HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 04/22/1991 (3) KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 22, 1991
The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by
Chair Faust at 7: 00 P.M. April 22, 1991 in the Kent City Hall, City
Council Chambers.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Tracy Faust, Chair
Linda Martinez, Vice Chair
Gwen Dahle
Christopher Grant
Albert Haylor
Edward Heineman, Jr.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Greg Greenstreet
Raymond Ward
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Lauri Anderson, Senior Planner
Carol Proud, Senior Planner
Kevin O'Neill, Planner
Janet Shull, Planner
Anne Watanabe, Planner
Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF MARCH 25, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Commissioner Grant MOVED that the minutes of the March 25, 1991
meeting be approved as presented. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the
motion. Motion carried.
CERTIFICATE OF APPOINTMENT
Chair Faust presented a Certificate of Appointment to
Commissioner Heineman.
KENT DOWNTOWN PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM - ZCA-90-6
(Verbatim Minutes)
Chair Faust: I 'm going to reopen the public hearings from last
month. I have sign-up sheets of people here. I will call
everybody's name whether you signed up just to receive information
or not to give you the opportunity to speak. Our first speaker is
Dan Kelleher.
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Mayor Kelleher: Thank you Chairman Faust and members of the
Commission. It's always a pleasure to have the chance to come and
talk to you about issues of mutual interest.
Chair Faust: For the record, would you please state your address.
Mayor Kelleher: My name is Dan Kelleher. My address is
220 S. 4th. In any case, I wanted to come and talk to you about
the downtown zoning. And one of the reasons that I wanted to talk
to you about that is because I, you know, people call me up when
they have concerns and complaints and questions about things and
I've gotten a lot of calls from people who are concerned, and some
want to complain, about the downtown zoning proposal. And I guess
that in a way and in part I 'm to blame for those complaints because
I sort of got this all started a couple of years ago, or a year and
a half ago, when I came before the City Council in one of my annual
State of the City addresses and I talked about how I 'd like to see
us develop a new zone for the downtown, what I called an enterprise
zone, which is not the same, necessarily, as what others who have
used that term meant, but basically a zone in which it was possible
to, with a reasonable amount of ease, develop a little. . .develop
property a little more intensively in the downtown area. There are
a lot of reasons that. . .that I wanted to do that and I know that
other elected officials in Kent want to do this too. and there are
a lot of reasons.
For one thing, one of our main target goals in the community is to
try and redevelop our downtown area, which has not enjoyed, to as
great an extent as other areas, the economic boom that we've had
over the last twenty years. We want to redevelop our downtown and
so we want to make it easier for people to develop the downtown
area a little bit more intensively than it has been in the past.
Another reason why we wanted to look at developing the downtown
area a little bit more densely. . .a little bit more intensively is
because of the transportation issue. I know that all of you, you
know, follow the newspapers and you've seen, over the past few
years, some of you have been directly involved in, the downzoning
of areas in the east part of Kent and elsewhere in Kent, reducing
the density allowed on undeveloped multifamily lands to try and get
at the problem that those types of developments are continually
putting on our road system coming through Kent. And we've also
worked with King County to try and encourage them to limit the
zoning that's allowed out east of our borders so that. . .so that the
burden on our service and our road system won't be too bad. But
whenever you look at formulas and strategies to restrict growth in
outer areas, the issue comes up about where you do put the growth
and the answer usually is that you try and consolidate that growth
into activity centers so that you're able to set aside open areas,
2
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
argument, but I was puzzled when. . .or surprised I guess, when I
received the other type of complaints. And so, I guess what I want
to tell you is that. . .that, you know, in looking over the proposal
that I think that it certainly isn't what I had. . .had exactly in
mind when. . .when I gave the broad and general direction. And I
want to say that. . .that in saying that, I in no way want to put the
slightest bit of criticism on our excellent Planning Department and
Planning staff. It's important to remember that it's not just
their job just to be implementing proposals just because it's
something that I had in my mind. What happened is we formed a
committee with a lot of different people on the committee from
different areas of expertise and the Planners were working with
the. . .with the. . .with the committee and the input that they
received from that committee and I think they've done an excellent
job with what they have come out with.
I would. . . I would want to put my two cents in though. While
I. . .while I acknowledge that. . .that it is appropriate for the
Planners to be addressing those other issues, I want to. . .want to
have a chance to put my two cents in. And my two cents are this.
And that is that. . .that I would like to see you look really
carefully if you can at trying to address people's concerns, the
legitimate concerns they're bringing to your attention. I would
hope that we could come up with a. . .with a zone in the downtown
that would be as open as possible and that would enable people to
build taller buildings, for example, than have been
historically. . .or customary in downtown Kent, but not necessarily
that would negatively impact people who perhaps are not trying to
build a tall building either. I certainly don't want to see a
proposal come out that negatively impacts property owners or
potential developers. I just want to see a zone come out that
makes it easier to do some kinds of things. . .the kinds of community
redevelopment things that. . .that the Council and I have. . .have been
working on.
And so, if it's possible, I hope that you will either, if you
directly deal with this tonight or a month from now, try to address
people's concerns, or if you were to decide to maybe send it back
to the Planning Department and have them see if there's a way that
you can. . .that they can hammer out some of these disagreements that
have come up. I don't know exactly what the structure is that I 'm
asking you to. . .to move along, except I guess I 'm just asking you
to be considerate and try to listen to the issues that are being
raised and try to be sensitive to those and try to address as many
concerns as you can. I don't think that it's necessary for us to
hurt or hinder anyone' s business or their. . .the developability of
their property in order to promote what. . .what I 'm talking about.
4
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
or less densely developed areas, while accommodating the growth in
dense areas. Well, it seemed to me, and I think it seemed to some
of the other members of the City Council, that that makes a lot of
sense because you can not only accomplish one goal, but another at
the same time. We've had problems getting our downtown to grow.
We've had problems getting development into our downtown area, and
at the same time, we have this transportation problem. Well, I
think that there' s a relationship between the two.
On the topic of transportation, the same issue comes up when we're
talking about. . .about rail planning for the region, developing of
rail transit. You've all heard of the proposals for the
development of commuter rail using existing Burlington Northern
tracks to develop a rail network without the heavy capital
investment which might be necessary for other types of rail
systems. And what rail planners will tell you is that in order for
a system to work, that is, in order for it to pay its way, you have
to have density around the stations and the planners at Metro and
the regional planners who come in to talk about rail complain about
our region from the standpoint of rail development because they say
there is too much spread out development and you don't have
activity centers in which you can locate stations that are densely
enough developed in order to make the systems work well.
Well, I guess all of these issues sort of tie in together. I guess
I 'm trying to give you a little bit of a background as to what was
going through my mind as we started talking about trying to come up
with a little bit more intensive development in the downtown. All
of these issues are reasons why it makes sense to get a little bit
more density in downtown.
When I talked to the Council and the community in my State of the
City speech a year and a half ago, I was speaking in very broad and
general terms and I ' ll try not to speak in more than that because
you are all. . .you all are the people who. . .who should be dealing
with the details, except in broad and general terms what I was
saying was let's try and find a way to make it easier for people to
develop intensively in downtown if that's what they want to do and
that is a simple, broad and general message and. . .and it. . . it
surprises me a little bit that people are complaining about the end
product of. . .of that broad message. It seems to me to say we'd
like to. . .to allow people to do the things that they want to do in
the downtown a little bit more easily, would not naturally make one
think that you're going to get a bunch of complaints from people
who own property in the downtown saying, you know, you're hurting
my investment or you're damaging my property because it doesn't
seems to me that. . .that one flows from the other. You might get
complaints from people who say I don't want to see that density
next to me. That would make sense to me. I could understand that
3
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
One of the ideas that I put forward is probably an example of a
problem in this. . . in this. . .this ordinance and it's something that
I had proposed and that is that maybe instead of having maximum
densities, that you have minimum densities. Maybe instead of
having maximum heights, you have minimum heights. And I 've heard
that there are some people who feel that that encroaches on their
ability to develop their property because maybe they had a plan to
build a building that was lower than two stories or something like
that. You know, it was an idea that I talked about and I 'm
certainly willing to step back and say as far as I'm concerned, you
know, you can drop the requirements of the—of the minimum heights
or the minimum densities of development if that will help to
generate a community consensus for a zone which will enable people
to do some more intensive development. So, I guess the message
that I just want to carry to you is a message of conciliation on
this issue and is a message of. . .as far as I 'm concerned, I'd like
to see us try to address some people's concerns and still enable a
little bit denser development in downtown so we can help to
redevelop our. . .our. . .the center of our community. So, if there's
anything that you can do to try and address people's concerns, I 'd
really be grateful if you'd listen to those things and do the best
that you can to try and address them.
In any case, I. . .I want to thank you for giving me the chance to
come and talk to you.
Chair Faust: Thank you, Mayor Kelleher. Does anyone have any
questions for the Mayor?
Mayor Kelleher: Thanks very much.
Chair Faust: Thank you. I have two partial pages of people who
have signed up to speak. Several of these people have said that
they only want to be put on the mailing list. Nevertheless, I will
call their names and give them an opportunity to speak. The first
person who wishes to speak is Jerald A. Klein.
Jerald A. Klein: Yes, I do wish to speak.
Chair Faust: Fine. You may come on up to either one of these
mikes.
Jerald A. Klein: OK. Thank you.
Chair Faust: And again, I need to ask you to state your full name,
spell your last name and give us your address.
Jerald A. Klein: My name's Jerald A. Klein and the business
address is 425 Lyon Building in Seattle. I represent Washington
5
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Cedar and Kent Building Materials. The. . .do you have that
transparency? Do we still have the transparency? Is that
available?
Janet Shull: I have a few transparencies with me. I don't know
which one was it? Of the zoning?
Jerald A. Klein: Yes, one that shows. . .
Janet Shull: The proposed zoning?
Jerald A. Klein: The proposed zoning. Great. That's perfect.
Right here is Smith Street which is the main east/west. . .or a main
east/west arterial. What is proposed is that you'd have the DC or
downtown core DC area immediately to the north of Smith Street.
Smith Street is a natural barrier and I. . .I believe that the
existing use which is commercial and light manufacturing should be
maintained. I. . .I don't think your. . .the DC zone which is going to
encourage pedestrian use contemplates the pedestrians crossing
Smith Street so I think that it would be consistent to leave it in
here with the DIM zone or in the M2 zone if that should remain in
place. Both of these lots have the same owners. I mean its one
contiguous lot. I 'm not sure why there's a line in between there,
but the existing zoning. . .this is the proposed map and the existing
one also has a line dividing it here, but I think these areas are
more consistent with the DIM, proposed DIM or existing M2
designation.
In the area along Railroad Avenue, you have a lot of industrial,
light industrial type uses. Changing it to MU or even the existing
commercial designation doesn't really capture its true flavor which
is industrial. Many shops here provide just services to the
community as. . .as welding and fabricating of wood, steel, iron,
these sort of things and actually these services are very vital to
the Kent area because these provide a unique type of service that
you can't get at a commercial retail outlet such as Fred Meyer or
something like this. And so Railroad Avenue I would recommend
should also be maintained as a M2. . .or should be the M2 designation
or the DIM designation. Actually Kent is sort of unique in that
your. . .the light industrial uses are not really at all inconsistent
with the downtown uses of the DC. There's a lot of interplay
between the two uses. I don't see it as being inconsistent at all
because they are just that. . .they're light manufacturing and they
provide the unique services which give residences and citizens of
Kent an opportunity to patronize and be able to selectively shop
for the goods they manufacture.
Thank you.
6
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Klein. Does anyone have any questions
for Mr. Klein.
Commissioner Martinez: Yes. Are you suggesting then that up by
Smith, that we close off the DC zoning along Smith and. . .and bring
the DLM down Fourth and across Smith?
Jerald A. Klein: Sure.
Commissioner Martinez: Is that. . . is that your suggestion?
Jerald A. Klein: Yes.
Commissioner Martinez: And what about over by Railroad? What are
your specific suggestions there and where are the boundaries that
you're suggesting?
Jerald A. Klein: This entire is now, again, light manufacturing
now or in industries that serve the light manufacturing. It
should. . .
Commissioner Martinez: So you're suggesting that what is called
MU, GC be DLM?
Jerald A. Klein: This is Railroad Avenue right here.
Commissioner Martinez: Right.
Jerald A. Klein: And it's that area. . .that area is light
manufacturing and should remain light manufacturing.
Commissioner Martinez: So. . . I 'm dealing with lines at this
point. . .so are you. . .where are you suggesting the lines, just to
help us get ourselves together. Kind of chhh chhh chhh with your
pen. Are you suggesting. . .
Jerald A. Klein: I 'm not going to write on this. . .
