: Right across the street from the main playground there. Chair Faust: Any other questions for Mr. Kirsop? Commissioner Havlor: Yeah, what type of business is it? Chris Kirsov: It's a machine shop. Commissioner Havlor: Machine shop. Chris Kirson: Primarily aerospace, job shop. Commissioner Havlor: OK, thanks. Chair Faust: Thank you. The next person is Jerry Klein. Jerry Klein: Thank you. I represent. . .I'm an attorney and I represent Washington Cedar and Kent Building Materials. Do you have the transparency? Voice• Sure. Voices• (Unclear) 38 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Jerry Klein: This. . . let's see if I can. . .Smith Street is sort of a natural barrier. It's the east/west arterial and I think that this area right up here just north of there is more consistent with the industrial uses in this area. Here's like Bordens. Mr. McCann raised a lot of good points regarding that area. I don't think that it's at all consistent with the. . .right now this is being put in DC and I think that. . . it's true that the library is over here, but this area has always been an industrial or commercial construction type area and I think that it would just. . .you have kind of a natural boundary here and so I feel its unnecessary to try to include this into the general DC area. I think that a buffer would be unnecessary for that particular area. If I can draw your attention to. . . in Exhibit A of Mrs. Anderson's memorandum on the principal permitted uses under the DLM category, it lists a number 3 which allows establishments engaged in manufacture, processing, assembly and sale of contract construction and hoe improvement products which is a major use in that. . .you know, in this area. I think its important to have this in here. It's not. . .doesn't. . . it's not contained in the green flyer. . . the manual here. Instead what they did was they allowed all existing. . .well they had the number 10 that's crossed down below. I think that a lot of Kent's character is derived because you have a lot of small shops like Mr. Kirsop who has facilities that were. . .people a lot of times from the Kent area will come down and actually visit these shops and hire for small jobs. I think this is a very important use here. It's not. . .certainly its light manufacturing, however, I think it's a very important part of the character of any area and it's in many respects is very consistent with commercial types of uses. You can't buy everything at a Fred Meyer store. A lot of times you want to go down and special order things and all the small shops down Rainier, or not Rainier, Railroad Avenue and Central, especially down Railroad, the whole. . . it's almost all small shops and small manufacturers who do a lot of jobs. Who do. . . like there's millwrights in there, carpenters and this sort of thing and a lot of times people like to go down there and special order cabinets or special order whatever, railings or something like this and I think if you're going to. . .to change this to MU, not MU but yeah change this to MU, right now it's. . .gee, did I lose your transparency? You' ll shoot me if I did. Oh, here it is. To change it to. . .see right now it's General Commercial where these uses are consistent. If you change it to MU, I think that you'd run into the problems of trying to exclude those types of uses. The railroad tracks do provide a natural barrier for the two different uses and I think that it would be beneficial to allow that type of use. I think it would be a good idea to amend the wording to include the section. . .or this paragraph 10 which allows existing manufacturing uses. I realize it was deleted with the idea that you were adding paragraph 3 in 39 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 your permitted uses for the DIM, but I think it would be beneficial for all of the people to allow for existing manufacturing uses as of the effective date of the ordinance and to include that in not only the DIM, but also in your MU designation, your new designation. Thank you. I 've used up my five minutes. Chair Faust: Well, Counsel, as you can see, I really haven't been holding anybody to that, but I appreciate it. I do have one question for you. What about. . .how would you feel about a redesignation into MU, rather than into DC? Would that make your client feel any better? Jerry Klein: Well sure, if you could allow. . .that would be fine. Sure. Anything other than the DC. I think it's just not consistent with DC and north of Smith is just not consistent with the idea of the DC, but anything. Yeah MU, especially if you could allow for existing manufacturing and especially I think this, it looks like paragraph 3 was specifically designed for us. I mean that's good, but I think there are probably. . .I know that along First Avenue North there are a number of small shops, same thing as on Railroad Avenue, and I think that you would. . .for them it would be better to just leave the existing manufacturing uses if possible. Chair Faust: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Klein? All right. The next person said he just wanted to be on the mailing list, Bernard Johnson? Bernard Johnson: I have no comments at this time, thank you. Chair Faust: And likewise, Les Thomas? Les Thomas: My name is Les Thomas. I live at 10321 SE 270th Place in Kent and I operate and own Blessings Jewelry Store here in Kent, 225 W. Meeker. I also should share maybe that I served two years and was one of the original members of the downtown Mayor's Task Force and. . .yeah, I ' ll leave that alone, but I was a part of that. I have a couple quick questions, I guess, after all. On page 3 of the memo today, I 'm just curious about the awnings must be provided. . .this is about the middle of the page here. . .awnings must be provided along the length of the facade fronting a Class A street. Now my particular store has two Class A. I'm on the corner of Meeker and Second. In other words, I 'm right in front of the new library that's going in. So would awnings be required of a store such as mine. Is that a possibility? Is that what they're saying, if I were to build a new store? 40 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 And number 2 that goes along with this is the paragraph below it. Windows allowing visual access to and from the building must make up the greatest percentage of street level facade area along a Class. . .I believe that's probably a Class A street. . . it doesn't say there. It just says Class street. I don't know what a Class street is, but I think our street's pretty classy, but that's all right. I have a problem with that in the face that we have our frontage window on Meeker Street and then I have no windows, obviously, on Second. In fact, the City would like to use that whole side as a. . .as a place for a new mural and it would be awful to have a mural with a window in it. But those are just some of the questions that I think need to be considered. Maybe it should say. . .amendment here. . .at least one portion of the building should be on a Class A street should have that, the windows. Does that make sense to you? In other words, I 'm in a predicament on a corner that I have windows on one side especially. . .maybe two, but in this case just one. The other questions is on page 6 and this is directed to Mr. Harris, City Planner. On number 5, landscaping DC zone, street trees in accordance with the official street tree plan. Now I 've never seen this official street tree plan. Is there one, Jim? James Harris: Well, to direct my comments to the Chair. Chair Faust: Thank you. James Harris: There is a street plan that's actually I think it's under the jurisdiction