Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 02/24/1992 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 1992 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Antley at 7: 00 P.M. , February 24, 1992 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Antley, Chair Linda Martinez, Vice Chair Gwen Dahle Christopher Grant Albert Haylor Edward Heineman, Jr. Kent Morrill Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Greenstreet PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Planner Janet Shull, Planner Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary KENT CITY STAFF PRESENT: Raul Ramos, Administration Alana McIalwain, Administration APPROVAL OF JANUARY 27 , 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept the minutes of the January 27, 1992 meeting as presented. Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ELECTION OF OFFICERS It was decided that new officers will be elected at the public hearing on March 9, 1992 . ABSENTEEISM Commissioner Grant suggested that at the next meeting they should discuss the absenteeism of Mr. Greg Greenstreet who, after a year and a half, he has never met. Kent Planning Commission February 24, 1992 KENT DOWNTOWN PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM - ZCA-90-6 Commissioner Martinez MOVED to reopen the public hearing on the Kent Downtown Plan Implementation Program. Commissioner Dahle SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Haylor made a friendly amendment to the motion suggesting that each individual who would like to speak limit their comments to five minutes. Commissioner Martinez accepted the friendly amendment. Motion carried. For the benefit of the people attending the meeting, Fred Satterstrom of the Planning Department presented a little background on the proposal. In March of 1991, a zoning proposal was presented to the Planning Commission by staff. At that time, the existing zoning was compared to the proposed staff zoning and there was considerable reaction by interests to that proposal. In May, the Mayor requested and was granted an opportunity to formulate a committee that met for a period of about four months to formulate an alternative to that zoning which was presented to the Planning Commission in September. In November, the staff and Administration requested an opportunity to blend the proposals together so they could come back with a consolidated recommendation. The proposal now under consideration represents the consolidation of the two proposals. It also has the benefit of public input that was made throughout the hearings, as well as the Planning Commission's own visioning exercise. These things were tremendously helpful in arriving at the current proposal. Mr. Satterstrom pointed out that obviously you can't please all of the people all of the time, but he hoped that they have addressed a lot of the issues to the Commission's and the public's satisfaction. Alana McIalwain from Administration said this truly has been a cooperative effort. It has taken some time, but Administration and the Mayor feel confident that this plan offers a real opportunity for revitalizing downtown. Kevin O'Neill from the Planning Department presented the new proposed zoning map and zoning districts. What is consistent about all the proposals is the desire to reduce the number of zoning districts in the downtown planning area, trying to achieve the goals of the downtown plan and get development standards and uses that are really consistent with the policies of the plan and more consistent with the downtown revitalization efforts of the City. The new districts being proposed are Downtown Commercial (DC) which is fairly similar to the existing DC-1 zone, Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) which is proposed to encompass a large portion of the planning area and Downtown Limited Manufacturing (DIM) . 2 Kent Planning Commission February 24 , 1992 The Planning Department's proposal had recommended that the DC zoning district cover a larger area than the present proposal. The Mayor's Alternative Committee's proposal did not have this zoning district at all and the entire area was DCE. Based on a lot of public testimony received about an interest in recognizing the historic core area of downtown, the Downtown Commercial area is being proposed with boundaries which really capture the primary main street retail districts of Meeker Street and ist and 2nd Avenues. The reason for distinguishing this area from the rest of the planning area is for purposes of uses and development standards. There is a ground floor pedestrian use overlay which has been part of the proposal all along. The proposed Downtown Commercial Enterprize zoning district was originally proposed by the Mayor's Alternative Committee. It had a lot of similarities to the Mixed Use district which was originally proposed by the Planning Department. The focus of this area is to provide a zoning district which maximizes redevelopment potential and encourages higher densities. A portion of the area has been designated MRH, High Density Multifamily, which is the existing designation for that area. The previous two proposals had the area designated as Mixed Use