Commissioner Martinez: Yeah, right, but just sort of point out to
us. . .
Jerald A. Klein: Sure.
Commissioner Martinez: . . .via shadow.
Jerald A. Klein: All right. Let' s see. The west. . .the boundary
with the exist. . .with the proposed DC zone is fine. I don't think
there's any problem there. And then over to the north and then it
should probably continue over here to Central and then south along
7
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Central to Gowe, west and then just south where it is. . .where
you've got it.
Commissioner Martinez: OK. OK.
Jerald A. Klein: So in other words, you've got Central and
Railroad have two different functions, Central being more
commercial and Railroad being light industrial, so. . .
Commissioner Martinez: OK.
Jerald A. Klein: . . . if you just. . .
Commissioner Martinez: OK.
Commissioner Dahle: And what about the MU at the bottom?
Commissioner Martinez: Yeah.
Jerald A. Klein: Well, I think that the MU doesn't really
contemplate, or it doesn't really allow the light. . .the new, the
light manufacturing. For example, if somebody wanted to get
in. . .start a new wood shop here or a door manufacturing or a new
whatever, glass outfit, I don't think your MU. . .doesn't allow for
new manufacturing. . .
Commissioner Dahle: Yeah, but where would you draw the line?
Chair Faust: Gwen, is your mike on?
Commissioner Dahle: Yes.
Jerald A. Klein: Oh, OK, well that would be. . .so
commercial. . .probably the best way to do it is just unite. . .put the
General Commercial together and just draw the lines right up here
to General Commercial and then your MU would just be over in this
area.
Commissioner Dahle: What about the MU on the bottom? That's what
I 'm getting at. Across the bottom is also MU.
Jerald A. Klein: Sure. Oh, OK, I think that line's fine. I don't
think there's any problem with that.
Commissioner Dahle: OK.
Jerald A. Klein: It's just that you want to protect the character
and aesthetic appeal of Railroad Avenue. I think it's a very
important part of the downtown area and I don't think it's
8
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
inconsistent with DC at all. I think that its. . . if anything they
complement one another. Thank you.
Chair Faust: Any more questions for Mr. Klein? Thank you,
Mr. Klein. The next person who has signed up to speak is
Hugh Leiper.
Hugh Leiper: Good evening. My name is Hugh Leiper. I 'm with, or
my firm is American Commercial Industries, Inc. Our address is
1819 S. Central, Suite 116, Kent.
I thought it might be appropriate for you to see something. I was
going through my file and I happened to pick up an old brochure of
Kent. The date of this is May 20th, 1974 and we were talking about
downtown then and that's seventeen years ago. To revitalize the
CBD, Central Business District of Kent, providing a viable,
integrated core of retail, commercial service institutions in an
appealing, people-oriented environment. That was our goal. Now
they did a lot of additional studies. They even had
Graham. . .Arthur Graham do some studies, but one of the things that
they talked about here was from. . .from the results of a shoppers
survey and other Planning Department research data, it has been
determined that to draw shoppers, Kent CDB must offer a wide
selection of goods at the shoppers perceive. . .what the shopper
perceives in a reasonable price, in an adequate quality. The
physical facilities should promote and enhance the opportunity for
the shopper to transact business. Now one of the things that they
addressed at that time is the same things we're addressing here.
I almost feel, in a way, we are approaching this problem the cart
before the horse. We need to really plan what we're trying to do
and get there and then come up with the kind of zoning, protections
and etc. we need in order to make it work.
My point in question is I have a couple real problems and that is
in the DIM zoning, we have some manufacturers in there right now.
Those manufacturers need total protection for what they're doing
now. However, that doesn't mean that they're going to continue to
do it for the next twenty years. Some of those manufacturers would
like to move out. Now when they move out and they finish their
operations, whatever they're doing, we need to make that kind of
zoning compatible with the rest of the downtown area if it is the
true intent to make downtown the vital center that we were talking
about.
Another thing that I have a problem with is the sidewalk bit in
terms of A and B designations. If we had a vital downtown right
now, these kinds of things we could talk about. We don't have a
vital downtown.
9
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Now, one last thing that rather bothers me in a sense. In. . .during
the last meeting I asked some simple questions and I did finally
get an answer, believe it or not. Our Chairman gave me an answer
and I would like to read to this because if this truly expresses
what we're trying to do, we're missing what we're trying to
accomplish. We were talking. . . it's talking about. . .you came in a
little late so I ' ll tell you the things that staff
discovered. . .discussed at the beginning, what seemed like two or
three days ago, was one of the things we're really trying to do is
to make more pedestrian downtown and we're trying to cut down
parking, we're trying to cut down on businesses that attract lots
of cars so people will be getting out of their cars and walking.
Well, we need to really grasp the. . .what we're trying to get at and
that is we're trying to produce a vital downtown. To produce a
vital downtown, you're going to have to have people. You're going
to have to have and allow people that are within our total trade
area and influence to take advantage of that. For some reason or
other we have the idea that we're going to punish Kent for
everything we can find and not let it become a city that it should
be.
I believe I will stop at that. Does anyone have any questions?
Chair Faust: Any questions? Thank you very much.
Commissioner Haylor: Madam Chairman. I would like to bring up one
item here before the next speaker and that item is that when I
proposed to hold over this hearing was to give the people that did
not have a chance to speak that night ability to speak tonight.
And if we allow and continue to do people that spoke the first
night to speak tonight, we won't get through this meeting tonight
until very late. I think we could be able to hold it down to give
everybody a chance to speak at least once. If they want to speak,
you know, maybe a second time then fine if we have time left over.
Chair Faust: Comments? Al, right now we've got only six more
people who say that they would like to speak. Just looking at the
names it appears to me that there are three people on that list
that I can recognize right now who did speak last time. My feeling
is to go ahead and give everybody who wants to speak an opportunity
to do so. Several people last month did comment that they had only
just received information they found to be very important and they
wanted an opportunity to fully digest that material. My
inclination is to go ahead and allow everybody to speak, especially
since there are only six people who've signed up and especially
since I really don't know if we're going to get to deliberations
tonight because we do have to take up the Shoreline Management
Plan. Are there comments from anybody on the Commission here? How
do you feel about this? Tradition. . .oop, one other thing, Al,
10
Kent Planning Commission
April 22 , 1991
traditionally, if we have continued hearings from one month to the
next, we have allowed people to speak again.
Commissioner Dahle: Perhaps we could take the ones first that
didn't speak last time and see how much time we have left.
Commissioner Haylor: Madam Chairman, that is my question. I want
to make sure the people who did not have an opportunity to speak
last month, will get that opportunity tonight and I don't know how
many people. . .I 'm not. . .I 'm not privy to your list so I don't know
how many people have signed up, but I want to make sure everyone
has a fair opportunity to speak to this board.
Chair Faust: Commission, what do you say? Should we take people
out of order at this point and make sure that the people who did
not speak last time are allowed to speak first and then use the
rest of our time accordingly?
Commissioner Dahle: I so move.
Chair Faust: OK, I don't think we have to move on that, Gwen. OK,
Al, I think that's an excellent point.
Commissioner Martinez: And one point of order. Could we move the
microphone so that I can see that. . . if we could move the mike so
that I could see the people because the overhead hits them right at
their nose.
Janet Shull• OK.
Chair Faust: Well, for me they hit them right across the face, so
while you're up there. . .
Janet Shull: Is it the microphone?
Commissioner Martinez: The podium.
Chair Faust: While you're up there, just rearrange everything.
Commissioner Martinez: The podium. Can it be moved? Thank you.
Chair Faust: Love it, I love it. Great.
Commissioner Martinez: Thank you.
Chair Faust: All right. Al, I think your point is well taken.
Now hopefully we will have time to hear everybody, but that' s a
very good point.
li
Kent Planning Commission
April 22 , 1991
Now the next person who has signed up to speak, and what I 'm going
to do is go through the list of people who did sign up to speak
first and then I' ll go back and pick up the people who just wanted
to be on the mailing list and then the people who spoke last week
as near as I can figure it out. The next person who signed up to
speak, and I don't recognize him as somebody who spoke last time
and I trust you're going to be honest enough to tell me, is
Charlie Perkins.
Charlie Perkins: That's me. I would rather wait. I 'm
Charlie Perkins. I would rather wait until a little further into
the hearing.
Chair Faust: Fine Mr. Perkins. We' ll come back to you in just a
few minutes. Mr. McCann, you're the next person on this list. I
know that you spoke last month. I 'd like to hold your comments
until a little later. Mr. Howard is the next person. I 'm not sure
whether Mr. Howard spoke last month or not.
Mr. Howard: No, I didn't speak last month, but I would just as
soon have Mr. McCann speak for me.
Chair Faust: Fine. Well, we' ll put a circle by your name here.
The next person who signed up to speak is Barry Miller and I don't
recall whether Mr. Miller spoke last month.
Barry Miller: I credited my time to Mr. McCann last month and I 'm
going to do the same thing (unclear) .
Chair Faust: Oh yes, Mr. Miller. How could I have forgotten your
eloquence near the end of a long evening. The next person who
signed up to speak is Mrs. Gerald Peterson and I don't believe
Mrs. Peterson spoke last time, so you have the mike.
Elizabeth Peterson: My name's Elizabeth Peterson, P-E-T-E-R-S-O-N.
We live at 322 Railroad Avenue S. We're long term tenants on
Railroad Avenue. I have a question that I wanted. . . if we could
answer is if you know what impact you could foresee, particularly
on our property, if the commuter rail on BN tracks comes through
Kent.
Chair Faust: Well, it's a lovely question, but I 'm afraid we don't
have the answer and I 'm not sure that staff is really prepared to
give you an answer tonight either. I would suggest that you
contact staff tomorrow.
Elizabeth Peterson: OK.
12
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Chair Faust: Could we please hear from staff who Mrs. Peterson
should contact.
Voice• (Unclear. )
Chair Faust: Fine. Thank you very much. Mrs. Peterson is that
it? OK, Mr. Haylor would like to ask you something.
Elizabeth Peterson: Yes.
Commissioner Haylor: Yes, Mrs. Peterson, what type of business do
you have and would the new zoning, I believe you would fall under
MU, would that have any effect on your business?
Elizabeth Peterson: Right now we are just family dwellers in a
home.
Commissioner Haylor: Oh, I see.
Elizabeth Peterson: A large home. We have considered the
possibility of some kind of a computer type of business in our
house, but right now we're just a family living there.
Commissioner Haylor: OK, thank you.
Elizabeth Peterson: Thanks.
Chair Faust: Thank you Mrs. Peterson. The next person who signed
up to speak I know spoke last time and that's Mr. Bogard.
Mr. Bogard, we' ll come back to you. And the last person who just
signed up to speak is Jerry Woldt and I do not recall if Mr. Woldt
spoke last time.
Jerry Woldt: No, I did not.
Chair Faust: Well, step to the mike Mr. Woldt. It's your turn.
And again, please give us your name and your address.
Jerry Woldt: My name is Jerry Woldt and I 'm one of the owners of
a business here at 301 First Avenue N. on the corner of First and
Smith. One of the problems that I have with this is the DC to
Mixed Use and the uncertainties that are facing us with this
problem. I got in the mail here, the senior housing project update
and there's twelve sites that have been tentatively selected. One
of these sites is only across the alley from me and I think this
could impact my business considerably in the near future if I was
to sell my business or even have somebody dic to me. . .dictate to me
what type of business I could have in my building and I. . .this type
of thing really scares me. So I 'd sort of like to go on record
13
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
that I 'm opposing the fastness in which this is happening and I 'd
like to see a little more results come into it from the input of
the community and the business owners so we could get a little more
organization put forth so it doesn't impact all of us property
owners with a lot of uncertainties.
Chair Faust: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Woldt?
Commissioner Dahle: Yes.
Commissioner Martinez: Yes.
Commissioner Dahle: Go ahead.
Commissioner Martinez: What kind of business do you currently
have.
Jerry Woldt: We have an automatic door business and primarily we
service and sell to the supermarkets and construction companies and
install automatic doors throughout the western part of the State.
Commissioner Martinez: Are you a manufacturer, or a service. . .
Jerry Woldt: No. We put together a product as it's brought in and
then we take it out on the jobsite and install it.
Commissioner Martinez: OK.
Jerry Woldt: And we have a little bit of walk-in trade that comes
in.
Commissioner Martinez: OK.
Jerry Woldt: But we do have some storage on the site there.
Commissioner Martinez: OK. OK.
Commissioner Dahle: And my question is, what zoning do you want in
that area?
Jerry Woldt: Well, I would go for the Mixed Use, but right now
it's uncertain as to the way you're going to go and it seems to me
that where the Cedar Company is right now, if that site was
considered for senior housing, that zoning would change.