of the Parks Department. Les Thomas: Ok. So I can talk to Mr. Wilson on that one? Chair Faust: Mr. Thomas. Mr. Thomas, there is a street tree plan. Les Thomas: I see that. Chair Faust: It's under the jurisdiction of the Parks Department. Les Thomas: I can get that from Mr. Wilson then? Chair Faust: Yes, I 'm sure that Mr. Wilson would be happy to provide you with it. Les Thomas: Maybe people haven't been downtown too often and by some of the traffic patterns, I believe that's true. The overhangs that we have provided on Meeker Street under Blessings and all of them along Meeker Street on that particular north side make it impossible for trees to be planted there because our overhangs extend out over to keep people from getting rained and snowed on. 41 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 So it makes it kind of difficult to have trees planted there and also have a nice overhang for the protection of the shoppers. But that's another problem. The last one is on page 9 that I have a question on. An this should be a question that I think, is it Lauri. . .I 'm sorry I don't know. OK. She recommended "D" be recommended tonight, "Direct Planning Department Staff to study and make recommendations on the feasibility of design review for the Downtown Planning Area as a separate work program" . Basically she was saying that allows them to get into more detail on the nuts and bolts of things. I think something that should be considered if this is adopted is some kind of a time line or twilight clause perhaps that, you know, one of the problems that Kent has and I'm not sure everybody's aware of it, but sometimes it takes a long time to get permits and all these things through. If there was a. . .some kind of a twilight clause on this particular plan so that you're not dragging things out over say a year or two years. If you said OK we can plan this, but it's got to be done in 60, 90 days, something like that. Just food for thought on that one. I think that's all I have. Do you have any questions for me? Commissioner Dahle: I have a question. Les Thomas: Sure. Commissioner Dahle: You said you're on Second Avenue? Les Thomas: Second and Meeker. I 'm. . . Commissioner Dahle: OK, isn't Second Avenue a B street, Class B? Les Thomas: I believe it's an A in the downtown. . .I 'm right in the center of downtown Kent. Commissioner Faust: They're probably both A's. Commissioner Martinez: I think they're probably both A's. Les Thomas: I believe they're both A's on your map there. Commissioner Dahle: It shows as a B on here. . .what I have here. Les Thomas: Am I wrong too? Commissioner Dahle: Let's go back. Les Thomas: I 've got the wrong one. That's in the green one isn't it? 42 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Commissioner Dahle: OK, I'm looking at this one. I'm looking at the shaded one back here. Thank you. Les Thomas: Which one was it? Commissioner Dahle: She says it's an A. Les Thomas: Yeah. That's what I thought. Something to think about anyway because if you have a corner, it's just one of those unusual situations where you do have a corner lot and you'd have two A streets intersecting. I think, Bill Stewart, you probably have the same problem. Bill Stewart: Same problem. Commissioner Dahle: Well you do have glass on that side of the street anyway, right? Les Thomas: I have glass, lots of it, on A. on Meeker Street, but I have none. . . Commissioner Dahle: Don't you have any on Second? voice• (Unclear) Chair Faust: Well, Mr. Thomas, it was my understanding that we're talking about new construction, not existing construction. Les Thomas: That's correct. Chair Faust: But perhaps Ms. Anderson would like to add something to what I just said and elucidate maybe. Lauri Anderson: Yeah, I don't think that I have anything to add. I think it's a really good point that Mr. Blessing has raised. Les Thomas: Well actually, I'm Mr. Thomas, but that's OK. Lauri Anderson: Mr. Thomas, I 'm sorry. Les Thomas: I had that problem in the election too. Lauri Anderson: One thing. . .one point that was raised about the potential for a mural or enhancements or just acknowledging that on a corner lot someone might be up against that problem, I think is a really good point. Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Thomas, or Blessing. And the next person who may feel the spirit move him is Neil Bisyak? 43 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Neil Bisyak: My name is Neil Bisyak. I live at 25116 156th Avenue SE, Kent. I was also never notified pertaining to this rezone, which was already brought up by several people and I have a couple of questions. One was how would a Class A space receive supplies if you were to design a new area without an alley and without access. For instance, on Meeker, I think, it's all being supplied by this street here. However, if you have a double street with no alley vacated. . .been vacated for many years, how do these people, if they were to put up new facilities, how do they supply their stores? So that is the question and I don't know. . .somebody has to design something to come up with that. There's not enough parking in the designated areas. People do not like to walk. They' ll go to Southcenter and walk two miles across the place, you know, but they won't walk 100 feet. You can't even tell employees to park in the public zone. They want to park in their own parking lot and walk 20 feet into a door. So I think that's a problem that really has to be addressed. I don't care how many spaces you create, if it isn't next door, we seem to tend to be pretty lazy. Talking in respect to a piece of property that I have some involvement in, I don't know how you can take away a zone that has been assessed for many years and give it a lesser zoning, or possibly a lesser zoning just by drawing a new line somewhere across the City map. And it's no sense in getting into that and explaining that tonight, but I just don't know how somebody can draw a line across town and divide property up at will. So I think that that would, that's another addressment. So thank you. Chair Faust: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Bisyak? Commissioner Haylor: Yes, I have one. Which property are you concerned about being divided? Neil Bisyak: It would be on Smith Street between Fourth and Sixth and the original zoning map I think, proposed is the original according to this it goes clean down to a nonexistent line where I assume would be roughly Fifth Avenue. Now it is drawn between a bank on one side and New York Life Building on the other, on Harrison Street and changed to an MU. So if you flip the two pages over you can see where the lines are moved to there. Chair Faust: Anything else? Any other questions for Mr. Bisyak? Thank you very much. Neil Bisyak: Thank you. Chair Faust: Joe Silvestri. 