Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 09/12/1994KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 12, 1994 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kent Morrill at 7:05 p.m. on September 12, 1994 in Kent City Hall, Chambers West. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Morrill, Chair Janette Nuss, Vice Chair Connie Epperly Gwen Dahle Edward Heineman, Jr. Bob MacIsaac Russ Stringham Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Kenneth Dozier, Excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Linda Phillips, Planner Matthews Jackson, Planner NanSea Potts, Recording Secretary OTHER CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Laurie, Evezich, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF AUGUST 22, 1994 MINUTES It was MOVED and SECONDED to accept the minutes of the August 22, 1994 Planning Commission meeting and public hearing as recorded. The motion CARRIED. ADDED AGENDA ITEMS None 1 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1994 COMMUNICATIONS Fred Satterstrom announced the Everson annexation zoning was heard by the City Council last week and the zoning will be in effect in thirty days. Commissioner Nuss distributed a newspaper article from the FEDERAL WAY NEWS. NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Mr. Satterstrom stated the Ramstead annexation zoning may need to be scheduled during a Planning Commission meeting in October, and asked the Commission to take this into consideration in scheduling future Comprehensive Plan deliberations. Mr. Satterstrom also reported that the City of Kent will be conducting an Open House on Saturday, September 24, 1994 from noon until 3:00 p.m. City offices located at City Hall and in the Centennial Building will be open to the public. Special activities and refreshments are planned, and this event may replace the City of Kent's annual town meeting. REGULAR MEETING #CPA -94-1 - Deliberations on the Draft Kent Comprehensive Plan Chair Morrill opened the public meeting on the Draft Comprehensive Plan stating no testimony or questions would be allowed by the public, only by the Commissioners. Chair Morrill said a "straw vote" will be taken by the Commissioners at the conclusion of staff's responses to questions regarding the recommendations outlined in the staff memorandum dated September 6, 1994. The Commission will decide whether changes should be made. Chair Morrill said communications received after the public hearing deadline of August 29, 1994 will not be responded to until the public hearing is reopened. Mr. Satterstrom explained how staff reviewed the issues received through letters, and public testimony from the three public hearings. Mr. Satterstrom said tonight members of the Planning Department staff would present a brief orientation of the issue(s), staff's recommendation, and answer questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Satterstrom said, time permitting, staff was prepared to address all of the issues, and would also like to present the Proposed Land Use Map, before addressing the mapping items listed in Issue #14 of the staff memorandum. At the conclusion of the discussions, a preliminary vote will be taken to accept staff's recommendation. Chair Morrill said deliberations would cease at 10:00 p.m. this evening N Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1994 Mr. Satterstrom introduced Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner for presentation of Issues 1 through 3. RESPONSES BY STAFF: Issue 1: Potential Annexation Area Boundaries Mr. O'Neill gave the background regarding the City of Kent's planning area, Potential Annexation Area (PAA) and Urban Growth Area (UGA). Mr. O'Neill stated Planning Director, Jim Harris, would be attending the scheduled public hearing of the Boundary Review Board tomorrow night (September 13) where Kent's PAA would be discussed as the community of Covington proposes possible incorporation. Mr. O'Neill explained the difference between the PAA and the UGA boundaries, and how the terms evolved. Potential Annexation Area is the current term for future annexations to Kent. Chair Morrill reminded the Commissioners that a motion to accept staff's recommendation is _ not the final recommendation for acceptance of items to the Comprehensive Plan. It was MOVED and SECONDED to accept staff's recommendation. The motion CARRIED. Issue 2: What does the Mixed Use designation require regarding the combining of uses for specific development projects. Mr. O'Neill clarified the permitted uses of the Mixed Use designation, explaining this designation does not require residential development, it only allows flexibility in areas presently zoned as commercial and office, bringing commercial and residential closer together. Stand- alone apartments would not be permitted. Commissioners informed Mr. O'Neill they felt the wording concerning Mixed Use was confusing in the Comprehensive Plan, and needed further clarification. Mr. O'Neill requested the Commissioner's assistance in rewording the Mixed Use designation. After several discussions concerning housing targets for Kent, and the need for additional housing units, Mr. O'Neill stated he would supply the Commission with the number of vacant multifamily housing units in the city limits, for consideration against the total number units mandated for the City and PAA. Mr. O'Neill reminded the Commission that the downtown area is zoned for multifamily also. 