Chair Faust: Mr. Woldt. For your information, an agreement has
been reached to. . .to at least begin negotiations with another site
for the senior center. I don't know if you read the Valley Daily
News today. . .
14
Kent Planning Commission
April 22 , 1991
Jerry Woldt: No, I did not.
Chair Faust: But, there's a big article in the middle of the front
section that says that the preferred site is between Smith and
Harrison.
Janet Shull: I can point it out to him.
Chair Faust: Would you please. Thanks. So that is the number one
site and the City. . .I think, is it one more. . .one more block over.
There we go.
Janet Shull: In this area here approximately.
Chair Faust: Thank you, Janet.
Jerry Woldt: That's where the vacant lot is there now.
Janet Shull: Right.
Chair Faust: Well part of it's a vacant lot, but yes, that was
selected as the most promising site and the City is presently
negotiating with those people to see if we can work out that, but
that has already been, at least tentatively, selected.
Jerry Woldt: Well, personally I support the Mixed Use. It would
be more beneficial for us in that area where we are. It's sort of
a blighted area now and I feel that my business has sort of lent to
the nice appearance of it by painting it and upgrading it. So,
I 've. . .
Chair Faust: Bless your heart.
Jerry Woldt: . . . invested considerable into this area and I 'd like
to see it grow rather than go down the tubes. So I would
appreciate some helpfulness here. Thank you.
Chair Faust: Any more questions for Mr. Woldt?
Commissioner Haylor: I have one. Would you point out where you're
located at?
Jerry Woldt: I 'm right on the corner of. . .where the road was taken
out a number of years of back for the curb there right as it
crosses the railroad. . .you've got me backwards now. It's right
here.
Commissioner Haylor: OK.
15
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Jerry Woldt: You can't miss it. There's a lot of cars that have
hit the building over the years.
voices• (Laughter)
Jerry Woldt: Thank you.
Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Woldt. Going back on our list now,
Mr. Perkins, are you prepared to speak now?
Charlie Perkins: My name is Charlie Perkins. I have a business at
715 W. Smith. This was zoned as light manufacturing. I have a
sweeping business. We have street sweepers and water trucks that
we use in the construction industry. All over the county, or the
several counties that we work in, we keep running into a mixed
zoning that does. . .does impact. . . it impacts us, it impacts the new
residents to the extent that we have to keep adjusting our
schedules to work around the people that move into an area. This
is. . .this is an ongoing problems for us and I can see the same
thing happening. One of the things that's been discussed, we need
more people downtown, but we've got too much traffic now. We don't
have enough streets across, but now the proposal is that
there' s. . .we need to bring more people in. And as we do that, why
then there's other things that impact on the new. . .new people
coming in and those of use who are already here. This has to
really be considered. If we're putting residence across the street
from commercial properties, now there's a potential for other
things. There's a noise, there's pollution, there's traffic,
so. . .so these things really have to be looked at closely. And like
I say, this is. . .this is happening all over and we get this with
growth, but we have to have it in a responsible fashion so that we
know all of these facts going in and then operate accordingly. So
that's. . .that would be my concern on some of these things.
Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Perkins. Any questions for
Mr. Perkins?
Commissioner Martinez: Yeah. In the. . . in the Mixed Use, part of
what we're trying to do is figure out ways that we can put
different uses together and part of that is looking at having staff
and others review, to a certain extent, what's going on in any
given area so that we can adjust it. Do you think that that is not
safeguard enough?
Charlie Perkins: If the plan is comprehensive enough to take these
things into consideration so that these things are understood to
start with rather than just a little piece here and a little piece
there. So there needs to be a lot of thought and a lot of plan put
into some of this and those, you know, the manufacturers, the
16
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
commercial users that are already in those areas are providing
services, they're providing jobs, there's, you know, there's a
tremendous amount of revenue brought in just from that. So those
things need to be considered too as well as just how do we move
more people into an area for. . .for what reason.
Commissioner Martinez: And. . .and what would you. . .what would you
like to suggest that we. . .that we put into our downtown plan that
would help insure that we evolve in the way brings people in but
doesn't hurt the businesses that are there?
Charlie Perkins: We need some safeguards as to any changes that we
might have to have in our growth too. We're already established.
We need to have some assurances that we can continue to grow and to
expand without coming up against a problem. . .that. . .say hey, you
can no longer stay here or you cannot put in more parking or
another fence because the people across the street that have been
there for two years now don't like you. Those things have to be
considered.
Commissioner Martinez: OK. Thank you.
Charlie Perkins: Thank you.
Chair Faust: Any more questions for Mr. Perkins?
Commissioner Haylor: Yes. Mr. Perkins, what I gather is that your
business doesn't necessarily gather good will from surrounding
neighborhood, I mean because of the hours that you work.
Charlie Perkins: Oh, oh, oh on the contrary. If we weren't. . . if
the people in my business were not in existence, there would be a
tremendous problems throughout the community, the other cities.
It' s amazing. . . it's like the garbage collector. What would you do
without your garbage collector? No, we don't have that problem.
Commissioner Haylor: No. What I 'm talking. . .
Charlie Perkins: The problem that we have is. . . it's Mixed Use and
hours. . .there's zoning that hours change. . .these things have to be
considered. I 'm not saying that we really have a problem in that,
but it's something that we work with all the time. It has to be
considered.
Commissioner Haylor: What. . .what. . .what are your normal working
hours that you have, you know, your trucks coming and going and so
forth?
Charlie Perkins: We work. . .we work twenty-four hours a day.
17
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Commissioner Haylor: OK. . .now that's where you might have a
problem with the Mixed Use type of deal if a neighborhood where
people move in next door to you and they don't like the trucks
moving at 3 : 00 in the morning or whatever.
Charlie Perkins: That's right.
Chair Faust: Before you go, Mr. Perkins, could you point on the
map to exactly where your business is located? You can either
attempt to orient yourself to the overhead or you can actually
point up to the screen itself.
Charlie Perkins: Right there.
Chair Faust: Thank you.
Charlie Perkins: Just before you cross the railroad tracks.
Chair Faust: The following people have signed up just to receive
information, but I will give you an opportunity to speak.
Jack Fisher?
Jack Fisher: I don't care to speak.
Chair Faust: Thank you. Jack Keck?
Jack Keck: Thank you. I (unclear) .
Chair Faust: Robert Whalen?
Robert Whalen: (Unclear)
Chair Faust: Bill Roberson.
Bill Roberson: No thank you.
Chair Faust: Pamela Beyer? (No answer) R. E. McCann?
R. E. McCann: Thank you Madam Chair, members of the Commission.
My name is Dick McCann. I 'm an attorney with Perkins Coie,
1201 3rd Avenue, 40th Floor, Seattle, WA 98101. As the Chair has
indicated, I did speak before this Commission at the last. . .at the
beginning of this public hearing. I appear tonight again on behalf
of Borden Company, Northwest Metals Manufacturing and the Howard
Manufacturing Company. With me tonight are Rico Yingling, Plant
Manager at Borden, Barry Miller, President of Northwest Metals, and
Chuck Howard, President of Howard Manufacturing. We appear tonight
again because at the March 25th hearing, the Commission and the
public received an amended staff report that added new material and
18
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
changed some of the provisions in the Downtown Implementation
Program and we want to take a few minutes to talk to the Commission
about what those changes mean to the DLM zone and, in particular,
to these three manufacturers. We have reviewed the Plan and the
changes recommended in the March 25th memo very carefully and have
spent some time again discussing our concerns with the Planning
Department. We remain, however, with a few concerns and it's those
that I want to discuss with you this evening.
Let me begin with the first one and that is the definition of
permitted uses. You will recall that the first recommendation was
that permitted ushes. . .uses for manufacturing should include those
uses that were in existence on a particular date, that date being
the date of adoption or effective date of the rezone, whenever that
occurred. We suggested to the Commission that what. . .that would be
difficult to determine and it might be an improvement in the
language if particular uses that were, in fact, going to be
permitted could be described and we suggested some language. In
response to that, the Planning Department has suggested other
language and we remain concerned with that language. That
language, which is contained in your staff report of March 25,
would permit manufacturing of products for the contract
construction and the home improvement industries and then lists a
number of examples. Now we understand from the Department that it
was their intent to include in those two categories all of the
products and all of the uses that currently go on. . .on all of these
three sites and in fact, Mr. Harris has given us a letter, with a
copy to the Commission, that states that intent. Now we certainly
appreciate that and we have no problem with the intent. Our
concern is that the language does not reflect that intent and we
believe it would serve everyone's best interest if the language
did, in flact. . . in fact, properly reflect the Department's stated
intent to include as a permitted use all of the uses on those three
sites and any other manufacturing site in the DLM zone. For
example, Northwest Metal Products manufactures about 3800 different
products. They are used for many purposes other than in just
contract construction and home improvement. They're used in the
government, they're used the military, they're used in a wide
number of circumstances. Borden products are used in paper mills
and in the resource recovery industry. Howard Manufacturing
manufactures about a thousand different products, again used far
outside of the two categories that are reflected in the new
language. Those include apartments, hotel construction, in the
military, in the government, and for industrial purposes. We have
suggested some words that we believe would accurately reflect those
existing uses, but those are not magic words. There are a number
of ways that this can be expressed and expressed accurately and
expressed to accurately reflect the intent of the Department. What
we ask is that language be prepared, and we're more than willing to
19
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
participate in that process, that does, in fact, put into action
the stated intent of the Department.
Before I leave that category, I have one other suggestion. It's
common knowledge, I believe, in Kent that King County is focussing
on the Kent area as the new site for a regional justice center and,
in fact, is considering the Northwest Metals and Howard
Manufacturing site. With that in mind, we suggest that it might be
prudent to add, as a permitted use in the DLM zone, language that
would allow government and public facilities as appropriate uses.
Let me move to my second major concern and that has to do with the
setback language that remains in the March 25 memo. Setbacks would
be established between 0 and 20 feet. For a manufacturing purpose,
that is simply an unworkable sort of setback. It will create
nonconforming status on all of these three sites. Trucks, loading,
unloading, maneuvering simply cannot operate within 20 feet of
a. . .of a road side and I suggest to the Commission that would not
be an appropriate use of this property and would not result in an
implementation of the Commission's intent.
Our third concern is the pedestrian overlay. That will have the
result on two of these sites of requiring structures to abut the
property line, that is the sidewalk, for over 50% of the frontage.
These are large sites. That means hundreds, thousands of feet
where manufacturing structures might be required, if they apply for
a permit and are required to come into conforming status, to move
to a point where they abut the sidewalk. You might see scale
houses. You might see manufacturing plants, labs, any of the other
structures on these three sites, if a permit were required and they
were required to come into conforming status, could be required to
move to a point where they abut the sidewalk.
Finally, minimum heights. The proposal is that all structures be
not less than 2 stories or 25 feet high. Again, that is simply
inappropriate for many manufacturing uses. There would appear to
be little reason to build a scale house to a 2 story height. There
would appear to be little reason to build office buildings to a 2
story height. We strongly suggest this is not an appropriate
exercise of the Council' s jurisdiction and that a removal of that,
or a modification to a workable kind of restriction would be an
appropriate provision to add.
I want to suggest that the changes we request are relatively minor
in the wording and do not do violence to the intent of this rezone,
but they are extremely important to these manufacturers because the
result of them is to make their uses, in some cases, if the use
language stays and their structures, if the structure and height
setback language stays, nonconforming. Any request for a permit
20
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
for remodeling or new construction on these sites would have to
conform to the requirements of the new code which would mean,
again, zero setbacks, abutting the street on more than 50. . .or up
to 50% of the frontage, and again I submit, would not result in
what is intended by the Mayor's statement tonight, providing
opportunity for the downtown to develop, by the comprehensive plan
as it was adopted, or certainly by the enterprise zone report that
is also before you. It's difficult to believe that the Commission
or the City would really intend that a scale house be built
adjacent to the sidewalk or that truck loading areas be built
adjacent to the sidewalk. We make these suggestions, too, because
we believe like the Mayor that it is not necessary to harm any
business or property owner in Kent in order to promote development.
We believe that the changes we've suggested can easily be made in
the language, that the overall intent of the Mayor and the City and
the downtown rezone can be satisfied and that these manufacturers
and their properties need not be harmed.
To summarize, we ask that the permitted use language be modified to
reflect the Department's intent. We ask that the setback
requirements be removed for manufacturing purposes in the DIM zone.
We ask that the Class B street designation in the pedestrian
overlay be deleted for manufacturing uses. And we ask that the
minimum heights requirement be removed for manufacturing uses in
the DIM zone. Thank you. Do you have any questions.
Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. McCann. Commissioners?
Commissioner Dahle: I do have a question. Where are all these
businesses located exactly? In what zone?