44 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Joe Silvestri: I think you can hear me all right can't you? Chair Faust: I 'd like you to step to the mike because we're recording everything. Joe Silvestri: I get stage fright. Chair Faust: Just think of the mike as being farther back than the front row. Joe Silvestri: Being friendly. My name's Joe Silvestri and I live at 21507 108th Avenue SE. I 'm Dan's father and I 'm also. . .he has a brother that is away right now so I feel that I should ask a few questions for him. First of all, Dan requested DLM zoning for their building. Now is that requesting it here tonight, is that the proper channel, or do we have to do something in writing to request this other zoning? Chair Faust: This is the right forum to bring that up because what we're taking here tonight is public testimony about this entire rezone including how we're rezoning various sections, so this is the place to bring it up. Joe Silvestri: Well I mean does his request then become official that he's asking for that or does he have to put it on paper or. . . Chair Faust: Doesn't have to put it on paper. Joe Silvestri: OK. The other thing is when does the City plan to implement this zone change. . .when is it. . .I know people have requested more hearings, but I mean what was the original plan? When is it going into effect? Chair Faust: It's really hard to say. Joe Silvestri: Hard to say. Chair Faust: I hate to sound like the attorney that I am and say it depends, but it depends. If we don't finish tonight, and it's already ten til and there are people who haven't been heard from yet. We haven't even begun talking among ourselves. I can't imagine we' ll finish tonight. That means it's going to be another month before this body even makes a recommendation and from us it will go to the Council and provided that the Council approves it without sending it back to us or to anybody else for changes, I imagine it will still take 90 days, at least 90 days, after that for it to go into effect. Or is it 60? 45 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 James Harris: Well 30 days from the time the Council adopts an ordinance and it may take the Council a couple of meetings to do this, so you're looking at August or sometime probably. Chair Faust: This year Mr. Silvestri. Joe Silvestri: OK, now where can I get. . .I haven't found the M2 existing zoning they have on paper here. Where can I get a copy of the M2? Chair Faust: From the Planning Department. Joe Silvestri: Planning here in City Hall or where? Chair Faust: They're next door in the new building. Joe Silvestri: OK. And the last thing is this downgrading of like a building. If under the new zoning, it has less appeal for resale, in other words that could be easily determined through appraisals, it seems to me that the Supreme Court once put out something to the effect that if an entity downgraded property, they have to pay for it, for the loss of value. Now has the City of Kent ever considered some of these people might seek compensation for their downgrading if they are downgraded. Maybe they're upgraded, but that's to be determined. It's very ,easily to go have it appraised with the existing apprai. . . , with the existing zoning and then have it appraised under the new zoning. And the real estate people will tell you what it's worth both ways and if it's downgraded, isn't there a chance for you know the City might have to compensate people for this? Chair Faust: I 'm going to take that as a rhetorical question. Joe Silvestri: Well anyway, the City should consider that. Thank you for your time. Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Silvestri. Does any. . .do any of the Commissioners have any questions for Mr. Joe Silvestri? Commissioner Dahle: Yes, I neglected to write down what kind of business Dan Silvestri was in? Joe Silvestri: Well, I ' ll let him tell you. Commissioner Dahle: Oh, I thought you said he was out of town. I 'm sorry. Joe Silvestri: His brother's out of town. 46 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Commissioner Dahle: All right. Joe Silvestri: Well, it's mainly retailing and manufacturing. Chair Faust: Thank you. The next person on the list is John Stone. Do you wish to speak, Mr. Stone? John Stone: My name is John Stone. I live at 431 E. Meeker Street. Mr. Silvestri touched on what I'm concerned with. I live in an area that has been encroached upon. It used to be residential. Now we have doctors' offices and dentists' offices and parking lots and I'm concerned as to what this new zoning is going to do to my assessment by the County Auditor as far as property tax is concerned. I 'm not an expert in planning, but I have always hears that spot planning was not a good way to operate a planning operation. It sounds to me that this general category of mixed uses is authorizing spot zoning. If you're a business, you can come in. If you're a retailer or a manufacturer or if you're going to build a multifamily residence, you can come in. How does a person who lives in an area that was multi-residential, multifamily residential zoning, feel about the fact that he doesn't know who his new neighbors are going to be or what their business is going to be? I think mixed uses is an attempt to escape the responsibility of the City to identify areas for particular uses. I 'm concerned also, we've heard a lot about South King County is going to be areas for homes to rehabilitate people released from prison. That we might be the recipient of a jail in this area. These things, I think, have to be controlled. I, as a citizen, am concerned too. I understand that you folks are trying to get us to give you input so you can know what best to do for us. I don't want to put my finger on a bad spot, but at one time the City of Kent asked people where they should put the senior citizens' resource center and they wanted to put it down where it's at now, but they wanted the backing of public and they had a vote on it. And the vote was against putting it there, but they ended up putting it there anyway. So what I 'm asking the Planning Commission to do is to respond to the citizens' input. I think somebody mentioned they'd like to have a follow on meeting. I think one of the purposes of that follow on meeting would be to specifically respond to the requests that were made and I, for one, would like to see something other than Mixed Use zoning. I want to know if my little area is going to be business, then say so. If it's going to be residential, zone it for residential and stick to it. Don't throw out a nice big carpet that says anybody that wants to come in, just come on in. You're welcome. And if you're a business, you have to have these. . .meet these requirements. If you're a residence, you meet these requirements. Seems like a catch all to me. But as I say, I 'm not an expert in this. I 'm just a simple taxpayer and I guess I 'm going to have to go along 47 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 with whatever you people decide. That's what your job is. You get our input and then you decide what's best for us to live with. I would call your attention to the fact that there's a lot of small details that planners who are trying to make a generalized plan can't foresee. And I 'm sure that they'd like for us to tell them when they're stepping on our toes so that they can adjust it accordingly. But that's what's so difficult about planning for the future. Our home has been there since 1900 and it's old and it's not as fancy as a lot of places would be, but it's our home and we're going to be living there, I guess, for as long as we live provided we can stay there. If we don't become nonconforming. I 'm not aware of this nonconforming bit. Maybe my home's already nonconforming and I don't know it, but I think that people should be identified. . .should be notified if they're considered nonconforming. These type of bits of information can slip by you. I try to read the papers thoroughly, but you don't read everything and I frankly don't understand everything I read. So that's enough for tonight and thank you very much for being patient and listening to me. Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Stone. I would like to ask you, would you tell me what your address is again? John Stone: 431 E. Meeker Street. You just go up Meeker as far as you can go to the east and when you run into Kennebeck, I 'm right on the northwest corner. Chair Faust: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Stone? Commissioner Martinez: Yes. In our deliberations, is there some particular zoning designation that is your top priority? John Stone: Well, I. . . Commissioner Martinez: You're currently, I think, DC-2 . Is that correct? John Stone: Well, no we were MHR, multiple high density residential. Commissioner Martinez: Oh, OK. I can't see where that is. John Stone: We're that little jog they included in. Commissioner Martinez: Yeah, OK, right. I 'm looking at the right place. John Stone: Yeah. I don't like being in Mixed Use because we're already mixed up enough and I just think that if we're going to 48 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 allow residences to stay there, let's say so. If we're going to have to move out because businesses are coming in, I want to know that too and I think the impact of the change in zoning should have to be explored with the auditors, or the assessors, to determine if this is going to raise our property values or lower them because this is important to I 'm sure businessmen, and it certainly is to residential people. And I think that you, our representatives, should be as much concerned about the impact on us as we are and to advise us accordingly. Thank you very much. Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Stone. The next person is Mark Stone. Mark Stone: I don't have anything to say. Chair Faust: And the next person is Mr. Don Bogard. Don Bogard: My name is Don Bogard. I'm an architect and my business address is 922 N. Central. I 'm also a property owner of some property that's commingled with the Bisyak property between Sixth Avenue and Fourth Avenue on Smith Street. And I 've been on the last two committees, the Mayor's Enterprise Zone Committee and the CBD, the Downtown Committee, that worked on the documents that were referred to earlier and I have some. . . Well I guess first off I'd like to say that I 'm not as eloquent as Mr. McCann or Mr. Stone and I think that some of the concerns that I have because I 'm near the end here have been expressed also. I would say as far as the process goes, that I really think in fairness to the citizens and the property owners and the business people that these hearings do need to be kept open and I didn't, having been on those two committees and been a member of the Planning Commission for seven years and helping work on the zoning ordinances that are in effect now and the previous ones, I didn't know about where we were on this until a week ago. And I received no correspondence. There's been nothing in the newspapers. A week ago I got. . .I found out through a chamber committee that I 'm on. And so, and I think that I 'm not alone in this and I, because my property is commingled, I mean Bisyak's property and mine are really together and should be looked as one piece of property. The Bisyak family wasn't aware of this either until I found out about it. And talking of process, the Bisyak family's property's been zoned DC, it's currently DC-1 and they paid into the parking LID and they've been paid into the. . .very heavily on the Fourth Avenue, or Smith Street LID and now, without notifying them, now it's been put over into MU which is really, there's a body of recommendations in the two committees that I was on to keep. . .that DC property basically stay the same. And so, I think in fairness and as the way. . .the process has broken down and I really object to that and I think that the Planning Commission should look into this and I think that the Planning staff owes the Bisyak's an explanation. I would say that I have 49 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 some concerns about. . .it seems to me that what's been attempted here by the staff is that it's an attempt to make a utopian downtown community out of this and basically towards. . .oriented towards pedestrians. And it seems like the business part of it has been left out and it may well work. And it may well be that they may well have the vision that us that are in business that are too close to in all our (unclear) . . .our noses are too close and on the day to day things then it may be well that as a property in the valley get developed and there's a shortage, that developers will come in and buy these, take up these parcels of ground and build two story continuous property from block to block. As it. . .and I think that that may happen, but it's going to take. . . it's going to be. . . it's not going to happen this year or next year. But in the meantime, and this is what concerns me is that there's a myriad of small parcels, especially downtown, and there's also along with these small parcels there's a body of regulations that the Building Department. . . in the building code and the Street Department and surface water management that has effects on these properties that is. . .I don't believe the Planning Department's looked at and I' ll give you a few examples in a minute here. But, what it looks like is that it may work and. . .but if it is going to work, it's going to be large developments similar to the probably the senior citizens housing where there's going to be someone come and buy up a large piece of property or parcels of property and build a hundred units down here which is in the mill right now. Or similar to what's happened to the new Centennial Building where the outside developer's come in and taken up a block and several parcels and put up something big. I don't think that small developers, small business people, are going to go in and buy or develop one or two sixty foot lots or whatever it is and get like things that have been brought up tonight about how you get access and service to these things and get parking in behind. I don't think it's going to happen. And so maybe if we look down the road long enough that we will be another Bellevue or a suburban city similar to other parts of the country that's drastically changed. I think a thing that really has not been addressed, another concern, is that, it's been talked about a little bit, is nonconforming use and I don't believe that. . .there really needs to be something in this that. . .so that these existing buildings, when someone wants to make an improvement or have a new tenant or there's another use, that what is going to happen? I, being an architect, have been faced with this interfacing and rubbing against the building officials and it's very abrasive and time consuming. It's expensive both for the property owners and for the City and I think that some of the codes have. . . if you increase the value of your property by 50%, well then the whole code comes into effect. Then others that are. . .the example is the energy code and the building code and some other ones. But the zoning code is triggered by. . .whenever there's been. . .currently whenever there's been an expansion then the 50 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 code. . .when one applies for a permit then 100% of that code comes into effect and I presume that that's what is going to happen if these provisions are adopted here. And so. . .and it brings up the question well what does like the Currans do. They have a brand new facility over here that's been built under the current ordinances and it conforms. What if they want to put on a partial second floor or somebody needs a little bit in front? Are they going to be required to come out to the property line? I mean there are really big issues here that have not been addressed. Or do they have to build another story? They have a partial one story building. What about the old existing buildings? What about the one story buildings and what. . . it just. . .the. . .do you leave it to one individual to make the decision or is there something. . .what really needs to be is figured out and I don't think this has been addressed. Maybe it hasn't even been thought about, but I think. . . it was either going to stop everything or it's. . .til somebody comes in and rebuilds with enough money to buy out a whole city block and then rebuild it. But in the meantime, there's a lot of property owners and a lot of small businesses here that make their livelihood here and these things have really not been addressed and I would say that just in closing here, that I 've known about this for about a week and I really don't feel comfortable or confident to come up and really express my concerns because I haven't had a chance to really dig out and smoke out what the problems are. So I really hope the Planning Commission will hold this open and not rush this through. And that's all I have to say. Chair Faust: Thank you Mr. Bogard. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Bogard? Commissioner Dahle: I have a question for you. On this notification, do we put any notices or advertisements in anything besides the Kent News Journal? Chair Faust: It's my understanding that our only requirement is to advertise this in the public meetings section of the Valley Daily News. I'd like to say that it's unfortunate that the Valley Daily News has not seen fit to give any coverage to this issue and I don't think there's a representative of the press here tonight. Any other questions for Mr. Bogard? Commissioner Haylor: Mr. Bogard, would you like to be put on the mailing list with everyone else? Don Bogard: Yes, I thought I was on the mailing list. Commissioner Haylor: I don't think you have to worry about being eloquent enough to speak to us. I think you got your point across. 51 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Don Bogard: Thank you. James Harris: Madam Chair. May I just make one statement and I think that Lauri mentioned that we sent out what was it, a thousand three hundred public notices to property owners. Now they're all saying that they've received those. They're not saying they haven't. I think what they're saying is that over a continuum that goes back evidently some months, some were involved early, dropped out, some didn't get involved and I think that's what we're hearing here. What we would like to do is we've kind of given that to you in a verbal this evening. We'd like to write that down, that process that we went through and get it to you. Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Harris. I 'd appreciate that. The next speaker is Pete Curran. Pete Curran: Thank you. I'm Pete Curran. My business address is 555 W. Smith Street and I will try to keep my remarks brief and not be too repetitive. As I see what's happening here, first we see people like Bill Stewart and Don Bogard who have been involved in the process who felt surprised by having this notice come to them without really ever realizing that this process had got to this point. And I think that it reveals to us that. . .sitting on your side of the table I can see how you feel frustrated because you spend tons of hours working on this plan and now trying the implement that plan into a zoning code for. . .a new zoning code for downtown, but I would urge that you recognize that these kind of things don't ever really get communicated thoroughly in this community, not because you don't try to do it. Obviously, you're right. You sent out a notice that everybody got because they're here and that's what got them here. But up to now I think, you know these things are going on, but you really don't know what is being put together. You hear about an Enterprise Zone Task Force, but nothing was ever revealed as to what that Enterprise Zone Task Force did publicly and that's part of the deficiency. . .we don't have a press in this town that really pays a damn bit of attention to what goes on in this City Hall. In too many ways, once in a while they ring a bell, but very rarely. What I see here is the most profound change to the downtown that we've seen since I 've lived here since 1960. Granted in 1974 we passed kind of the guts of what you're working on now which was intended to create a pedestrian-oriented downtown and it might have been utopian then as Don Bogard suggests. It hasn't really. . . in a lot of ways some parts of it have been implemented, but a lot of it hasn't been. But now you're taking a tack that's suggesting we might have sixteen story buildings here and I 'm like Don Bogard. I want to sit down and think about the implications of what this is all saying for Kent and whether we really want to have the right to have. . .the potential of having sixteen story buildings in downtown 52 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Kent. It seems like it's unlikely, but I guess you would say that about Bellevue a few years ago and so I think I would urge you not to feel like you've put so much time in this that why didn't we wake up sooner and that because we didn't you've given enough hours to us and therefore, you want to make judgments. I think you do need to respect what you've heard, I mean I shouldn't say, I know you' ll respect what you've heard. I just urge you to give this more time. There's no hurry. There's no hurry about making these kind of decisions about downtown and I think I guess I would like to see some effort to actually leaflet into the storefronts of this downtown. Get the attention of the people downtown. Get the process out. Just like Jim Harris just suggested. Get the countdown of what's going to happen and give people plenty of time to sit down and figure out what this means for this community and what it means to them. I 'm like Don Bogard. I interface with City staff constantly on various land use matters and no matter what Mr. O'Neill and Ms. Anderson say, and I know they would second this, I just can't tell for sure whether these words that we're putting on paper, how they're going to be interpreted later by maybe the next Mr. O'Neill or Ms. Anderson or whoever's sitting in those spots or the next Jim Harris, here, the next City Council, the next Planning Commission. You can't tell what's going to happen and you can't tell what happens to those little singular, narrow, one-lot owners who aren't big developers and who have now got some impact to them by virtue of what this code does. I'm not saying it's bad impact, but I think it needs to be better understood. What is the impact on some person like Mr. Stone who owns a narrow, maybe a 90 foot lot, or 60 foot lot? What is the true impact to him? I don't know if you can get that out. I don't think you can really. I think that's something that we have to sort out on our own. It would be nice if we had more ample information, but I realize how difficult that is. Anyway, I just urge that we be given time to really understand what this means to us. Thank you very much. Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Curran. Are there any questions for Mr. Curran. Yes there are. Yes. commissioner Martinez: As a. . .one of the things that I think a number of us on this Planning Commission and the Planning Department have been very concerned about in the last five years is in fact the process whereby we are constantly being told that we give people no notification despite the fact that we might have worked on something for a year and a half and it's been in the papers at least twice a month during that time. There was an effort made to go to the Kent Development Association, to the Chamber of Commerce and to other organizations that we think have your tar and the ear of both large and small people who are business owners in the downtown area. I guess our question to you 53 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 and to those of. . .the rest of you in the audience is how do we do this better? You know. . .most of you know us on this Commission. It's not for want of doing. . .we don't want to do a poor job. On the contrary, we want to do the best job we can because we're living here. How can we do a better job and I don't think you can answer that tonight, but I think that it's your responsibility to help us figure that out. Pete Curran: I can say a couple of things about that. One of the things you can count on now is that 90% of the Chamber of Commerce members don't live in Kent and probably 95% don't own property in down. . .in this 300 acre area. And 90% of the Rotary Club members and 90% of about anything doesn't really live. . .doesn't even vote in Kent. 90% of the Chamber of Commerce members don't vote in Kent. You know? And you've got to understand that talking to those people, you may not. . .I mean it just maybe is going right by them because they don't have property in downtown Kent. Now the question is how do you communicate with them and I guess that's one where I think that we do lack because of the press. But I think, I think that constant mailings, constant mailings, constant mailings to the process and the implication of the process to these people. . .more than just last week, even though it's costly. I appreciate that. It's costly for the City to be, to be sending these mailings. But giving people the fair constant warning that these things are going on and what. . .where we're going with this process because I don't think anybody really appreciates that. When you have people like Bill Stewart and Don Bogard step up here and basically I 'm telling you the same thing and I ' ll have to admit I probably should know more. But I can tell you that I just got back today. I 've been gone a few days and I opened up that letter today and read it and had I come back tomorrow, I wouldn't have been here. But anyway, I think that constant mailings is something that. . .and I frank. . .honestly I think leafletting the store. . .on this matter. . .the property owners of downtown Kent. Some way walking around and handing things to them is effective because I don't know if you're mailing to tenants. I think. . .do you know that, Jim? Are you mailing to property owners? James Harris: Property owners primarily. Pete Curran: And tenants are you? James Harris: And tenants. We're. . .I don't want to interrupt. I think that you have seen some of the things we've tried to do. You were in some community forums last year and it. . .we hear this at every public hearing that we go through, if it's the 20% down zone or whatever it is, and I agree with Pete Curran and others that there's got to be some way that we can get through to people. And until their. . .I guess you'd say ox is bored, they don't come out of 54 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 their homes and come down here and face the so called music. And I don't know how to get people to do that. I think these folks here probably are missing the Academy Awards tonight to come down here, but a lot of other people stayed home to watch them. We have tried everything. . .I've been here twenty-one years and Pete Curran knows that I've worked on downtown. . .I 've worked on downtown til I 've got bloody fingers on downtown and there's been every different way to work downtown and some have been effective. 90% have of it has not been effective. To get down to that person and that individual piece of property and the property owner or the retailer or whatever and to keep their interest over all these years. It's waxes and waned. KDA came to life. KDA died out. The Chamber has to be some kind of a special interest group that's interested in commerce in the City and. . . Voice: One would think so. James Harris: And the newspaper ought to be interested in what in the heck's going on in the City. So I could go on all day. We will. . .I would like to get into this after you've continued this meeting and go over some things that we could do in this meeting and in the next meeting and possibly in the next meeting so that we can bring the folks along. Now where are the one thousand three hundred people here. I do not know, but they're not out here. People are here are interested. Chair Faust: Um hum. For those of you who are yawning and rustling your papers, I get the distinct impression that we're not going to be doing anything decisive tonight, so feel free to leave. We do have some more people who are still going to be speaking, but just in case you all were still very anxious, the sense of this Committee from the nodding of the head. . .this Commission, is that we are not going to be voting on anything tonight. Did you wish to add something, Mr. Harris? James Harris: Don't leave. They need to stay here and hear the whole thing. Chair Faust: Well I think that they ought to stay and hear the whole thing. We have at least. . .we have three more people who've signed up. . .two or three anyway. Moving right along, Mr. Jesse Moralez. Jesse Moralez: (Unclear) Chair Faust: Pardon? Jesse Moralez: (Unclear) 55 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Chair Faust: Would you. . . Jesse Moralez: (Unclear) Chair Faust: OK. Fine, thank you. Jesse Moralez: (Unclear) Thank you very much. Chair Faust: All right. Jesse Moralez: Have a good night. (Laughter) Chair Faust: No you should stay. Barry Miller. Barry Miller: My name's Barry Miller and I represent Northwest Metal Products Company, 401 N. 4th in Kent. We occupy ten acres there. I might add that in this morning's Valley News, I saw the south end public meeting listing and this meeting was conspicuous by its absence in that particular section of the newspaper interestingly enough. I 'd just like to mention that if Rico Yingling, the Manager of Borden Chemical, were here he would have spoken at least five minutes and Chuck Howard would have spoken at least six minutes and I 've concluded my comments because anything that I would say would be redundant, so I 'd like to credit the fifteen minutes that might have been spent otherwise to Dick McCann's time. (Laughter) Chair Faust: Which, of course, he's already used. Well spoken, Mr. Miller. Commissioner Haylor: I have one comment. I appreciate it. (Laughter) Chair Faust: Well spoken, Mr. Miller. Last, but not least, J. Alex Tennent. You've signed up just to receive information, but I 'll give you an opportunity to speak if you'd like. Alex Tennent: Yeah, I 'd like to say (unclear) . Chair Faust: Come on up to the mike. Alex Tennent: Thank you all for your job. It's a thankless job, but you do. . .you know appreciate it. First I want to just apologize. . .well my name's Al Tennent. I live on 2035 S. 223rd in 56 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Des Moines and I'm the general partner of some property kind of down in the lower left hand corner there on Ninth and Meeker, 908 W. Meeker and Naden and I just had a. . .just wanted to go on record that as far as the goal of revitalization, I don't really understand what that is. I like the idea, you know, of revitalizing downtown and the main point that I guess I wanted to make was is there ever going to be a forum where we can have more of a heart to heart kind of a talk to see what the. . . if the committee has a focus. . .what their wanting to do, whether it's you know x amount story buildings, or whether it's bulldoze and put in housing. You know, kind get more of a question and answer. . .I think it was the second man, Mr. Leiper, that made a. . .just had a few questions. And it be interesting for me, you know, I read through the report and just not being a professional in real estate, I don't really understand a lot of the inner things that might be in there and I think it would be helpful to those of us who aren't attorneys to be able to, you know, sit in on a question and answer type of a thing. I don't know if there's ever a time for a format like that, but if there is, I 'd just like to, you know, make a comment that I 'd be for something like that. Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Tennent. Actually, I think the question and answer period was during all those public hearings that were held last fall which somehow no one knew about. Does anybody. . . Alex Tennent: Yeah, I didn't know about those either. Chair Faust: . . .have any questions for Mr. Tennent? Commissioner Dahle: What is your. . .what do you do on you property on W. Meeker? Alex Tennent: Well it's a limited partnership and right now it's just a couple of rentals, a duplex. One of them is an old. . .a late 1800 's home that we kind of restored and are using an office. That's now in the DIM zoning so there's just some questions that I need to know like what. . . if we ever quit that as an office, could somebody move in and use it as a residence? It seems like, you know, just being able to do a question and answer type of a forum, but. Commissioner Dahle: The reason I ask was because there isn't any residential. . .really residential in this new zoning code and I 've been saying all the time that I didn't think there was enough residence down here. But I was told that the people who live in downtown Kent wanted their properties to be more commercial because they're more valuable that way. 57 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Alex Tennent: Well yeah, I definitely agree with that. I think that, you know, for the thing to be going business and revitalize and be commercial, that housing is really not an appropriate. . .I mean, you know, for people that live there and have their homes and want to stay there, that's great. If they ever want to move, their house is worth that much more. They can go get a nice place, you know, somewhere else. But, you know, that would be. . .I would want it to be commercially zoned, but. . .which it is. . .but I guess I 'm just saying. . .back to the one point that I thought Mr. Leiper brought up that was that. . .just finding out what that really means. Does it mean, you know, not to belabor the point, but. . . Commissioner Dahle: Well, that's why I thought Mixed Use is the only thing we could have in there, if there aren't going to be residential, to keep people living in town. . . Alex Tennent: Uh huh. Commissioner Dahle: . . .would be a Mixed Use. Alex Tennent: Well, it seems like on the old zoning, just one last point, there's plenty of mixed use all around. There's DC-1, DC-21 M2, MRM and. . .that isn't being developed and so I guess I don't see how just changing certain things is going to bring lots in. . .just in my own mind and that could be, you know, my lack of knowledge, but. . .and those are some things I 'd just like to be able to hear sometime. Thank you. Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Tennent. Voice: May I say one thing. Chair Faust: I was just about to say (laughter) that that's the last person on our mailing. . .on our list who signed up to speak. Here is your last opportunity if you wish to get up and say something and please make sure you state your name and your address when you come up to the mike. Mark Stone: My name's Mark Stone. I live at 215 Fifth Avenue S. Chair Faust: Would you please spell your name, last name. Mark Stone: S-T-O-N-E. Chair Faust: Oh, OK. Mark Stone: OK, yeah, and for those people that wanted another meeting, all's I wanted to say is I ended up getting four of these notices and, you know, well actually five of them and one the 58 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 mailman should have delivered to the guy next door. And for those people, you know, you know, since I got so many, I wonder if there's a handful of people who didn't get any at all. Chair Faust: Are you saying you got a whole bunch for other people? Mark Stone: No, I got a whole bunch for. . .I got about five for me and then one for my neighbor. Voice• (Unclear) Chair Faust: I 'm awfully glad that you came. (Laughter) Mark Stone: There's two occupants here and my name here. Chair Faust: I 'm glad to know that somebody came who got a notice. Mark Stone: Well that's all I wanted. . .that's the only point I wanted to make. Chair Faust: I 'm glad somebody got a notice. Thank you, Mr. Stone. Would anyone else like to have a few parting words? The lady in the back please. Voice: I don't think I 'm in your zoning area and I don't own a house anyway so I 'm probably not even supposed to be up here, but Chair Faust: First of all, you have to tell us your name and your address. Amy Rowe: I 'm sorry. My name is Amy Rowe and I live at 9635 S. 213th and I was just looking through your little thing here. . .I really don't. . .I probably shouldn't be here cause I don't think this concerns me maybe, but I noted on page 63 under development standards, I see a lot of parking, parking, parking, parking, shopping, parking, oh, pedestrian corridor and then some more parking and then I see a bicycle route at the end there which I thought was nice and so I was just kind of wondering like. . .there seems to be a lot of parking here and first of all, who's going to pay for this parking and how many cars are going to be here and if you want to walk, is there gonna. . .I noted that pedestrian corridor. I think that's really cool. So I was just. . .I don't know. . .I was just looking at that parking problem and going wow, lots of parking, lots of cars. And then I noted about Bellevue. . .a neighborhood and urban village, etc. I was wondering, is this going to be like Bellevue or is this the vision that we're looking 59 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 at here? I don't. . .I have no idea what it will look like. I 'm sorry. Voice: Don't be sorry. Amy Rowe: I don't know. Is it going to look like Bellevue cause I really don't like Bellevue that much. I like Kent. Chair Faust: Yeah, so do we. Thank you Ms. Rowe. You came a little late so I will tell you that one of the things that the staff discussed at the beginning of what seems like two or three days ago, was that one of the things we're really trying to do is make this more of a pedestrian downtown and we are trying to cut down on the parking. We're trying to cut down on the businesses that attract a lot of cars so people will be getting out of their cars and walking. So I appreciate your comments on the parking and it appears the "P" word still appears frequently in our documents. Would anyone else like to speak tonight? This is it. Well actually this isn't it. You' ll probably have another opportunity. Yes. Voice: Would you put me on the mailing list please? Chair Faust: I will. Voice: Pardon me. Chair Faust: I will. Les Thomas: Madam Chairman. One last. . . Chair Faust: Yes. Les Thomas: One last thing, I really have a hard time and I Chair Faust: Please introduce yourself. Les Thomas: Oh, again, Les Thomas from Kent. One of the things that's really complex for me to understand is how we can just look at what you still call the core area, and I understand what you mean by that, but to me the vision should be expanded to include from Bowen Scarff to the north to K-Mart. . .we don't even include K-Mart, one of the, you know, whether you like it or not as a, you know, place to shop, has nothing to do with it. It's still a vital part of the valley and south we don't even include