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1994 It was MOVED and SECONDED to accept staff's recommendation, provided the vacancy rate in existing multifamily units be reexamined and incorporate that rate into the plan. The motion CARRIED. Issue 3: Opposition to more multifamily development on West Hill Mr. O'Neill discussed the mapping issues relating to the Mixed Use designation and the reasoning for this consideration along Pacific Highway South. Discussions pertaining to this item included; proposed light rail service; possible future market demand for multifamily development above commercial establishments; the impact on schools and services of additional multifamily housing; the results if the Visual Preference Survey; the types of people who live in multifamily housing. Mr. O'Neill reiterated that the intent of the Mixed Use designation was to allow more flexibility in the West Hill area, and to create a blueprint for future development. It was MOVED and SECONDED to accept staff's recommendation. The motion CARRIED. VOTE: Yea: Chair Morrill, Commissioners MacIsaac, Heineman, Ward and Stringham. Nay Commissioners Nuss, Dahle and Epperly. Issue 4: Concern expressed about what type of commercial development might take place along Pacific Highway South. Linda Phillips, Planner, showed visuals outlining potential development scenarios in mixed use areas and discussed options for commercial infill in certain "nodes" within mixed use zones. She said additional strip malls would not be recommended, and that a mixed use residential would not allow additional adult use establishments because of the present requirement that adult uses be 1,000 feet from residential uses. The Commissioners discussed the adult use (item 3) area of the staff recommendation, electing to exclude that item from their recommendation. It was MOVED and SECONDED to accept staff's recommendation, exclusive of item 3. The motion CARRIED. Issue 5: Support and concerns regarding cluster housing concepts and planned unit developments. 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1994 Matt Jackson, Planner, gave the background concerning the definitions of cluster housing and Planned Unit Developments (PUD), outlining the advantages and differences of each. Cluster housing achieves preservation of open space, flexible lot sizes, and the protection of sensitive areas. The density within a cluster development relates to the underlying zoning district. Mr. Jackson stated that Kent currently does not have a cluster housing ordinance, but the Planning Department would be working on development regulations for cluster housing if the proposed cluster housing policies remain in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jackson stated that although Kent has only had one PUD to date, they are currently allowed in all zones except the Rl, Single Family Residential, and agricultural areas The proposed change to the current PUD ordinance would allow a mixture of housing types in some single family areas. Multifamily housing would probably be limited to townhouse type of developments with no stacked units. The density in a PUD relates to the underlying zoning district, open space, and other amenities. Mr. Jackson added that PUD's are procedural applications which require environmental review and a public hearing at the Hearing Examiner to receive approval. It was MOVED and SECONDED to accept staff's recommendation. The motion CARRIED. Commissioner Ward asked to revisit Issue 4 for a clarification concerning adult use. After discussion among the Commissioners, it was decided to reinstate item 3. Also, Commissioner Nuss announced her desire to change her vote from yea to nay on Issue 4. Commissioner Dahle reminded Chair Morrill that they were there in behalf of the public, not just the builders, developers or the Planning Department. Chair Morrill said they were there on behalf of everyone. Issue 6: How will the Plan be implemented? Fred Satterstrom discussed the role of the goals and policies and responded as to why it was necessary to speak in generalities concerning the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that staff did not recommended changes unless specific testimony influenced future changes to certain goals and policies, and clarified the process of implementing them. Commissioner MacIsaac said he felt it was the Commission's responsibility to make the Comprehensive Plan clear as to each goal and policy, for proper implementation. It was MOVED and SECONDED to accept staff's recommendation. The motion CARRIED. Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1994 Issue 7: VPS results need to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and implemented. Mr. Jackson outlined the results of the Visual Preference Survey and explored how these results were incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and how they would effect future changes to the City's development regulations. He said the Draft Comprehensive Plan helps to set the broad framework to support these changes. Mr. Jackson asked the Commissioners to assist staff by adding anything from the VPS they may have overlooked. When asked if specific guidelines were delineated for mixed use development, Mr. Jackson said that the Plan supports a design review process for these areas, similar to the design review of multifamily development. The establishment of this process would be done as part of the development regulations, and would include public hearings for community input. It was MOVED and SECONDED to accept staff's recommendation. The motion CARRIED. Issue 8: Critical Areas issues, including wetlands, open space, and aquifer protection. Ms. Phillips stated that the Plan recommends that the City constantly update and maintain current environmental data. She stated that the City will coordinate with the County to obtain sensitive areas mapping data for the PAA and update Kent's Geographical Information Service maps. Ms. Phillips reviewed specific issues raised by the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and other and summarized the City's obligations to comply with established State and Federal environmental regulations regarding water quality and fish habitat. She referred to specific goals and policies in the proposed Plan which address the specific issues raised, and discussed issues not addressed by the Plan. Ms. Phillips read a list of staff recommendations for additions to the Plan to respond to public concerns. She agreed with Commissioner Dahle regarding the Corps of Engineers regulation of the Green River, and was asked what loss or gain of wetlands had occurred in Kent since the wetlands property exchange was adopted. Ms. Phillips said the wetlands ordinance is administered by the Public Works Department and she would ask for the information. Discussions followed regarding the possible change of wording in one of the proposed amendments. Commissioner MacIsaac said the Planning Commission is trying to regulate in two different directions. Chair Morrill reminded him that these were goals. 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1994 Ms. Phillips said the critical areas are regulated on a site by site basis, by a variety of environmental regulations. It was suggested by Commissioner MacIsaac that the City use public funds to buy the critical areas to protect them. Ms. Phillips asked if Commissioner MacIsaac was requesting that a policy be added to the Comprehensive Plan regarding purchase of wetlands. Chair Morrill said this could be addressed when the Parks element was reviewed. Discussion followed concerning restrictions on the percentage of impervious surface allowed. It was MOVED and SECONDED to accept staff's recommendation, without changes. The motion FAILED. VOTE: Yea: Commissioners Ward, Nuss, Chair Morrill and Dahle. Nay: Commissioners Epperly, MacIsaac, Stringham and Heineman. The Commissioners commented there is a lot of work to be done in this area. Item 9: Residential land in the unincorporated Soos Creek area should be more detailed, as should the commercial, industrial and mixed use designations on the plan map. Mr. O'Neill commented that the zoning densities are more specific in the City than in King County because a housing target for the unincorporated area within Kent's PAA has not been established. He stated that commercial and industrial densities are typically regulated through specific development standards in the zoning code. He also spoke regarding why mixed use specific development uses were subject to the design review process, allowing involvement by the Planning Commission and the public and additional creativity. Mr. O'Neill commented that the PAA is consistent with the Soos Creek Planning designation. It was MOVED and SECONDED to accept staff's recommendation. The motion CARRIED. Issue 10: Why propose a Manufacturing Center? If land prices increase due to pressure for infill, what will prevent businesses from leaving Kent? Mr. Satterstrom gave the background on Kent's nomination as a Manufacturing Center zoning designation. He said incentives for this designation have yet to be determined, but non -industrial and retail uses for this area would be limited. Mr. Satterstrom was reminded that the Chamber of Commerce had feared that infill would drive land values up so manufacturers would choose another area to locate. 