R. E. McCann: This group of buildings here is the Borden site.
Commissioner Dahle: Um hum.
R. E. McCann: If I can get my pen going in the right direction
here. Over here is. . . in this area is Northwest Metals and Howard
lies in this area.
Commissioner Dahle: Thank you.
Chair Faust: Any other questions for Mr. McCann?
R. E. McCann: Thank you very much.
Chair Faust: Thank you. The next speaker is Mr. Don Bogard.
Don Bogard: My name is Don Bogard. My address is. . .business
address is 922 N. Central in Kent. I must say, I 'm always blessed
21
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
to follow Mr. McCann. I have written a letter which I 'd like to
present to the Commission tomorrow and preface with a few remarks
first. Last time when I was here. . .really it was more or less to
gather information and express my surprise at the speed that we
were going. I 've had a chance to examine the proposed change in
the ordinance and in general I think that it's going to work for
new construction and over the long period of time, it may be the
real far sighted answer that we've been looking for. I have some
very grave concerns about the existing businesses and the existing
uses and I would like to address those and I ' ll read you the
letter. My major concern is that the proposed change in the zoning
ordinance will make it prac. . .make practically all of the existing
buildings in the DC, the MU and the DLM zones nonconforming.
The Planning Department is very strict in enforcing all of the
rules. . .all of the provisions of the. . .of the zoning ordinance.
If for any reason a zoning permit is required, the property owner
or developer is required to comply with 100% of all of the
provisions in the zoning ordinance and I believe to. . .a zoning
ordinance is required even to the time if one needs a new business
license or if there's a change in occupancy, let alone a change in
the footprint of a building. The proposed change. . .the proposed
changes in this. . . in the zoning ordinance will transfer the control
of the decision making process from the. . .from the owner to the
Planning Department and I think that this is a Planning Department
recommendation to really take the. . .take away the control from the
people that are in business here and that's what's bothersome. And
it's not the new. . .new things that's going to happen, but it' s the
existing facilities.
And just to digress, or to expand a little bit, I think the real
good part of what. . .of this. . .the proposal is that as time comes on
and perhaps like maybe manufacturers move on or. . .and land values
increase and the scarcity of land. . .that there will be large
developers come in and buy a block and strip out what's here and
put these new things in and that's probably the way it will be
whether it's 2 years, or 10 or 15 years from now, but in the
meantime, there's business people here that are trying to run their
business and improvement and this is where they're going to get
caught up, I 'm afraid, with these new. . .be nonconforming and
basically I think, it's going to be counterproductive.
I think that. . .I ' ll get in. . . let me read on here. Because of
the. . .of this. . .because this proposed use. . .the proposed rezone is
located in the downtown, the vast majority of the properties are
business use and so for the vast majority of the problems is going
to be the business people. There are a few residences. The
nonconforming portion is going to make the permitting process more
22
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
complicated and uncertain. This is counter to the goals and
objectives of the downtown plan. I think that my concerns are
really what the Mayor was talking about and what Mr. McCann stated.
It's the uncer. . . it's. . .there's some things in here that are really
counterproductive that is the bothersome part here.
My second concern is that the requirement that all buildings be two
stories minimum. Many businessmen have no need for two story
spaces such as banks and restaurants. The City of Kent has a body
of other laws and regulations in addition to the zoning ordinance,
including the handicapped accessibility. An example is that
buildings are now required to be accessible. Elevators are the
only practical way to provide accessibility, even to the second
floor. So the question arises, you know, can one afford this and
would. . .an example of this would be the new City library that's
under construction. Under the. . .under the proposed changes that
building would be required to be a two story building and one has
to wonder if that really makes sense. Chances the library would go
some other part of town.
My third construction is that. . .the construction to the property
line is not viable on streets that have high volume traffic and
that no on-street parking. . .and have no on-street parking. An
example is N. Central Avenue between Meeker and Smith Streets.
Fourth Avenue. . .that. . .Fourth Avenue from Titus to Smith Street is
designated as a Class A pedestrian street. A requirements of a
Class A pedestrian street, that is the structure to be built
entirely to the property line with no setback. Fourth Avenue is
actually, in fact a major collector street in the City
transportation plan. I believe that a Class A pedestrian street is
doomed to failure unless there is on-street parking to complement
the windows and. . .you know, the required windows and the visual
access and awnings that's in. . . in the ordinance. . . is the new
requirement. An example. . .for example, on N. Central Avenue
between Meeker and Smith Street, presently there are sixteen
occupancies with eight vacancies. All of the vacancies are in
buildings which abut the front property line for. . .and were viable
businesses when there was on-street parking. Two of those
businesses that are viable, are set back. I think. . .the point is
that several years ago when that business developed over there, the
whole block built right up to the property line. You could park
out in front all day long. Now it's congestion and high speed
traffic. It isn't pedestrian oriented. And yet weIre. . .this
change is proposing to go back to that.
I urge that the Planning Commission return the proposal back to the
Planning Department with the following instructions.
23
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
1. Completely rewrite chapter 15.08. 100, the nonconforming
development section. And just to go on to that, that's far
too complicated. It requires 100% compliance for anybody,
like I mentioned in the beginning of the letter, to come up to
code and I would suggest that in the uniform building code and
in the Washington State handicapped code and the Washington
State energy code there are similar types of requirements what
triggers this and they're far more friendly than what's
in. . .and less complicated.
I think the second suggestion would be to exempt all existing
structures in the new proposed DC, DU. . .or MU and DIM zones to be
released from being nonconforming.
3 . Require that the Planning Department bring to the Planning
Commission examples of the ramifications of impact of
projects in the downtown. For example. . .for example, the new
library, just to see what the difference would be if that
library were being built under the new ordinance. Also the
proposed CPA office building immediately west of the
604 Meeker Street building. I understand that it's designed
and ready to go for a permit. I 've done some research on that
and it's drastically different, and I think probably
unworkable. And I would suggest the site of the new, proposed
Pacific First Federal building and Fourth and Smith Street.
I understand that in the next couple of weeks that building is
going to be coming in for a building. . .or, you know, file for
a building permit, so the chances are they' ll be under the
existing ordinance, but the new ordinance would require
100%. . .the building be on the property line the full length of
Fourth Avenue and the full. . .the full length of Harrison
Street and 50% of Fourth Avenue. . .of Smith Street excuse me
and that would be their only access and they're having. . .they
need a drive-in window. So these are really some big things.
And then the last suggestion would be to get the. . .the new proposed
senior low cost housing to see how would. . .to analyze and see what
would happen if that could be built and the impacts on the. . . it
would have on the new ordinance. Thank you.
Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Bogard. Any questions for Mr. Bogard?
Don Bogard: Thank you.
Chair Faust: Now Mr. Bogard, you say that we're going to get this
letter tomorrow?
24
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Don Bogard: I would like to put it in the mail. I have a few
little glitches in it that didn't get straightened out with my
typist.
Chair Faust: Are you going to be sending it to. . .
Don Bogard: I 'd like. . .
Chair Faust: . . .to the Planning Department to be sent to each of
us or. . .
Don Bogard: I. . .I was going. . .
Chair Faust: . . .mail it to each of us?
Don Bogard: I would address. . . it is addressed to the Planning
Commission for the record. What would you suggest the best way to
do it?
Commissioner Haylor: I could maybe offer a suggestion. Tonight
when we close the hearing, if we do close the hearing tonight, we
could always leave the hearing open for any written material to
come in for us to review and whatever, so we can be on record that
way.
Chair Faust: We're not going to be meeting again for another month
so I imagine that the mail, even if you send it to the Planning
Department, it will have plenty of time to reach us, so I think
that perhaps that would be the best thing for you to do.
Don Bogard: Yes, my intent wasn't to ask for the public hearing to
be extended.
Chair Faust: Oh, I didn't think that.
Don Bogard• OK.
Chair Faust: I just wanted to make sure that we got your written
comments in time.
Don Bogard: Thank you very much.
Chair Faust: Any more questions for Mr. Bogard? A1, I think
that's an excellent suggestion that we should take up when we get
to the point of what happens next and that is to leave it open
to. . .to accept written comments for a short period.
Those are the last people who have signed up on this list. Is
there anybody else in the audience tonight who would like to speak?
25
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Commissioner Martinez: Actually, I do. I too have been thinking
about light rail and what would happen to all those cars. Have you
given any thought to some suggestions that you might have as to
what we might do with those?
John Stone: I think that. . .yes, I haven't given it a lot of
thought, but I walk past. I force myself to take a walk every day.
When you get up into your seventies, you need the exercise, so I
closed up my mailbox at my home and got a post office box, so I
have to walk down past the train station every day. There's a lot
of traffic all around there. I have to be very careful crossing
the streets and the people don't have too many places to park.
I. . .I am concerned because again the size of the parking for the
park and ride is an indicator of an area that you're going to have
to peg down here for parking. And it's not a small consideration.
And I think' it would be criminal to allow somebody to come in and
open up a business along the train tracks and then turn around and
take his property away from him so that we can have parking for
those commuters. And they're not going to have their wives driving
them down there because their wives are working too. And they're
going to come down and they're going to leave their car and it's
going to be there all day.
Chair Faust: Any more questions for Mr. Stone? Thank you very
much, Mr. Stone. Now, there was at least one other person toward
the back who had raised her hand. Come on up.
Voice• (Unclear)
Commissioner Dahle: Would you repeat that please?
Voice: (Unclear)
Colleen Woodworth: OK, is that better? Would you like it again?
Voices• Laughter
Colleen Woodworth: My question is how much of an impact and how
many people are we talking about bringing into the Kent area and
how is it going to impact our schools, which already are way over
capacity?
Chair Faust: Well, it's a good questions, but unfortunately we
don't have a lot of answers on that. That's certainly something
that we would ask staff to address.
Colleen Woodworth: Well, it would be a really good thing for them
to look into. There are not a lot of areas for them to buy
property to build schools and there's a big problem there already.
27
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Please come up to the microphone and identify yourself and give us
an address.
John Stone: My name is John Stone, S-T-O-N-E, 431 E. Meeker
Street. I hadn't really thought too much about it, but listening
to the Mayor's little talk, it comes to my mind that if we are
really planning for the future, and they do have this rail system
using the rail that exists going through our town, and I 've seen
them fixing up the train station down there, where are all these
commuters going to park? I think that this could blow your whole
downtown plan into a cocked hat. I think that a lot of these
people who have their money invested in businesses down here would
think offhand, "Gee, that's going to be wonderful for my business
to have all these people coming down into central City of Kent to
wait for the train, to get off of the train, maybe to do some
shopping before they go home", but if you look up in the corner
where we have along Lincoln Avenue that big area for bus parking,
if you expect people to park there and then walk back to that train
station in the kind of weather that we get, I think you're going to
have a lot of unhappy citizens. And if we are really doing
planning, I think that we have to take a look at the impact of that
before we say well we' ll move this little line here, we' ll move
that little line here. I don't think it's going to fill the bill.
I, again, dislike multiple use zoning. I read an article in the
paper about poor Renton, how unhappy they are with multiple use
planning, which the gentlemen who was writing the article said that
is the darling of the planning community now. And I noticed that
in the response to my remarks last meeting, they said well that is
the purpose of multiple use planning, so that we can have anything,
anywhere. Again, I 'd like to point out to you. Citizens are going
to feel uneasy, businesses are going to feel uneasy unless they
have some kind of assurance as to who their neighbors are going to
be. Now you can lay out an area and say this is for industry. You
lay out another area, and this is for commercial enterprises. And
you lay out another area for residential. But when you say mixed
use and you can put any one of those three into it, that is not
planning. And I hate to see Kent. . .we have grown haphazardly
already and now we're trying to correct it, and then we turn around
and put in mixed use. I. . .I strongly advise you to consider the
long range impact of this. I thank you for the opportunity to
speak and in response to the Mayor's remarks, again, let me say
that I've had dealings with other Planning Commissions and other
City Councils and I think you people right here have done an
excellent job of making people feel comfortable and that you're
very available to our ideas and you make a response to them and I
thank you for that.
Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Stone. Does anyone have any questions
for Mr. Stone?
26
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
So it's something that they really should check into before they do
a lot more planning for the future.
Chair Faust: The new elementary school that either is or has been
built over by The Lakes, do you have any idea what the capacity of
that is?
Colleen Woodworth: They already have.
Chair Faust: Whether it's at capacity?
Colleen Woodworth: They already are like two hundred kids over
capacity. Already. And they're talking about redoing Kent
Elementary which a few years back was going to be closed and I 'm on
a committee to check into new areas to build new schools and right
now, in the valley, there is not an area large enough to purchase,
to build a new school.
Chair Faust: Hum.
Colleen Woodworth: So they're looking at building schools way out
and busing kids long distances. So that's a big concern as a
parent of two small children.