development and DCE which allow a large portion of retail commercial uses. It is designated MRH in the current proposal because of concern brought up at earlier hearings about mixed use development and the uncertainties that would bring up in terms of development that could happen there. There were also concerns raised by members of the Planning Commission related to preserving single family housing in this area and the impacts of changing residentially zoned land to a commercial designation. The third new district, Downtown Limited Manufacturing, was part of both of the previous proposals. There were some changes made in principally permitted uses based on public testimony at the hearings and comments received from property owners in that area. Janet Shull of the Planning Department spoke about the development standards and the proposed design review process. The primary differences between the new proposal and the previous ones are in the areas of height, setbacks and the pedestrian plan overlay. Minimum lot size and site coverage are the same as in the previous proposals. The earlier staff proposal had proposed a maximum setback of 20 feet from property lines that fronted on a right of way. In the new proposal there are no minimum setbacks unless a property abuts a residential zoning district, in which case the Planning Director 3 Kent Planning Commission February 24, 1992 could require up to a 20 foot minimum setback. The maximum setback has been placed into the design review category. The second area where there were differences between the two earlier proposals was in the area of height. The staff proposal utilized a floor area ratio (FAR) measurement to determine overall height. The Alternative Committee had proposed no height limit for the planning area. The new proposal has two different treatments of height depending on the zoning district. For the core area, which is the DC district, there is a four story height limit with an opportunity to go up to six stories with the Planning Director's approval. In the DCE and the DIM zoning districts where we're trying to get greater density and have more flexibility, there would be no height limit. In the area of landscaping, no changes are proposed from the earlier proposals. Parking is an area where no changes are recommended from the earlier staff proposal. Administration is working on a capital facilities improvement plan for downtown which is forthcoming. In the interim, the proposed parking standards are recommended. In the DC area, no off-street parking is required except in the case of multifamily where there would be one parking place per unit required. There is also a maximum surface parking requirement of three spaces for every 1, 000 square feet, which does not apply to multifamily. In the DCE zone, there is a 50 percent reduction permitted west of the Burlington Northern tracks and 25 percent reduction east of the tracks. In the case of multifamily, west of the tracks there would be a minimum of 1 space per unit and east of the tracks where you don't have as much on-street parking, it would be 1.5. The same surface parking maximums apply in the DCE zone. In the DIM zone, the existing parking standards would apply. One thing that is new in this proposal is the recommendation to implement design review along with the revised development standards. Since the flexibility in development regulations has been increased, it is important to have the control that would be afforded by the design review process. Following are some of the areas that would be looked at in the design review process. In the previous staff proposal, the pedestrian plan overlay was more of a regulatory tool. Streets were classified as A or B. If you fronted on a class A street, there were greater restrictions has far as the percentage of the building fronting on the street, windows, awnings, etc. On class B streets, you had greater 4 Kent Planning Commission February 24, 1992 flexibility as far as frontage to allow for curb cuts, parking, etc. In the new proposal, the pedestrian plan would be used as a design review criteria, not a strict standard. Another criteria that would be looked at would be a 20 foot maximum setback along streets designated A or B. In the DC district, there should be a lot of windows on the ground floor because those are streets that are very pedestrian oriented. The DCE and DIM districts should have windows or some interesting feature on the street level to avoid blank walls. Curb cuts would be restricted as much as possible in the DC district and as much as practicable in DCE and DIM. In all three new districts, off-street parking areas should be to the rear or side of buildings; extensive landscaping would be required in large parking areas which can be seen from the street; pedestrian corridors should be clearly marked and pedestrian throughways should be provided in long buildings. In regard to height, in the DC district new buildings should be compatible with our existing, historic buildings in terms of bulk, scale and cornice line. In DCE and DIM, there should be building facade setbacks after four stories to allow more sunlight to reach the street level and avoid canyon