Pay N Pak, a major retailer. We have several major retailers that aren't included in what I call the downtown. To me that's downtown. The whole valley floor is downtown and I just find our narrow scope 60 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 here, the tunnel vision, kind of a concern for me I guess for the future. That's all. Chair Faust: Thank you. Any other comments? Mr. Silvestri. Mr. Silvestri: I have a question for Mr. Curran. Do you want me to go to the microphone? Chair Faust: Sure. Mr. Silvestri: Mr. Curran, I noticed you built a beautiful building on Smith Street recently that I think any city would be proud to have. They're redoing this zoning. . .under the Mixed Use zoning it appears you couldn't build your kind of building because there's no setback allowed and there's vacant land across the street from you. How do you feel about that? What kind of people do you think might build a building, or would they? Mr. Curran: I think your comment appears to be accurate. I 'm not prepared to tell you tonight how I feel about that because I want to think a lot more about (unclear) this entire proposal is (unclear) . But I think you're right. Mr. Silvestri: I think any city would be proud to have a building like yours, but now you can't build one like yours across the street. Mr. Curran: (Unclear) Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Silvestri. At this time I would like to entertain a motion for something. Commissioner Martinez: Madam Chair. Chair Faust: Yes. Commissioner Martinez: I MOVE that we continue this hearing for one month. Chair Faust: Do I hear a second? Commissioner Heineman: Second. Chair Faust: There's been. . . it's been moved and seconded that we continue the public hearing until next month. Is there any comment. Commissioner Haylor: There is a comment. I 'd like to have a date set, not just to continue the hearing. 61 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 Chair Faust: Well, next month would be the fourth Monday at our regularly scheduled public hearing. James Harris: At 7: 00 P.M. Chair Faust: Seven o'clock. Commissioner Dahle: Second question. Will we have one workshop next month or two? Chair Faust: It's my understanding we're still only going to have one workshop next month. Commissioner Martinez: A question. Will this be on our workshop agenda at all? James Harris: It's not scheduled, but what I would like you to do when you make your final vote here is to direct the staff to take a look at some of the. . .all of the input that's been given this evening and come back to you with some of our own analysis of that and. . .with the idea that this meeting will be continued and be an open public forum next month. And if need be, after that meeting, refined and gone on to the next meeting. I agree with the people in the audience that say that there. . .we don't need to rush through this thing. I think what you need to do is get answers to questions that have been asked. Commissioner Martinez: Right. James Harris: Now that's. . .I 'm putting the staff on notice they're going to be working long and hard, but we only had net effective fourteen people testify tonight. Others came back and had some comments so we really don't have an awful lot to go through. I 've seen testimony in evenings like this up to twenty-five people testify. Commissioner Martinez: Yeah. James Harris: So this is a rather easier body of work to deal with for us. Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Harris. Any more comments on the motion on the floor? Commissioner Martinez: I do want part of that to be. . .part of the continuation to be our response to the questions that were raised and specifically talking about some of the boundary issues that were raised, some of the issues around what would happen to existing buildings. And I. . .we're going to have to talk about 62 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 manufacturing again I suppose. Those are my concerns. Anybody have anything else they want to add while we're. . . Commissioner Dahle: I have some other concerns on other matters, but not on this issue. Commissioner Martinez: Not on the questions. OK. Commissioner Haylor: The only concern that I have is waiting for the first person to step forward to say they liked the Plan. Voice: I like the Plan. (Laughter) Chair Faust: Would you please step up to the microphone and give us your name and address? We' ll make sure you get a notice of the next public hearing. (Laughter) Voice: I like the primary (unclear) in general. Chair Faust: Except for your property. Voice: (Unclear) Chair Faust: Yeah. Voice• (Unclear) James Harris: Madam Chair. We have some general discussion coming from the background. What we're going to give you are probably verbatim minutes on this, so any discussion that we just heard is going to just be voices in the audience, so that it's not specific. OK? Chair Faust: Right, and besides that we really aren't taking comments or questions from the audience at this point. We're trying to get this motion off the ground. There's a motion on the floor to hold the public hearing open until next month, which is seven o'clock, the fourth Monday of April. Same time, same channel. At that. . .at that meeting, we are going to have staff give yet another presentation that specifically addresses the issues and the questions that have been raised tonight. In particular, pay attention, staff, to boundary issues, the effect on existing buildings and the questions that have been asked regarding the manufacturing areas of the DLM area, and I would like to also add, please give some consideration to the comments and suggestions 63 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 that people have made about moving some of these boundaries around, especially those folks who are pushing up against a DIM boundary. We're also going to have a workshop, part of a workshop session this coming month devoted to this issue so that Planning Commissioners will have an opportunity to talk about this and get a little more input. That will be the third Monday of the month, also at seven o'clock. There is another item on that agenda. Yes, Lauri? Lauri Anderson: My comment was on the April workshop, we had scheduled a review of multifamily design review and the shoreline (unclear) . We have not put downtown on the workshop, but we're expecting to come back here. Would you like us at the workshop on downtown as well? Commissioner Dahle: Madam Chair, I suggest that we call a question on the last and then get into the Shoreline. . . Chair Faust: Yeah, that sounds like a real good idea. OK, the questions has been called on the motion on the floor. All those in favor, please say aye. Voices: Aye. Chair Faust: All those in favor, nay. . .all those opposed, nay. (Silence) The ayes have it and this public hearing is continued until next month, April 22, at 7: 00. And Lauri, this sounds like a procedural question that we can. . .that we can do. Can I just go ahead and close the public hearing? OK? I ' ll entertain a motion. . . Commissioner Dahle: I have one question before you do that. Chair Faust: Oh sure. Commissioner Dahle: The Shoreline issue, I thought we had to have some kind of a decision on that by April 15? Chair Faust: Yeah, we do. That's obviously going to have to still be taken up next month, but the third issue probably is going to be dropped and taken up at a later time. I ' ll entertain a motion to adjourn tonight. (End of Verbatim Minutes) 64 Kent Planning Commission March 25, 1991 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Heineman MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, (jJ es P. Harris, Secretary 65