Chair Faust: And your address was 713 . . .
Colleen Woodworth: No, 615. . .
Chair Faust: I wasn't even close.
Colleen Woodworth: . . .N. Jason, J-A-S-O-N.
Chair Faust: Thank you.
Colleen Woodworth: Thank you.
Chair Faust: Any questions for Ms. Woodworth? Anyone else? Thank
you very much. Is there anybody else in the audience who would
like to speak this evening? Come on up.
Chris Kirsop: My name is Chris Kirsop, K-I-R-S-O-P, and I ' ll be
very brief since I did speak last month, but I just wanted to give
my support to one comment that was made earlier and that was
regarding existing businesses and perhaps being able to put some
type of language in there where they did not have to come up to
code. . .to the new codes. My business, if I could point it out, if
I can follow this, excuse me, is this building right here.
Currently going under the mixed use, what we do would not be a
permitted use and I can appreciate the opportunity to turn that
28
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
into something later. . .an office building or residence or senior
housing or whichever, but I don't plan on leaving there for a long
time unless I 'm forced to and I've got a lot of years to stay in
Kent. We've only been here for two so far. And if there was some
kind of safety factor in there for the way I am now, not having to
come up to something that you're adding at this point, that would
certainly make me feel a lot better given that I would not be a
permitted use if you change over to this plan. Thank you.
Chair Faust: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Kirsop?
Commissioner Dahle: What is your business? I forgot.
Chris Kirsop: It's a machine shop.
Commissioner Dahle: OK, thank you.
Chair Faust: Any further questions for him? Thank you very much.
I believe there was one more hand toward the back.
John Emmanuels: Is this on? Yeah. My name's John Emmanuels. I 'm
with the Andover Commercial Real Estate Company here in Kent.
Chair Faust: Your address please.
John Emmanuels: 8009 S. 180th. And I 've read the proposals and I
agree with the last speaker, Mr. Bogard, about the feasibility. . .or
the. . .what I've been trying to say is that my specialty is to help
land owners and developers plan for the future, do projects that
make sense. The projects, or the future that you're planning for
downtown Kent is not feasible in the short term. Maybe fifty years
down the road it might be an excellent downtown. In the meantime,
nothing is going to change. It's going to be similar, in my
opinion, to the debauchery of the Gateway Commercial zoning. That
might be in some time an excellent zoning, but right now nothing' s
going to happen. So we need to plan for keeping businesses in the
downtown area able to run their businesses. Thank you.
Chair Faust: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Emmanuels? Thank
you. Well I brought my coffee and was expecting this to last
considerably longer than it has. As I said at the beginning,
whatever happens, around 9:30 we must stop and consider the next
order of business. At this time I would like for staff to respond
to the questions and to give their rebuttal.
Janet Shull: This is Janet Shull with the Planning Department and
I'm going to start by going over the memo dated April 15 that you
received in your packets and I believe anyone who was in attendance
at the last meeting and signed up on our mailing list would have
29
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
received one of these as well. It's a memo from Lauri Anderson
dated April 15, Response to Issues Raised at the March 25 Hearing.
OK?
Chair Faust: Perhaps if you could color code these.
Janet Shull: Good idea.
Chair Faust: OK, everybody have the April 15 memo? We're ready.
Janet Shull: OK, great. I don't know. . .you' ll probably remember
I was not actually present at the last meeting, however, I have had
an opportunity to go over the comments and Lauri and Kevin are both
here tonight and they were present at the March 25th meeting and we
all collaborated on these responses, so I just want you to make
sure that you understand that I 'm. . .that we've tried to follow
through on that and if I can't answer all the questions on this
because I wasn't here at the last time, I may turn to Kevin or
Lauri to help me in responding to any questions you may have on the
memo. Basically, I will just touch on the high points of all of
these. There are about twenty issues that were raised at the last
hearing and I don't want to sit here and read the memo to you
because I think that may take quite a while, but I 'd just like to
try to touch on the primary issues covered in the memo to get it on
the record and then we can have some discussion on that if you'd
like.
The first issue which we heard, and also just to point out, as far
as the way this memo's organized, under each issue we've listed
names of the people that seemed to have that concern and to point
out their names, but also mainly just to give an indication as to
the numbers of people that. . .so that you'd know that some issues
were raised by more than one person. The first issue that was
raised. . .
Chair Faust: That was. . .that was very helpful by the way.
Janet Shull: Great. The first issue that was raised a number of
times were concerns or questions on the process and the timing of
these hearings and what was going to happen from now on and at the
last hearing, Lauri read from a memo that's also attached, there's
a separate memo from Lauri Anderson dated April 15 which should be
part of your same packet which basically puts into written form
what was read into the record at the last hearing regarding the
public process up to the date of the 25th hearing. So, in other
words, the public forums that we attended. . .the attempt that staff
made to go out into the community to get the word out on this staff
proposal up until the March 25 hearing. And just also we're
pointing out here that we feel there was a lot of concern about the
30
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
time, whether this was moving too quickly in general and we just
wanted to point out in our response that we feel the Planning
Commission should take as much time as they feel is needed to
deliberate on this and hope that you haven't got the impression
that we are try. . .are rushing you because we're not. So, those are
the main issues covered under that issue.
Issue number 2 was a concern with the DIM, or Downtown Limited
Manufacturing, zoning in general that it was restrictive and in the
response we state that we do agree that the DIM zoning would not
permit many of the uses which are currently permitted in the M2 .
The DIM zoning is basically applied to areas which are currently
zoned M2 in the downtown. However, we also feel that the downtown
plan recognizes existing manufacturing uses and that they should be
protected, but doesn't contain any specific goals or policies
encouraging new manufacturing uses. Our concern, and what we've
tried to achieve with the proposed zoning, is trying to meet that
directive of protecting existing manufacturers, but trying to come
up with zoning that doesn't necessarily allow a lot more of. . .more
heavy industrial uses. We feel that the DIM zone is consistent
with the downtown plan's intent to not encourage new manufacturing
uses and also with the Enterprise Zone. . .Enterprise Zone
Committee's recommendation to expand the categories of uses that
would be permitted in areas now zoned M2 and so for that reason
we're including uses as conditional such as residential and
expanding the number of uses allowed to include some retail, some
office, in conjunction with the lighter industrial type use. And
then it has been mentioned this evening that we did respond with
some recommended language for the principally permitted uses in the
DIM zone and that is contained in the memo dated March 25, 1991
which was the subject of the staff report at the last meeting where
we did go over that proposed language that we felt would
address. . .or. . .and as was mentioned by Mr. McCann we have stated
that our intent at least is to permit all those existing uses in
the new zoning and I 'm just reiterating that at this point, that
the language would be interpreted, in our feeling, to permit
outright those existing manufacturing uses.
Chair Faust: Excuse me, Janet.
Janet Shull: Um hum.
Chair Faust: I would prefer, if you don't mind, if it wouldn't
break your train of thought too much, if you allowed us to ask you
questions as you went along and fellow Commissioners, if something
occurs to you and you do want to ask staff a questions, jump in.
I did want to stop you at this point, Janet, and ask you whether
the Planning Department would feel comfortable with instead of a
letter of intent as to what your intentions are, whether you would
31
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
be willing to actually put into the document, the kinds of uses
that would be permitted, rather than the two designations that now
exist, namely that they have to relate to what was it? Building,
building materials?
Janet Shull: Right. If you'd like I can read the language that we
proposed to refresh your memory.
Chair Faust: Yeah, would you please.
Janet Shull: OK. The language that we proposed. . .this is on the
second to last page. . .the pages aren't numbered unfortunately, of
the memo that went out on March 25 from Lauri Anderson to the
Planning Commission and I ' ll read it if. . . it may be hard to dig it
up at this point.
Chair Faust: Yeah, it might be a lot faster if you just read it to
US.
Janet Shull: Right. The language. . .this language was proposed to
modify the language in the exist. . .or the initial proposal which
basically said to permit outright those uses which exist at a
certain date and we ran. . .after Mr. McCann raised a concern with
that, we did run that by our own Legal Department and they had a
similar concern so we decided that we need to come up with
something that would hope. . .that would, in our minds, permit the
existing manufacturing uses as well as be in line with our purpose
language for the DLM zoning. That's sort of the. . .the area that
we've been trying to work with. Trying to permit existing uses and
also trying to keep in mind the new purpose language for the DLM
zoning. So the language we came up with was "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" and we understand that
the manufacturers may make products similar to this that would be
used in other than home improvement or contract construction
trades, but felt that this language did cover adequately the types
of products that they are producing, but also is in line with the
purpose language which reads "It is the purpose of the 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 possible
only in the downtown community" . So that's what we were dealing
with and thinking about, as well as the existing manufacturing
uses. The types of business that may come into downtown at such
times when the existing manufacturers may no longer be here and we
32
Kent Planning Commission
April 22 , 1991
don't know when, or if, they will be going somewhere, but. . .trying
to. . .again, trying to deal with the directive that we received,
which was the downtown plan, which is what we've taken, as you
know, as our starting point, which mentions existing manufacturing
uses, but does not say we are to promote or encourage more. So
that's the fine line that we're. . .or the hand that we've sort of
been dealt that we're trying to respond to.
Chair Faust: So. . .go ahead, Lauri. Step up to the mike.
Lauri Anderson: This is Lauri Anderson with the Planning
Department. I might further clarify that the. . .the language that
was proposed that actually detailed the metal manufacturing and the
wood manufacturing and the various types of manufacturing that
those existing manufacturers do in a general sense, was much more
compatible with the M2 zoning, the heavy industrial zoning, and our
City Attorney advised us that that language was not acceptable
because it didn't mesh with the purpose language. Kind of the same
thing that Janet is talking about. So it is a very fine line. I
mean, where do you reach a compromise between outright permitting
uses which don't meet the intent of the DLM and yet satisfying the
need to certainly allow those existing manufacturers to continue.
Chair Faust: This is a ten point toss up for either of you then.
Does that mean then that the language, as you all see it, satisfies
Mr. McCann's concern that the existing businesses. . .manufacturing
businesses would not be covered because part of what they
manufacture does not go into home improvement? Is what you're
saying that, as far as you're concerned, this does cover them, but
it's drawn as narrowly as you can because of the restrictions from
the. . .of the Legal Department?
Lauri Anderson: Yeah. I think the issue for us is that we never
detail every single use that happens in a site. That would be
impossible. In any kind of a zoning categorization you have to do
some generalization and we felt that those businesses do conduct
that and we felt that that was perhaps the majority of their
business. Now, we could be wrong in that regard and maybe that's
something we need to pursue.
Chair Faust: What happens if it's only 30% of what they do?
Lauri Anderson: If it's 30% of what they do, then it would be a
Planning Director determination how much floor space 'night be
dedicated to that use, what is, you know, which use is dominating
in terms of product storage. It's. . .it's. . .we'd have to look at a
variety of things to determine what, you know, which is the
dominant use here and we were, with Borden, looking at the
household glues and the resins, the plywood resins, that kind of
33
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
thing. Howard, we were looking at the ladder business and the wood
issues. Northwest Metals, we were looking at the garbage can and
mailbox manufacturers, venting ducts and that kind of thing and it
may be that we need to explore those products more carefully, but
that was clearly our intent when we designed that language.
Chair Faust: So in other words, in order to determine once and for
all whether those three businesses in particular were going to be
permitted or conditional, you would actually have to go in and
obtain some information about what percentage of their products
fall under the definition language?
Lauri Anderson: We. . .we have already made the determination that
they are principally permitted, OK, based on our understanding of
their operation. If. . . if Mr. McCann, now that he's telling me that
there are 3 , 800 products here and 1, 000 products here, maybe we
need to rethink that. I guess that's what I'm saying.
James Harris: Madam Chair, may I interject that I do think this is
an issue that the Planning Department needs to revisit and that. . .I
think that's something that we will do as we. . .since we have new
information this evening in testimony. I think it would. . .I think
there's no. . .we do not have time this evening to debate those
particular kinds of issues. That's something the Planning
Department will have to sit down and review Mr. McCann's testimony
this evening about the additional kinds of uses, visit with
Mr. McCann perhaps and get closer and closer and closer to
resolving the issue.
Chair Faust: That's fine. I didn't expect that there was going to
be a definitive answer necessarily tonight, but I did want to raise
it and I did want to know what the staff's response was.
Mr. Haylor?
Commissioner Haylor: Yeah. Madam Chairman, because of the
lateness of the hour and I 'm. . .as a new member on this Commission
I 'm not exactly sure, but could we not go ahead and close the
hearing and debate these issues with staff and so forth at a
workshop so that we all can interreact because it's fairly
complicated and I think everybody needs to get this all straight in
their minds. . .we're rezoning literally the whole downtown of Kent
and I'm. . .I don't want to feel like I 'm being rushed. We need to
get another hearing going and this is going to take a long time.