effects. In the DC district only, there should be cover for pedestrians along the length of any building that fronts on those streets. Also, a zero front yard setback would be maintained along Meeker and 1st Avenue. The Commission recently reviewed the design review process for multifamily. Staff is proposing that a similar process be implemented for the downtown design review program. It would be administered by the Planning Department with decisions made by a team comprised of representatives from Planning.. Administration and other departments yet to be determined. A handbook would be developed that illustrates all the criteria mentioned above and would be available to applicants. Commissioner Dahle felt that the design review criteria states that the sides of buildings should be well lit, but doesn't say anything about the large parking areas. Ms. Shull referred to the criteria which states "off-street parking areas should be to the rear or side of buildings and should be well lit" . This language was added at the request of the Planning Commission and means that the parking area should be well lit, not the side of the building. Commissioner Dahle felt that the criteria should also state that 5 Kent Planning Commission February 24, 1992 extensive landscaping should be well lit. Ms. Shull pointed out that all of the criteria would be applied collectively, so the lighting issue had already been covered. commissioner Martinez asked why sidewalks had not been addressed in the design standards. Ms. Shull said that this is a zoning and land use proposal and sidewalks are not within their jurisdiction, but are covered by another department. Commissioner Morrill asked for clarification of the parking requirements in the DCE district. Ms. Shull explained that the parking requirements were less restrictive west of the tracks because that's where the two City lots are located. Ms. Shull called the Commissioners attention to the action agenda which outlines the three actions before them. They are to amend the Zoning Code to create the three new zoning designations; to amend the official Zoning Map; and to direct staff to implement the administrative design review process. Clarence Derouin, 23605 94th S. , Kent, owns two properties which would be rezoned from DC-1 to DCE. He was assessed through LID's to pay for the parking lots. If his zoning is changed to DCE, he will be forced to provide additional parking on the properties when he develops them in the future. He doesn't feel he should have to supply additional parking when he has already paid for it previously. Chair Antley asked Mr. Derouin what he would like. He felt his property should be zoned DC, the same as the downtown core. Commissioner Martinez asked if everyone in the area has had the same experience. Mr. Derouin said that he was the only one who has been assessed. James Harris of the Planning Department pointed out that the old DC-1 zone coincided with the LID assessment area. No off-street parking was required in that area because these people were paying into an LID for two big parking lots. Mr. Derouin's property is at the end of the assessment area. Commissioner Dahle asked if Mr. Derouin was planning to change the usage of the property. He said no, but he is planning to put another building on it. It would still be Downtown Commercial. John Stone, 431 E. Meeker Street, complimented the Commission on being receptive to information from the public. He is a single family resident and has a total of 15, 000 square feet in his piece of property. He has built on two of his four lots and the other two are undeveloped. He is assessed as MRH, but feels that he should be assessed as R-1 because his property is residential. 6 Kent Planning Commission February 24, 1992 He also asked the Commission to cut down on regulations. Regulations add to a property owner's expense. Trees look beautiful, but play havoc with the sewer system and the streets. Allow the person who owns the property, within reason, to build a building that he wants to build as long as it's somewhat compatible with the surrounding area and other buildings in that area. The more regulations you have, the more the cost goes up. Commissioner Dahle pointed out that a lot of regulations have been cut out between the first plan and the current one. Mr. Stone thought it was probably rather boring for the Commissioners to go over the same ground so many times, but thanked them for doing it. It really helps the public to understand what the Commission is trying to do and helps the Commission understand what it's doing to the public. Chair Antley asked Mr. Stone if he had any idea how long his property had been zoned MRH. He said probably since 1940. Chair Antley wondered if he was asking the Commission to make it R-1. Mr. Stone answered that he would like to have it R-1. Leonard McCaughan, 623 E. Titus, presented a petition from the people in the MRH zone. He is representing 14 of the 21 property owners in that area. Unlike Mr. Stone, the rest of them don't want single family residence and they don't want multifamily high density zoning. They would like to be put in GC or DCE zoning. Probably DCE is a more appropriate zoning for