Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 07/22/1991 (3) RENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 22, 1991 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Faust at 7:00 P.M. , July 22, 1991, in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Faust, Chair Linda Martinez, Vice Chair Christopher Grant Edward Heineman, Jr. Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS EXCUSED: Gwen Dahle Albert Haylor PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Greenstreet PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Lauri Anderson, Senior Planner Carol Proud, Senior Planner Janet Shull, Planner Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF JUNE 24 , 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the minutes of the June 24, 1991 meeting be approved as presented. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. FOSTER INDUSTRIAL PARK LOT 18 - SMP-91-1 Carol Proud presented a request to amend the Shoreline Master Program to change an approximate . 38 acre shoreline area that is currently designated as a Conservancy environment to an Urban environment. The applicant would like to develop an accessory parking lot for a warehouse distribution facility within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Green River, which is not permitted within a Conservancy designation. He will also have to go to the Hearing Examiner for a Substantial Development Permit and will have to obtain a variance. Kent Planning Commission July 22, 1991 Ms. Proud pointed out that the amendment meets all State regulations and the provisions of the Kent Shoreline Master Program. Also, as a result of the subdivision approval, the applicant has developed and dedicated a public park and in conjunction with the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval, he must also provide additional public amenities. Upon review of the application and the applicable criteria, the staff recommended approval of the change in shoreline designation. Commissioner Heineman wondered about the possibility of setting a precedent and would not like to open the door for allowing encroachment of this kind on any piece of triangular property that could not be otherwise developed. Ms. Proud said that staff looked at that possibility and felt that in conjunction with the existing parks that were dedicated with the Foster plat, this would be a natural continuation. The additional public amenities that will be provided, combined with the completed Green River Trail Corridor, will provide a greatly enhanced recreation area that will benefit the public for years to come. Skip Fresn, 40 Lake Bellevue, Suite 100, Bellevue, WA, representing First American, Inc. , stated that Lot 18 was platted in 1985, which was prior to the establishment of the Shoreline Management Act. As part of the development of the property, Foster Industrial Park dedicated six acres of the total development into a park. Numerous revisions have been made in response to the Planning Department's concerns of maintaining the natural environment. Drainage will be controlled so it goes into a retention pond. In working with their wetlands biologist, they intend to create a very strong natural environment. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the Planning Commission grant approval of Foster Industrial Park, Lot 18. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. MULTIFAMILY DESIGN REVIEW - ZCA-90-5 Janet Shull stated, for the record, that the contents of the Multifamily Design Review report prepared by the Kent Planning Department in July, 1991 were being discussed. A draft report was discussed at the Planning Commission Workshop on July 8. The primary changes to that report were some additions in the Background section where options were discussed. The three options looked at were: 2 Kent Planning Commission July 22, 1991 A. No Action. B. Implement the RUGG Requests. C. Implement a Design Review Program. Option C is where modifications from the last draft were made to the report. There was only one option in the draft version which was to go with an Administrative Design Review process. Option C2 discusses an Administrative Design Review process with the addition of a public review comment period. Option C3 would implement design review with a Design Review Board, which would not be an administrative process, but a process with a body outside of the Planning Department. Staff is recommending the Administrative process as initially presented. The advantage of Options C2 and C3 would be an additional opportunity for the public to comment. The disadvantage would be that the time period would be extended because you would have additional notification requirements and scheduling of hearings and meetings. Commissioner Grant asked what the time frame would be for Option C2. Ms. Shull said they would try to tie the comment period in with SEPA review so the two periods could run concurrently. Ted Nixon, 911 E. Temperance, who is an architect, felt that the proposal for a design review is well conceived, but the design guidelines handbook is poorly developed at this stage. He felt that the idea of an illustrated guideline is a good idea, but needs to be developed by design professionals. It must be carefully thought out and documented so that architects have a clear understanding of the goals. He proposed that an interim design review board be set up to help create these guidelines using the expertise of the Planning staff and architects. He would eliminate the Hearing Examiner as an appeals process and would opt for something more like Option C3. Hugh Leiper, 1819 S. Central Avenue, felt that criteria must be developed under which these things can»operate properly and then the administration can be done efficiently. We need to develop a good architectural committee to get the best criteria that we can. He thought it would be difficult to find someone within the staff who has all the necessary experience to develop the right criteria. Commissioner Martinez asked how the manual would be put together. 3 Kent Planning Commission July 22, 1991 Ms. Shull said they would start with the criteria and related illustrations in the current report. That document would be updated on an ongoing basis as they got better examples. The actual description of the process and what would be expected of the applicant should be included. She stated she would be willing to work on the illustrations with anyone who is interested Lauri Anderson noted that Janet Shull is trained as an architect and reviewed the report with a design group. There is another urban design person on the Planning Department staff, as well as a landscape architect. Therefore, Ms. Anderson felt that staff was well qualified to prepare this handbook. Bill Doolittle, 412 N. Washington, felt that some of the examples of preferred and nonpreferred were way out of line. We should get some common sense back into it. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Martinez MOVED that they direct the staff to put together the appropriate zoning codes for Multifamily Design Review that include the Administrative Design Review Option C1 as recommended by the staff. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Grant expressed confidence that the Planning Department staff is qualified to undertake this project. Motion carried. Commissioner Heineman MOVED that they direct staff to develop an illustrated Multifamily Design Review Guidelines Handbook. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the Administrative Design Review process and the Multifamily Design Review Guidelines Handbook be reviewed at least once every three years by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Heineman made a friendly amendment to provide that the first review by the Planning Commission would occur within a twelve month period after the implementation of this process. Commissioners Martinez and Ward accepted the amendment. Motion carried. Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the Planning Commission strongly recommend that at least .25 of a full-time equivalent be added to the Planning Department upon adoption of this Multifamily Design Review. Chair Faust SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. 4 Kent Planning Commission July 22, 1991 Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that appropriate fees for design review be added to the fee structure review being undertaken now by the Administration. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Martinez hoped that the development community would continue to participate and give input to the staff regarding the Design Review Guidelines Handbook. SOOS CREEK RESOLUTION Lauri Anderson presented a memo addressed to Mayor Kelleher which expressed the Planning Commission's suggestion that the Soos Creek Resolution be revised to state in Section 2: Sec. 2. The City of Kent requests that the King County Council support the concept of land use zoning provisions in the Soos Creek Plan which will preclude new urban development within the Soos Creek Planning area until such time as the roads and arterials which serve such development are improved to level of service "D". Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the Planning Commission enter the memo dated July 10, 1991 from Lauri Anderson to Mayor Kelleher, which represents the feeling of the Commissioners present regarding the Soos Creek Resolution, into the record. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. PUD ORDINANCE Lauri Anderson said that when the RUGG petition was submitted, there was a request in that petition asking that the City look at the issue of attached, single family units in Planned Unit Developments in single family zoning districts. City Council has directed the Planning Commission to do that. The Commissioners will discuss the issue at the August workshop and asked staff to be very clear as to what the issues and concerns are. PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT Chair Faust said there will be a Planning Commission retreat on September 7 and asked the Commissioners to let her know if there are topics they want to discuss. 5 Kent Planning Commission July 22, 1991 Commissioner Martinez MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ja s P. Harris, Secretary 6