I can see that right now.
Chair Faust: This is something that we have to do in a public
hearing. We can't do it in a workshop. This is. . .this is part of
the public hearing. Our only other alternative would be to
continue the public hearing for the third month. We do have
34
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
another forty minutes before the absolute cutoff of when we have to
consider the public hearing on the second issue. So I guess that
since you've raised it, I will throw it out to the Commission at
large. What we have yet to do tonight on this, before we can even
begin our deliberations, is to get some responses from the staff to
last month's and this month's public testimony. Then I would
entertain a motion to close the public hearing and we would begin
our deliberations. It's fairly clear we won't be able to do all of
that by 9: 30, so Commissioners, would you like to continue to 9: 30
as originally expected with the staff's response, I guess in the
hopes that we can get through it so we can begin our nego. . .our
deliberations on the 20th, or would you like to close this now and
go on to the second matter. And if you would like some response or
some input from the staff, that's fine too. Comments? Questions?
Commissioner Martinez: Well, I guess my comment is we practically
have to have staff respond. . .we have to get this into the record
somehow or we can't deal with it and, in fact, the. . .the public may
have more to say after that. So we may need to continue the
hearing, but I think we need to get this in so that we can work on
what we've got.
Commissioner Havlor: Madam Chairman, in response to that, I just
heard from staff that they will need a little bit more time, you
know, to sort all this together, tonight's testimony, last month's
testimony, to be able to come back to us with the answers and so
forth. I think we need to give them a little time. I need to have
a little time to absorb all this also.
Chair Faust: Mr. Heineman?
Commissioner Heineman: Madam Chair, I agree with Al on this. I
think there is sufficient complexity here that. . .and sufficient
need for staff to do some more work that we are going to
necessarily have to continue this in some manner, and therefore, I
think at this point, we'd just as well wrap it up and go on to the
next issue.
James Harris: Madam Chair, may I interject again. My feeling is
it may take two more months, next time and the time after that,
because, as you can see, the issues started out like this. Staff
position and actually a position based on the City Council's
approval of the Comprehensive Plan and the public, and we get
closer and we get closer and we get closer and pretty soon we're
going to be about like that. And that may take a couple months.
And I don't see any harm in that. I think that what comes out of
this Commission that goes to the City Council has to be nearly
perfect so that the City Council doesn't have to revisit the issue
in depth and you've done all that work for them. And the public
35
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
feels a good, strong sense of. . .of accomplishment and consistency
and predictability out of it.
Chair Faust: Mr. Satterstrom, did you have something to add?
Fred Satterstrom: I guess the only thing that I would add is that
if in the next 35 minutes if we could continue the rebuttal and
the. . . in a fairly quick manner so that the Planning Commission
could let us know what your concerns are based on the public input
that you've heard and the responses that we give you to the. . .the
rebuttal that we give you, then our analysis in the next month or
two could be more directed. Otherwise, we're going to be left at
a point tonight where we've heard the input and there are a couple
of issues I 've heard, but we could use our time, I think, a little
bit more efficiently and effectively if we knew about what some of
the other issues were that you have as well. If you want to
continue, I think we could use the time better in the next month.
Chair Faust: Thank you, Mr. Satterstrom. Comments?
Commissioner Haylor: Well, I 'm still going to bring it back to the
point that, you know, we have another hearing and people come, you
know, for the other hearing and like Jim said, this is going to go
on probably for a couple more months and, you know, I need to get
my thoughts together and people answer my questions, just like
staff needs to. . .to get everything together also. So I 'm back
there. . .I think it's time to move on.
Chair Faust: I would like to ask the staff that is hear to discuss
the second issue, and also Mr. Harris, do you know of any public
testimony that is going to be held on the Shoreline Management
Proposal? Has anyone signed up? Is there anybody here in the room
who is here to testify on that issue? Staff, how long will it take
you to make your presentation?
Janet Shull: I ' ll go very quickly. I was only on the second issue
out of 20, however, the first 4 were really the ones that seem to
be the most involved and then after that they did seem to be more
specific and more of a one line type response.
Chair Faust: Let me hear from Ms. Watanabe about. . .
James Harris: You're asking about how long it will take for the
Shoreline.
Chair Faust: Right.
Janet Shull: Oh, I 'm sorry.
36
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Chair Faust: That was good for me to know too.
Anne Watanabe: Yeah, Madam Chairman, I. . .I am planning on keeping
my remarks fairly brief and leaving the majority of the time for
the Commissioners to ask questions. We have been through two
workshops at this point on the proposed amendments, so I was
figuring on maybe 15 to 20 minutes of. . .of my giving you an
overview and then receiving whatever questions you might have.
Chair Faust: Thank you.
Commissioner Dahle: Madam Chair, the only problem I have with
going on this evening is that it doesn't give the Commissioners a
chance to get their thoughts on what has taken place tonight in a
perspective alongside of the material that's already been written.
We need to study this. . .these ideas along with the plans that we
had last week, or last month.
Chair Faust: Well I for one have some questions that, if I can get
them answered or at least ask staff to start looking into them,
I 've written a lot of margin notes as people have spoken and I, for
one, would like to spend the half hour that's still left trying to
either get some answers from staff or specifically direct staff to
get me some answers by next time. I hate to break it off at this
point. I 'm not speaking as the Chair. Just as a fellow
Commissioner. I hate to break it off at this point. I have a lot
of questions. I 'm certainly not ready to do anything on this
tonight, but I do feel that the topic is. . .we're into discussions
about it now and I 'd like to spend more time, even if it's only
half an hour, continuing to work toward the resolution. I think we
all think that this is going to take some time, but I would like to
use this half hour, since we're on the subject and we have the
time. So, that's my feeling, just as a fellow Commissioner.
Commissioner Havlor: Madam Chairman, I would call for a vote on
it.
Chair Faust: No motion on the floor. Would you like to make one
Mr. Haylor?
Commissioner Havlor: Yes, I would like to make a motion. . .
Chair Faust: Go ahead.
Commissioner Havlor: . . .that we continue this hearing for the
next. . .what would be a good date?
Chair Faust: Well, we. . . it's not a question of what's a good date.
our next public hearing is May 20th, so that would be it.
37
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Commissioner Haylor: Ok. . .continue this hearing to May 20th.
Chair Faust: Is there a second?
Commissioner Dahle: I second.
Chair Faust: All those in favor of continuing this public hearing
until May 20, please signify by saying aye.
Voices• Aye.
Chair Faust: All those opposed, signify by saying nay.
Voices• Nay.
Chair Faust: Wait a minute.
Voices: Laughter.
Chair Faust: Mr. Heineman, did you vote twice?
Commissioner Heineman: No I did not, I gave it a nay.
Chair Faust: OK. I think we're going to have to have a show of
hands. All those in favor of continuing this hearing, raise your
hand.
Voices• (Unclear)
Chair Faust: OK, now once again, Ed. What you're voting on now is
to stop right now and take it up again next month. All those in
favor, raise your hands. Two. All those opposed, raise your
hands. Right. We're going to go forward for about another 29
minutes. Janet?
Janet Shull: OK. I will try to move as quickly as I can through
this.
Chair Faust: That's OK, Janet. We're not going to finish this.
Janet Shull: Right.
Chair Faust: As Gwen has said, we've all got a lot of thoughts in
our minds and we can't even probably frame them all tonight.
Janet Shull: OK. OK, great. The third issue that was brought up
was nonconforming uses, buildings and sites. We had a few people
testify at the earlier hearing and also tonight, that if this were
to pass, there are a lot of existing buildings, etc. that may be
38
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
affected in some way and we did look into this issue. We do agree
that there would be many existing legal. . .that there are many
existing legal nonconforming uses in the downtown currently, even
with the existing zoning and we also do concur that if the new
zoning were to be implemented, the proposed zoning, there would
also be legal nonconforming uses that may result as of that. So,
it's something that we're always dealing with in the City in some
way when zoning is changes. We have a lot of older buildings in
the City, for instance in areas of the downtown that are zoned
right now, General Commercial, where they may, in fact, build right
up to property lines where, if you look at the code, they're
required to have large setbacks and parking and landscaping. So,
we do have currently in the downtown area, some existing
nonconforming uses and some would also result with the zoning
change. That's typically what happens to some properties.
Commissioner Martinez: I have a question on that, in that area.
You've done some nice work looking at what the economic impact is
if someone goes in to borrow money. My question is have you in any
way kind of looked at how many or what proportion of the businesses
that currently exist would be nonconforming. Oh, I 'm terribly
sorry. So that we have some idea about how many or the proportion
or something about the economic viability of downtown in the long
short term. So for the man that's been down there two years that
would like to make a career out of Kent, I 'd like to, you know,
have some idea about that.
Janet Shull: Right. We have not done an inventory either by
counting or trying to develop a percentage and I don't have a good
feeling at this point whether we're going to increase the number
over what we have today. As I mentioned, there are existing
nonconforming buildings and uses. . .
Commissioner Martinez: Would some of the nonconforming that are
existing nonconforming come into conformance because of some of the
things that we're doing?
Janet Shull: I would hesitate to say whether they would be in
complete conformance because, as I mentioned, a lot of these are
•older buildings that probably don't have a lot of landscaping or
street trees. . .
Commissioner Martinez: Yes, yes.
Janet Shull: . . .or may not have much parking or any parking on
site and depending on where they are, we may be now requiring some
parking whereas before there may have been just on-street parking.
I 'm thinking in particular of the areas along Central Avenue that
Mr. Bogard spoke of where there are a lot of buildings built right
39
Kent Planning Commission
April 22 , 1991
up to the sidewalk and there was at one time, on-street parking and
now there is no longer. So, we have different conditions. I do
think that some properties may be more in conformance with the
proposed zoning than they are with their existing zoning, however,
I 'd hesitate to say that oh yes they would definitely be in
conformance because we haven't done that type of an inventory and
I don't know if anyone else wants to elaborate on that, but that's
MY. . .
Lauri Anderson: This is like musical chairs. Just one other
comment which is that that kind of an inventory. . .I want to lay out
for you what that involves, which is a site by site analysis of
every building in the downtown planning area. OK. And we have
looked, for example, there was a question about minimum height and
we did an analysis in one area of how many buildings of historical
character met the height requirement or didn't meet the height
requirement. So if you would like us to do that kind of an
inventory, it would certainly help if you could define, sort of,
what. . .are there specific areas you're interested in? Is there a
specific criteria that you're interested in? Because without site
plans of many of those structures and. . .and, you know, we would be
out there literally measuring to see where to building falls on the
lot.
Commissioner Haylor: I have a question for you. Have. . .have any
thought been given to this plan about one of the speakers has
spoken about handicapped and two story buildings. . .
Lauri Anderson: Right.
Commissioner Haylor: . . .and the elevator.
Lauri Anderson: Right. That's an excellent point. Now we. . .we
did revise that criteria in the memo that I sent out. We had
changed the two story criteria, primarily in response to the
manufacturers' concerns, so that we made it a two story minimum
within 25 feet of the front property line. Now what you're getting
into there is if you have a 20 foot maximum setback, you have a 5
foot false front essentially is what you might end up with. And I
think that that might be something that we would want to
investigate, the issue of elevators, but we did try to address the
fact that there might be one story structures.
Commissioner Haylor: Yeah because, you know, just like he
testified too, if you put an elevator in, the cost is going to go
right through the roof.
Lauri Anderson: Um hum. Um hum. Right. And that cost issue is
maybe something we should look into.
40
Kent Planning Commission
April 22 , 1991
Janet Shull: I 'd just like to add one thing to that. In our
proposed amendment to the height limit, we also specified that the
height limit would be two stories or 25 feet, whichever is less, or
in some cases there buildings which are as tall as a typical two
story building, however, interiorly they may only be one story.
For instance, the larger manufacturing building may need a high
interior area for the type of work they're doing inside, however,
it's physically only a one story building. So we tried to take
into account buildings that may only be one story, however, could
meet the height limit that was in line with what a two
story. . .typical two story, main street building would be such as 25
feet. I don't know if I made that clear, but what I 'm getting at
is we tried to. . .to make the language less specific to the two
stories and more specific to the actual height that we were trying
to maintain, a more predictable height along streets in the
downtown, somewhere between two stories and four stories. Above
four stories which, I don't know if you' ll remember, but we're
recommending that if a building's higher than two stories, it be
set back, that area that's higher than. . .so trying to get a more
continuous street front between two and four stories. And trying
to allow within that, some flexibility for things that may happen
inside the building.
Commissioner Martinez: I 'm stuck on my last question so I 'm going
to ask something else perhaps and that is again going and looking
at the principally permitted uses, might we look at a broader
definition of principally permitted uses to encompass more of our
current businesses in the area? Again, I don't know how practical
that. . .I don't know. . .I don't know how practical that is, but. . .