them. Commissioner Dahle asked why Mr. McCaughan wanted Commercial zoning when he said the lots were not big enough for commercial use. Mr. McCaughan said that he did not say the lots weren't big enough for commercial, he said not big enough for a duplex, fourflex, eightplex or a highrise. They want it so they can put in an office or small business and live in part of it. Commissioner Dahle said she recalled a whole row of people who came to a previous meeting and were very upset about having to pay higher taxes. Mr. McCaughan said the county is not assessing for the commercial zoning. Chair Antley asked how long the property has been MRH. Mr. McCaughan said he wasn't sure. Chair Antley thought it had been MRH for a long time. Mr. McCaughan agreed that it probably had been. Commissioner Morrill asked what Mr. McCaughan was asking for. Mr. McCaughan said they would like the property to be zoned DCE. 7 Kent Planning Commission February 24, 1992 Commissioner Ward asked what portion of the MRH area they wanted changed. Mr. McCaughan said they wanted the whole area to be DCE. Chair Antley asked if this area backed up to all single and multifamily housing. Mr. McCaughan said there is some single family across the street, but behind them is all multiple. Chair Antley asked if there was any commercial development or if it was all housing. Mr. McCaughan said Farrington Court is a commercial venture. Chair Antley asked if people live there and Mr. McCaughan admitted that they do. It is a retirement home. Craig Cooperstein, 10720 Marine View Drive, Mukilteo, WA 98275 owns property at 624 through 710 W. Meeker which is in the proposed DCE zoning. He bought it in 1989 and this will be the second zoning change. His concern is that if there is a tenant turnover or a fire, you've got to go through a rather unusual process to justify why you want to have the same use. If you have a multi- tenant building, it could be a real hardship on the owner to somehow develop that space without changing the whole character of the building. If you are in the middle of an ongoing loan with either a prohibitive prepayment penalty or a lock in where you simply can't get out of your existing financing to redevelop the property. In another community, he had to go to substandard insurance because the zoning had changed and his insurance rate doubled even though the zoning was less of a manufacturing use and more of an in-city business use. If someone has a building of this nature, the use has to go on. Somehow you have to pay for it. Over 50 percent of downtown is tenant occupied rather than owner occupied. If these tenants can't occupy the same space because they've been zoned out, they' ll have to go outside the City. He hoped that the continued historical use on some of this property would be allowed. Mr. Cooperstein's only other comment on the plan was that he has a hard time believing that residential use would either be encouraged or developed next to the railroad tracks in DCE. He wouldn't care to live near the railroad tracks. He feels there should be a buffer zone there. He also questioned the no height limit in DCE. It's rather unusual. Chair Antley asked if there was something in particular he wanted done with either the property he owns or the area in which it is situated. Mr. Cooperstein said he doesn't want anything done with his property. He's happy with it, but if one of his tenants goes bankrupt or something, he doesn't know whether he has to redevelop the whole building or whether he can get in a use without spending a great deal of money. He thinks if you are able to maintain 8 Kent Planning Commission February 24, 1992 historical uses for the building, provided they aren't detrimental to the City's overall plan, then that should be allowed. Jerry Klein, 425 Lyon Building, Seattle, WA 98104, represents a couple property owners in this area--Washington Cedar and Kent Building Materials. Kent Building Materials has gone out of business since the last meeting on the downtown plan. The reason it has is because they found out there wasn't a substantial demand for the DCE type use. The demand for retail use is not very strong in the downtown area because people are not going to come off the hill to go shopping. The DCE type use suffered substantially. There is a great demand for wholesale servicing of contractors which is allowed in DLM. This is just one example of what's going on in the downtown area. It's an economic consideration which causes the plan to be difficult to work with. By using DCE, you're always going to have a lot of commercial shops that will continually go out of business because you don't have the financial base to support them. The economic reality is that DCE is not a very attractive use. Mr. Klein submitted a map showing the two areas he would like to have changed. To rezone these to DCE would very likely constitute a regulatory taking. On March 3 the supreme court is going to review a regulatory taking case that he believes would be analogous to the situation here. All the vast DCE area that is now being zoned may lead to a bunch of lawsuits. The DLM allows for everything from multifamily to manufacturing. This is going to be the