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1994 Mr Satterstrom explained the original theory of the plan was to protect manufacturing entities from being outbid by retailers for the use of the land. Mr. Satterstrom suggested he speak with the Chamber of Commerce to clarify the Manufacturing Center designation. It was MOVED and SECONDED to accept staff's recommendation The motion CARRIED. Issue 11. Is Urban Center status appropriate for Kent if housing targets are difficult to attain? Mr. Satterstrom outlined the background regarding the Urban Center designation, possible incentives, and said that the Draft Comprehensive Plan is not an Urban Center plan He also described the drawbacks of the Urban Center criteria, primarily higher densities. In light of the negatives involved with the Urban Center designation, and that the Mixed Use designation would be more appropriate. The issues concerning the layout of Kent and the impact of losing the Urban Center designation might have on the proposed commuter rail project was discussed Regardless of Kent's status, — Mr. Satterstrom said he felt the commuter rail stop would not be changed. Discussions regarding the pro's and con's concerning the Urban Center designation continued, ultimately agreeing the Urban Center designation is not necessary for Kent, and that mixed use zoning is the most useful. Financially, Mr. Satterstrom said some advantages could be given UP. It was MOVED and SECONDED to accept staff's recommendation. The motion CARRIED. Issue 12: Concern about manufactured housing being permitted on lots. Mr. Jackson described the policy and procedure involved in allowing manufactured housing on single family lots in Kent. Depending on the type of structure, the Department of Labor and Industries inspects the manufactured home or factory built structure as to conformity to various regulations, including the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Upon passing the inspection, these structures are given an insignia signifying they are certified. It is the policy of the Planning Department to allow any home which meets the UBC on a legal residential lot, therefore, manufactured homes which carry the State insignia are currently allowed. Manufactured homes which do not have this insignia or do not meet the UBC can be placed in mobile home parks. It was MOVED and SECONDED to accept staff's recommendation. The motion CARRIED. 1.3 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1994 Issue 13: Concern about adequacy of water to serve growth. Ms. Phillips discussed the water sources for the City of Kent, for now and the future. She also provided background on the State's requirements and discussed issues concerning an open reservoir, water treatment facilities and the amount of land available to supply the water It was MOVED and SECONDED to accept staff's recommendation. The motion CARRIED. Chair Morrill said the next meeting would begin with Kevin O'Neill's presentation on the Proposed Land Use Map, and Issue 14. Chair Morrill also asked Mr. Satterstrom if he had additional comments. Mr. Satterstrom said if the land use map issues are completed during the next meeting, perhaps the Planning Commission could address other issues, allowing their personal input. Mr. O'Neill was asked the approximate amount of time he would require to present Issue 14. He responded that most of the information has been discussed and perhaps the entire Issue 14 could be presented in an hour or so, depending on how much discussion was involved. Mr. Satterstrom suggested the Commission discuss future meetings at the conclusion of the next meeting. He reiterated the Ramstead (or East Hill) annexation zoning would need to be worked in. Commissioner Dahle asked with regards to the Ramstead annexation, if there were any roads leading to this area from the valley. Mr. Satterstrom said there were not. Commissioner Ward asked if this evening's meeting was covered by the press. Mr. Satterstrom said it was not. Commissioner Stringham asked if there would be a workshop for the Planning Commission prior to the Ramstead public hearing. Mr. Satterstrom said there would be. Commissioner Dahle asked if the Planning Commission meetings will continue to be held every two weeks, or if they would need to start meeting weekly. Chair Morrill said that future meetings would be determined at the close of the next meeting. Also, Fred Satterstrom, Jim Harris and Chair Morrill should keep in touch on the Commission's desires on how many times they would like to meet. E Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 1994 Commissioner Heineman MOVED, and Commissioner Nuss SECONDED the meeting be continued to September 26, 1994. The motion CARRIED. GOOD OF THE ORDER Fred Satterstrom distributed to the Commissioners copies of letters submitted to the Planning Department after the August 29, 1994 deadline. Commissioner Nuss also distributed copies of newspaper articles of the last meeting. It was MOVED and SECONDED to adjourn the meeting. The motion CARRIED. Chair Morrill closed the meeting at 10:15 p.m Respectfully submitted, Jam s P. Harris ording Secretary 10