Janet Shull: Linda, would this be in general, in all the zoning
districts that we're. . .or is there one in particular.
Commissioner Martinez: Actually, I. . . I have more concern because
we're changing, in many ways we're changing MU more radically than
almost anything because we've given a lot of people a lot. . .I mean
we've had less than light industry, dirty industry, whatever you
want to call it. We've allowed a lot of stuff in. . . in. . . in some of
these areas. I 'm concerned there. . .I suppose I should be more
concerned about DIM, but it seems to me that we're getting closer
on DIM to. . .to the definitions to take care of most of the uses
that are there, but maybe the rest of you disagree with that. Or
maybe you don't.
Commissioner Havlor: I. . .I. . .I don't have a total disagreement
with it, but what concerns me is this MU. . .we are putting it in
a. . .we're taking it from nowhere basically and a new idea that's
come out and been used in certain cities and putting it throughout
the City of Kent downtown area. I don't know. Maybe we should
41
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
just try to test this thing first in a small area to see how well
it works. I 'm not sure. We're changing a lot of zoning here in a
large area and as the witnesses and people have testified, it's
going to affect them.
Janet Shull: I'd just like to say that in making the
recommendation for a mixed use zoning district, that wasn't
something that we just kind of cooked up in the cubicle. I mean,
that was something that was specifically outlined in the D. . .or the
downtown plan that was adopted by the Council in 1989 and it did go
through a lengthy hearing process. So that's why it's there. And
it doesn't mean that we couldn't reopen that. . .I mean the Planning
Commission can basically do what you'd like. If you'd like to
reopen that and rediscuss that, but basically that's the direction
that we took and that's why there's mixed use designation. Now the
specifics weren't outlined as far as what exactly are the permitted
uses going to be and so that, you know, we did develop based on the
plan, but there was general direction given in that. . . in that area.
Commissioner Havlor: Well I understand about the general direction
and so forth and. . .and. . .and all good intentions and everything,
but I think a lot of concern of. . .of the residents and business
owners of Kent that they don't really understand this mixed use.
I don't really understand it. And to. . .I mean it's going to be the
dominant, from what I see here, one of the most dominant zoning of
the City.
Janet Shull: Right. It is. . .we have recommended that it be
applied to a large area, however, there are a greater number or
category of land uses that are also allowed, either permitted
outright or permitted by conditional use that are currently. . .and
we tried to look at the existing land uses. In the case where
there may be some land uses that aren't. . .would not be permitted in
the. . .that are existing and maybe not permitted in the new
language. I mean there may be a couple ways we could address that
if you directed us. one would be to look at broader languages,
Linda suggested, or to look at the boundaries, I mean, if you
decided to direct us in that way based on the testimony that you've
heard. I don't know that at this point I would have a
recommendation for staff as far as how or if we would want to
change to proposal at this point.
Commissioner Dahle: I have a little concern myself about mixed
use. If you are talking about taking away mixed use, you're
talking about taking away all family residences in the area because
that's the only thing that's allowed. I mean that's the only
zoning that you allow new housing is mixed use. So. . .
42
Kent Planning Commission
April 22 , 1991
Janet Shull: Well actually in the DC zone. . .currently in the DC-1
and the DC-2 zones residential uses are only allowed by conditional
use permit.
Commissioner Dahle: Right.
Janet Shull: In the. . . in the proposed DC zone, residential uses
would be permitted outright, however they could not be on the
ground floor.
Commissioner Dahle: Right.
Janet Shull: So that is different than the mixed use zone where
they. . .they could be permitted
Commissioner Dahle: Right, so the only place that you can have
ground floor homes and such would be in mixed use. You've taken
away residential.
Janet Shull: Right. The other possibility would be in the
proposed DIM zoning district where they could be permitted, but as
a conditional. . .you'd have to get a conditional use permit because
of the nature of land uses which may surround a proposed site.
Commissioner Dahle: I 'm not sure too many people would want to
build in DIM zone.
Janet Shull: Probably not today, but our thinking is in future
years that changes may take place where that may be an area where
they would like to live. For instance, in the DIM zoning district
proposed, I ' ll just point it out, that area there down by Naden
Avenue bounded by Willis Street to the south, Naden to the west,
there are a lot of existing residential uses in that neighborhood.
It may be that for someone looking at that piece of land in a DIM
designated area, they may want to go for a conditional use permit
to do some type of residential development, but I 'm just. . .I don't
know. . . I don't know of anyone wanting to do that currently except
that there was a site proposed in there recently for senior
housing. But other than that, I don't know of any people planning
to do residential in that area.
Commissioner Dahle: Well, I hate to see you lose residential in
downtown Kent. I do think you need homes for people that need to
live a core area and if you take away MU and put all DLM down
there, you aren't going to have any.
Chair Faust: Janet?
Janet Shull: Yes.
43
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Chair Faust: I think that it would be nice if you went out and
eyeballed all the stuff in the DC and the MU areas and came back
and at least gave us a ballpark percentage of how many of those
existing structures are going to be nonconforming and I don't want
you to go out and measure them, for heaven sakes. I realize that
just eyeballing them is going to take a lot of time, but if you
could just give us some sort of sense based on the. . . I mean the
things that have been brought up tonight are the lot line, the
parking, the minimum two stories, those sorts of things that have
been brought up tonight in the public hearings. Could you come
back and just give us just. . .just a ballpark figure. Are we
talking about 10 to 15% of these places going. . .are going to be
nonconforming? Are we talking about 50 or 60% of them being
nonconforming? Or 75? Just to give us some sort of idea of how
many. . .how many places we're talking about because frankly it sort
of came as a surprise to me, I think it was Mr. Stone who raised
that particular issue that there were going to be an awful lot
of. . .maybe it was somebody else. . .awful lot of things that were
going to be nonconforming as a result of this that we were not
aware of. And he, somebody, brought up some specific examples and
I. . . I. . .I hate to ask this because I know that time is precious,
but if you could just give us just a ballpark figure on how many
folks we're talking about.
Janet Shull: Right. We can do that and I just. . .the only other
comments I wanted to make regarding this issue just were that in
our Zoning Code, and I believe we've said this before, that we do
have provisions to address legal nonconforming uses, building and
sites. That we don't in all cases require 100% compliance with the
new zoning rules once we have an existing building that would like
to change, we usually try to. . .particularly the ones that come to
mind to me are landscaping improvements. When you have an existing
building that may not have any landscaping and then the new zoning
requires some. We try to get those things when buildings are going
to be improved, we try to see that. . .we like to see that they're
improved as close to the new zoning district regulations as
possible so that they're consistent with neighboring uses.
However, we do have a clause in the Zoning Code that does allow the
Planning Director authority to waive certain requirements when
strict compliance would create an unnecessary hardship for that
property owner. We're also willing to look at our nonconforming
section of the Zoning Code to see if there may be some
modifications needed. That's been something else that's been
suggested, but again we do not necessarily require 100% compliance.
For example, if you had a building that was one story now and it' s
in an area where there is a minimum two story requirement, we
wouldn't necessarily say if someone wants to put a new sign on
their building, well sorry, you first must add a second floor. I
mean we try. . .we like to feel that we're reasonable enough that we
44
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
wouldn't necessarily require someone to add a whole second floor to
their building and it really, the new zoning is intended to address
new construction, but we do run into these gray areas. So we will
go out and try to give you a ballpark on what we're talking about
for nonconforming.
Chair Faust: Thanks.
Commissioner Heineman: Do we have in writing very much that covers
that or is. . .what I have seen so far is. . . is sort of ambiguous area
that the Planning Director may decide thus and such or something
like that. Do we have very much set down specifically as how these
nonconforming uses can be accommodated under this new zoning?
Lauri Anderson: I might do a couple things. When we were first in
workshop on this issue, I handed out the section of the Zoning Code
that talks about nonconforming and I don't have enough for
everybody, but if you don't have a copy why don't I send this
around and also Carol Proud, the Senior Planner in the current
planning section, the one who's sort of in charge of permit review,
is here and she'd also. . .has said that she'd be willing to comment
on the issue if you'd like to hear from her. But this is the
actual section from the Zoning Code and I think some of you have
it, but you all may not. It's section 15. 08. 100 and I believe
that's on page 118 though I wouldn't swear to it.
Commissioner Heineman: When was that distributed to the committee?
Lauri Anderson: It would have been I think the first or second
workshop on the downtown.
Commissioner Martinez: Ed, you may not even have been.
Commissioner Heineman: Well, that's probably why I don't have one.
Voices• (Unclear)
Chair Faust: OK, Janet, were you going to make some remarks on
point 100 or just refer us to it?
Janet Shull: I wasn't going to make any specific points.
Carol Proud is here and if you'd like here to go. . .she's Senior
Planner in the current planning section. If you'd like her to talk
about the process, she'd be better to address that than I would.
Otherwise, I was just going to go on to the other issues. I think
Lauri was just trying to point out to you the section of reference.
Chair Faust: Folks, do you want to hear from Carol?
45
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Commissioner Martinez: I'd rather hear from Carol in workshop
because that clarifies something that is already codified and. . .and
I 'd rather press on with some of the things that are still up for
consideration.
Chair Faust: Yeah.
Janet Shull: All I 'd like to clarify is that we are not, at this
time, proposing any changes to the Zoning Code, however, we would
be open to doing so if the Planning Commission would like to direct
us in that direction.
Chair Faust: Pressing on.
Janet Shull: The fourth issue in the staff memo deals with the
impact of residential uses. There was concern expressed that the
new zoning proposed would increase the amount of residential uses
in the downtown and that there may be some impacts related to that
such as traffic, etc. I 'd just like to point out that the Downtown
Plan does call specifically for encouraging more residential uses
downtown. That was one of the directives, or strong goals, in the
Downtown Plan. And also that there currently are permit, or multi-
family currently is permitted within the downtown planning area in
the two existing multi-family zoning districts, the MRM and the MRH
zoning districts. And then also are allowed as a conditional use
in the DC-1 and DC-2 zones. So there is potential currently for
residential use in the downtown.
Commissioner Martinez: I want to tie something that some of the
testimony that came in about old people that are there that are
nonconforming and then the new folks move in and then raise Cain
because they don't like what the old folks. . .the established
businesses were doing and I have some concern, particularly about
mixed use and I support mixed use, but I do have some concern about
the unpredictability of the way the mixed use is at this moment in
that. . .my example, you're not going to like, but it. . .I guess it's
illustrative and that is when I was in. . . lived in Phoenix, there
was a rendering plant on the outskirts of town that smelled
terrible and while it was on the outskirts of town it was just
fine, but people started building houses around it and that smell
offended them and they drove the rendering plant out of business.
And I 've often thought that that was dumb. They knew it was there.
All they had to do was stand around for a minute and they could
have smelled it. And I kind of feel that's the same way a little
bit about how, not the specific. . .not the MU specifically,
but. . .but how it's going to be administered and what the
transitional zones. . .how we are going to transition from
residential to, what was that gentleman's name in the yellow
sweater? How, you know, how we get the street persons. . .the, I
46
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
mean the street cleaner guy's business, how we accommodate that
while doing some of the other things? Mr. Perkins, thank you. And
maybe can. . .can you give some consideration to that and
specifically in regard to the residential provisions that we have
here.
Janet Shull: Yeah. Yeah, that provision isn't in the new language
and just in that, residential uses would be permitted outright so
you still would have to go through a permitting process and meet
the requirements of the Zoning Code, but we don't have anything
currently in there that says, such as we do in the DIM zone where
residential is conditional. . .
Commissioner Martinez: Right.
Janet Shull: . . .and we would have an opportunity to look at those
things.
Commissioner Martinez: I am suggesting that we need to think about
that a little bit more and if you can think about it with your
planning hats and I ' ll think about it as a citizen, then maybe we
can come together on some more language.
Janet Shull: OK. OK. The fifth issue that's addressed in the
staff report is traffic and infrastructure impacts, concern with
what will happen with future development in downtown. How are we
going to handle the traffic and infrastructure that may be required
for future development. And I just wanted to point out that the
traffic and infrastructure impacts were reviewed during the SEPA
process by, besides Planning, the Building, the Fire, Police and
Public Works Departments and no significant impacts were identified
at that time. In evaluating the proposal, the staff proposal
versus what's existing, I think it's important to compare the
existing versus the proposed buildouts and look at the types of
uses that may be allowed currently versus what may be allowed in
the proposed zoning. And, for instance, we currently have a great
area zoned GC. A lot of the area that's designated mixed use here.