preferred use and he thinks this is the one he wants. DCE is not a good idea economically for the sites. Chair Antley asked about the relevance of the supreme court case to which Mr. Klein referred. He said it involves a regulatory taking. In other words, whether or not it is a violation of the fifth amendment to regulate somebody out of their use and whether that would constitute a taking that has to be compensated for. Commissioner Dahle asked if there ever was manufacturing in that area. Mr. Klein said half of it is Manufacturing right now and the other half is DC-1. This was confirmed by Mr. O'Neill. Commissioner Haylor MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Haylor MOVED that item A of the action agenda which would amend the Zoning Code to create three new zoning designations (Downtown Commercial, Downtown Commercial Enterprise and Downtown Limited Manufacturing) be recommended to the City Council. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. 9 Kent Planning Commission February 24, 1992 Commissioner Haylor MOVED to approve action agenda item B which would amend the Official Zoning Map as illustrated on page 4 of the Revised Downtown Plan Zoning Program. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. There was discussion about whether to make Mr. Derouin's property part of the DC zone or to exempt it from the parking regulations in the DCE zone since he had already paid into the LID for the parking lot. Staff recommended the exemption with the proviso that at such time as the City develops and adopts a comprehensive parking management plan for downtown, the exemption would cease and the property would be covered by the regulations of the new plan. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to extend the southernmost boundary of the new DC zone so that it would be the same as the southern boundary of the existing DC-1 zone. It was decided that this issue would more properly fall under action agenda item C since it is basically a parking problem and Commissioner Martinez withdrew the motion. The motion to adopt action agenda item B carried with Commissioners Grant, Martinez and Morrill voting against. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept action agenda item C which would direct project staff to implement the administrative design review process outlined in the Revised Downtown Plan Zoning Program. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to amend action agenda item C to exclude from the parking regulations those properties currently in DC-1 who contributed to the LID for the parking lots until such time as the City adopts a downtown parking management plan. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. The motion carried with Commissioner Dahle voting against. Commissioner Martinez MOVED that sidewalks should be added as one of the design criteria to be considered in the design review process in conjunction with the Public Works Department. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Discussion followed. Motion carried. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to add the language "and should be well lit" to boxes 5 and 6 in both columns on page 18. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Grant MOVED to specifically exclude regional justice centers and jails from the Revised Downtown Zoning Plan completely. There was no second. 10 Kent Planning Commission February 24, 1992 Commissioner Martinez MOVED to change the height restriction on page 15 in DCE and DIM from "no height limit" to "no more than 10 stories" . There was no second. Commissioner Haylor MOVED to approve section C of the action agenda with the three amendments which were previously passed. Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. The motion carried with Commissioners Dahle, Grant, Haylor, Heineman and Morrill voting in favor and Commissioners Martinez and Ward abstaining. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Haylor MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Dahle SECONDED the motion. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 10: 15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jam s P. Har is, Secretary 11 CITY OF ��j� J� KENT PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF KENT ZONING CODE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Kent Planning Commission will hold a continuation of the public hearing to consider: (1) amending the Kent Zoning Code to add a chapter regulating activities on or near wetlands; and (2) amending the Kent Comprehensive Plan to incorporate two new policies related to the protection of aquifers and the siting of new development in geologically hazardous areas. These amendments are in response to the mandates of the State Growth Management Act. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the Planning Commission will hold its continued public hearing on Monday, March 9, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. All interested persons are requested to be present. For further information, contact the Kent Planning Department at 859-3390. Dated: February 24, 1992 6tL Y'�--�-. Jam s P. Harris, Planning Director For publication on Friday, February 28, 1992