This is the proposed zoning, not the existing, but a great deal of
this area that's sort of east of the Burlington Northern tracks is
currently zoned General Commercial, which as you know is a very
auto oriented type of commercial development, generates a lot of
parking and a lot of trips and in reducing just that amount of area
and replacing that with a mixed use development, you' ll have a
different type of use that doesn't necessarily require a lot of
drive through facilities, a lot of parking and very auto oriented.
The mixed use is designed to be pedestrian oriented. Encourage
people to park their car and maybe walk to two or three different
places as opposed to having to drive their car to every business
they may be stopping at in the downtown. So we think those types
47
Kent Planning Commission
April 22 , 1991
of things are important to look at and also the proposed land use
and land use patterns and density that are proposed in the Plan, we
feel are more conducive to supporting mass transit. Knowing that
Metro is in the process of increasing service to the downtown,
running many bus routes down Smith Street that connect with
Southcenter, into downtown Seattle, to the Boeing sites, I 'm
thinking of the #150 line which is a big line, I think goes all the
way down to Auburn and then up to Seattle, and they're trying to
get more. . .more frequent service and also more express service
which will make it much more convenient, but also will serve the
downtown. So if we do have more people living in the downtown or
vice versa, working in downtown, that the transportation will be
more convenient. Also we hear possibilities of rail coming into
downtown and although, obviously there would be some things to
consider there with how do people get to the rail. If people are
living in downtown and the rail comes to downtown and they need to
go somewhere else, or vice versa, they're coming from Seattle into
downtown to work, maybe they won't need to bring a car into
downtown. So the hope is with more things going on, there's more
opportunity to take advantage of the public transportation and we
know we have some expansion already occurring and possibly even
some different type of public transit coming into downtown. So
we'd like to be ready for it if it happens. And if we do
something, we can show the people that might provide transit that
this is a logical place to come because we're doing something that
would make it work.
Commissioner Haylor: I. . .
Janet Shull: I 'm sorry.
Commissioner Havlor: I 'd like to ask a question right there. Now
you're talking about this. . .this mixed use of getting, you know,
reducing or whatever, the use of drive-in restaurants or whatever,
you know, and at the same time you also, wanted getting more
pedestrians walking downtown and so forth. At the same time,
you're. . .you want to reduce parking. Now I 'm not sure exactly
where these pedestrians are going to come from to be able to walk
downtown. First, they've got to, you know, drive there and park
some place and then walk downtown. Are we planning on parking
outside of the downtown core and shuttling people downtown or what?
I 'm not sure. I don't understand this.
Janet Shull: Right. That concern is addressed later on in the
staff. . .staff rebuttal and I ' ll address it now. There was a lot of
concern about parking in proximity to businesses and we feel that
we have. . .we're not. . .we have allowed parking on the premises. If
people would like to put parking on their site, they're allowed, or
they're able to do so. We do hope that we could try to discourage
48
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
the amount of on-site private parking as opposed to using better or
existing off, or on-street and our existing public off-street
parking facilities. We do realize as downtown grows, if we get a
lot of development downtown, that just street parking necessarily
won't handle all the need and we do recommend in the staff proposal
that there be actions taken to try to coordinate, or try to get
some more public structured parking, for example, in the downtown
to serve many businesses. One example, I'd just like to mention,
if you have a lot of businesses, each with their own parking lot
which may handle the need for their one use, say a restaurant use,
next door is a. . .one problem that you may occur. . .that may actually
discourage people from coming to downtown is you have a lot
of. . .you know, if you want to go to the restaurant, you can park
behind the restaurant, but if you want to walk next door to the
dime store, you've got to move your car to their parking lot.
We're not saying that parking isn't needed downtown. We'd just
like to discourage a lot of the privatization of parking. We'd
like to allow for private parking as is needed for a business to
function. We want the business to be able to function and grow,
however, you do run into trouble. I know I 've been discouraged
going into downtown where I want to park my car and walk around and
visit five different places, but I maybe can only park at the
furniture store and then if I want to go to the restaurant, I 'd
better move my car or it might get towed or. . .and so that's one
concern that I would have in having a lot of parking for each
business. It may actually discourage people from walking around.
Commissioner Haylor: But one of the things I 'm really discouraged
about this parking business, is like for example around here it's
hard to find parking on meeting nights and yet we have a garage
right across the street and I 'm not even sure if we can even use
that garage at night. I tried to go in there and couldn't get in
there, but what's the point of, you know, having all this parking
and we have no access to it? I 'm not sure exactly how
that's. . .this is all going to relate to. . .
Janet Shull: And that's why. . .
Commissioner Haylor: . . .getting pedestrians downtown.
Janet Shull: Right. And that's why the staff proposal
is. . . is. . .one of the points that we make in the downtown report is
that this issue needs to be examined, but not. . . it's not. . .examined
in this work program. It's not part of this work program, but we
do realize that it's something that needs to happen and that
parking garage across the street is one example of. . .there's great
parking for that building, but not necessarily for this building.
So, that's why we need more public parking that can serve more than
one use.
49
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Commissioner Dahle: As a matter of fact, that building took the
public parking. So. . .
Chair Faust: Well; folks, it's 9: 30. Janet, thank you very much.
Obviously, we're going to revisit this topic. Lauri, did you have
a comment?
Lauri Anderson: I wonder if I might just run down the list of
items that I have.
Chair Faust: I was going to ask somebody to do that, so thank you.
Lauri Anderson: OK. All right. We need to check with the
manufacturers about the other uses that they have going on that we
don't know about so that we can make a better assessment of that
situation.
We're going to do a ballpark figure and look at nonconforming uses,
particularly, Tracy, with regard to lot lines, two stories,
parking, etc. We're going to look at. . .
Chair Faust: By the way, that was Mr. Bogard who raised that
issue.
Lauri Anderson: Right.
Chair Faust: I looked at my notes.
Lauri Anderson: I think we need to look at the elevator issue, the
two story issue, the mixed use issue and existing uses that are
already in the zone we've targeted for mixed use and how that would
impact. For example, a principally permitted residential.
Those are the main topic areas that I have at this point. Now,
certainly we haven't gotten through everything, so I 'd assure there
will be more requests next time, but have I missed any that were
specifically. . .I did? OK.
Commissioner Dahle: Yes. The parking issue as far as it relates
to rapid transit.
Lauri Anderson: OK. Right. That was an issue that was raised
tonight and I think what we. . .one thing that we, as staff, have in
mind and again this is not something we've pursued because that
wasn't. . .didn't fit necessarily in here, but certainly those public
parking lots that currently exist or if commuter rail were to come
in, I mean parking is definitely a big issue. So maybe we' ll see
if we can dig up some information on that. OK?
50
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Commissioner Grant: Lauri, can I ask you a question?
Lauri Anderson: Sure, Chris.
Commissioner Grant: As far as it goes for the commuter rail. . .oh,
thank you. Is it absolutely cast in concrete that the Burlington
Northern Railroad will be the rail provider?
Lauri Anderson: Not to my knowledge and, Chris, frankly I am. . .I
don't have the latest information. That program and plan has
changed a number of times between the I-5 corridor, light rail
along I-5, commuter rail along the Burlington Northern. I think at
the moment it's sounding more hopeful that we would get a commuter
rail along the Burlington Northern, but I don't know.
Commissioner Grant: When you look at that Lincoln Avenue over
there, Milwaukee tracks, it seems like that's. . .the Park and Ride's
over there already.
Commissioner Dahle: Right.
Chair Faust: Right. Well, that's a topic for another day.
Commissioner Haylor: Madam Chairman?
Chair Faust: Yes.
Commissioner Haylor: Before we move on to the next hearing, I
would like to direct the question at the staff and. . .
Chair Faust: I hope you don't want an answer tonight.
Commissioner Haylor: No.
Chair Faust: OK.
Commissioner Haylor: But, I. . .I wouldn't mind, you know, having
the staff look into this thing, you know, I 'm. . .sometime when I 'm
overwhelmed with a big problem, I try to slice the problem down to
my size and sometime I think I 'm beginning to realize maybe we've,
you know, bitten off a pretty big chunk here, you know, to try to
do all at one time and that maybe we could look at this thing in
pieces. And instead of trying to grandfather the whole City in,
maybe we. . .you take this one section at a time. I 'm not sure, but
I would probably be more comfortable trying doing that than trying
to pass, you know, zoning for the whole City at one time. That's
my feelings on it.
51
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Chair Faust: OK, well Al, keep that thought, because I think
really that's sort of up to us. Not thems. Us'ns, as to how we
want to divide that up and whether we want to consider the whole
thing or whether we want to just consider part of this pie, but,
but, but. . .
Commissioner Havlor: I realize. . .
Chair Faust: We really need to move on.
Commissioner Havlor: Yeah, I realize that's what, you know, but
you. . .staff also asked us if we had any ideas or any direction we
were headed, to let them know. I just thought I 'd let them know.
Chair Faust: And, by gosh, you have.
Commissioner Havlor: I have.
Chair Faust: Thank you, Al. OK, well let's take.
Commissioner Martinez: Madam Chair.
Chair Faust: Oh, yes, yes, well, yes. I forgot the formalities.
Commissioner Martinez: I move that. . .I move that we continue the
hearing on the downtown rezone until May 20 at 7 : 00.
commissioner Heineman: Second.
Chair Faust: It has been moved and seconded that we table these
hearings and take them up next month. All those in favor please
say aye.
Voices• Aye.
Chair Faust: Those opposed say nay. (Silence) Ayes have it.
Discussion is tabled until next month on this topic. We will now
take a two and a half minute stretch break and then go on into the
next public hearing.
(End of verbatim minutes)
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM AMENDMENTS - SMP-90-1
Anne Watanabe presented the draft amendments to the Shoreline
Master Program. No major policy changes were made because it was
felt that with the short time frame imposed by the grant agreement
with the Department of Ecology, there was not time for adequate
public input. The following changes were made:
52
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Section 1. Introduction. Removes material that is not longer
accurate and is less "event based" than the old introduction.
Section 2 . Definitions. The definitions were amended to meet
State recommendations and requirements.
The new definition of "building setback line" does not include
fencing. It is being proposed that fencing be regulated separately
from the building setback.
Commissioner Martinez questioned the discrepancy between
definitions in different sections. Ms. Watanabe suggested that
they would simply use the definitions from the "Definitions"
section in performance standards.
Section 3 . Environments. This section adds verbatim quotes from
the State regulations concerning environments.
Section 4. Elements. Changes were made to make this section read
more like policy. Some of the terminology was changed to suit the
new definitions and editorial changes recommended by the Citizen
Advisory Committee were made.
Commissioner Dahle questioned whether the continuous trail system
along river banks would use the property of private property
owners. After discussion, it was determined that the present
language would probably be the subject of a proposed amendment.
The time frame for development of sites that have probable
historical, scientific or archaeological significance was discussed
and was identified as another area where language would be changed.
Section 5. General Performance Standards. "Shorelines of State-
wide Significance" policies and performance standards were moved to
the front.
Section 6. Specific Policy and Performance Standard. Use
regulation language has been revised.
A letter from Bart Brynestad of Northward objecting to a 75 '
setback from a dike for parking facilities was discussed. The
Commissioners felt that they would stay with the language of the
draft.
Section 7. Administration. This is a new section which describes
the administration process and sets out the process for permit
decisions.
53
Kent Planning Commission
April 22, 1991
Section 8. Enforcement. This is a new section which was drafted
by the City Attorney's office which formally states what violations
are, what the penalties for violations are and how the City can
enforce this program.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept the draft amendments to the
Kent Shoreline Master Program. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the
motion.
Discussion on the motion followed.
Commissioner Dahle MOVED that the language on page 4-4. Objective
21 be changed to read: "Provide a continuous trail system along
the shoreline, where feasible, while protecting private property
rights" . Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion
carried.
Commissioner Heineman MOVED that the language of item 1 on page 5-4
be changed to read: "The City shall identify a competent authority
within one month of discovery of the site or structure" .
Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
Commissioner Martinez MOVED that on page 8-5, under "Cease and
Desist Work Order", the word Director's be changed to
Administrator's and the word Director be changed to Administrator.
Commissioner Grant SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.
The motion to adopt the draft amendments to the Kent Shoreline
Master Program with the amendments as approved was carried.
Commissioner Grant volunteered to represent the Planning Commission
on this issue on May 21 at the City Council meeting.
LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING RUGG PETITION
Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the letter and the attachment
called Specifics Supporting the Petition for Kent's Responsible
Urban Growth be sent as the current response of the Planning
Commission to the direction from Council to consider the RUGG
petition. Commissioner Grant SECONDED the motion. Discussion
followed on the wording of the letter. Motion carried.
54
Kent Planning Commission
April 22 , 1991
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Martinez MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner
Dahle SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was
adjourned at 11:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
ames Harrib, 8ecretary
55