Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 09/28/1992 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 28 , 1992 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chair Martinez at 7 : 00 P.M. on September 28, 1992 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: 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: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AUGUST 24 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Heineman MOVED to accept the August 24 , 1992 minutes as presented. Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES - ZCA-92-1 Fred Satterstrom briefly reviewed the code amendment which deals with the proposal to eliminate multifamily residential as a conditional use in non-residential zones. This request was given to the Planning Commission by the City Council Planning Committee. The Planning Committee wished to eliminate the possibility of stand along multiple family in non-residential zones. Currently the Zoning Code permits multiple family residential use in the CC (Community Commercial) , O (Office) , and GWC (Gateway Commercial) zones as a conditional use. It requires the review and approval of the Hearing Examiner after a public hearing. Staff is recommending the following: 1. That the CC (Community Commercial) , GWC (Gateway Commercial) , and O (Office) zones be amended to allow multifamily residential use as a conditional use only when included within Kent Planning Commission September 28, 1992 a mixed use development. This would eliminate the opportunity for "stand alone" multifamily in non-residential zones. 2 . That a definition of "mixed use development" be added to the Kent Zoning Code Section 15. 02 : "Mixed use development shall mean two or more permitted uses or conditional uses developed in conjunction with one another on the same site" . Commissioner Martinez asked if the mixed uses would have to be in the same building. Mr. Satterstrom said it would be possible to have them in different buildings on the same development site. Commissioner Heineman asked what other conditional uses could be paired with multifamily. Mr. Satterstrom said he would have to look at the Code to see what the other conditional uses are because they differ within each zone. He felt that if they were in the same building, the lower floors would probably be retail or professional services and the upper stories would be residential. Commissioner Dahle asked where the Gateway Commercial zones are. Mr. Satterstrom said one is along East Valley Highway between 212th Street and the Valley Freeway, and the other is across the street from the Caveman restaurant on West Valley Highway. Bryan Loveless, 8006 NE 169th Place, Bothell, is a realtor who has been involved with a piece of property on East Hill that is zoned CC. A little less than a year ago, the owners were granted a conditional use permit for a multifamily project. This process took over a year and was accomplished at great expense to the sellers. They had a buyer at the start of the process, but by the time it was completed, the buyer had left. The property is surrounded on three sides by residential property and has no frontage on Benson. It is more of a stand alone project as commercial zoning than it is as a multifamily use. The only alternative is to sell it for a bowling alley or something of that nature, which he doesn't feel would benefit the neighborhood at all. He feels there should be some sort of provision for unusual cases such as this one. Mr. Loveless also mentioned that he is trying to sell a piece of property in Bothell that the city wants to zone mixed use. He has shown it to developers with that in mind and it' s a very tough thing to make work. Tenants don't want to live above businesses and businesses are reluctant to locate in a low profile area. If this happens to his sellers in Kent, he feels the value of their property would be cut in half. Their conditional use permit is expiring and if this is passed, they won't be able to get another one. 2 Kent Planning Commission September 28, 1992 Commissioner Dahle asked what his clients wanted to build on the site. He said the proposed project is a 53-unit apartment. Because the property is not on any arterial, to build a strip mall is totally inappropriate. They would have to find someone who could live with a location that is out of the way and doesn't require any street exposure. Commissioner Morrill asked how big the piece of property is. Mr. Loveless said it is 2 . 4 acres. Commissioner Morrill asked if rezoning was out of the question. Mr. Loveless said that Kent indicated to him that the only feasible alternative was to get a conditional use permit. He doesn't know if a rezone process is possible, but feels it makes no sense at all for this piece of property to be zoned Commercial . Luella E. White, 10005 SE 235th, Kent, feels that you can't stop progress, but she has seen progress absolutely annihilate the original beauty of the Kent area. There is a multitude of multifamily dwellings in the area. There is nothing on East Hill for children. All she sees are empty apartments and empty houses and she questions the need for more. In response to Commissioner Heineman' s earlier question about other conditional uses, Mr. Satterstrom said that in the Office zone, beauty and barber services are allowed only by conditional use permit. In the CC and Office zones, transit stations, colleges and schools, recreational facilities such as parks and golf courses, retirement and convalescent homes, and private clubs are general conditional uses. Commissioner Ward MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Heineman said he is concerned about this amendment. Multifamily housing as part of mixed use is permitted downtown and there are little or no instances where this situation would apply on West Hill. What we're really talking about is East Hill where the Council, in response to public demand, has already decreed that the incidence of multifamily housing should be kept as low as possible. His preference would be to delete the conditional use completely. Commissioner Grant asked if the project Mr. Loveless spoke about was the one known as the Kent 57 project and was told it was. Commissioner Dahle asked if the City requires the builder of an apartment building to put up a certain amount of money for parks and things for children. Mr. Satterstrom pointed out that in 3 Kent Planning Commission September 28 , 1992 multifamily development there is a requirement where 25% of the site area must be retained in an open, green condition. Commissioner Haylor MOVED to take no action on this amendment and to allow the Zoning Code to remain as is. Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Haylor said he understands everyone' s concern about multifamily, but people can't find affordable housing now and are restricted to going into multifamily units. He can also understand property owners ' desire to have a little control over what they build on their own property. The staff recommendation would take away a tremendous amount of control as far as what the property owner can do when it comes to developing his own property. There are controls right now that limit where they put multifamily. He feels that no action is the way to go until we find a better way to do it. He has read all the other alternatives and is not happy with any of them. Commissioner Heineman conceded that people have to live somewhere until they can afford to buy a house, but Kent already has the highest ratio of multifamily housing in King County and possibly in the state. He doesn't feel that we have to guarantee that any person owning land has a vested right to make a profit on their investment. He feels that eliminating this conditional use would help to get a little closer to the balance that we would like to see in Kent. Commissioner Haylor said that it is the job of the Hearing Examiner to take a look at individual cases and determine how these pieces of property should be used. Commissioner Martinez said she feels we're not dealing with just a little piece of property; we're dealing with three entire zoning districts. The only responsibility the Planning Commission has is to decide what it wants to have happen in those large areas. Commissioner Haylor said he understands that, but the Hearing Examiner has to have a little flexibility to be able to rule one way or the other. If the Commission does anything other than take no action, they will be creating more restriction for use of people' s property. Commissioner Heineman said it was his understanding that any property owner could request a conditional use and the Hearing Examiner could make conditions, but he could not deny it. That's what he sees happening if the Commission takes no action. Mr. Satterstrom said that the Hearing Examiner does have the right to deny conditional use permits, but it is very difficult because the Hearing Examiner has the burden of proof to show that it is not a good land use to be permitted in that circumstance. He couldn't 4 Kent Planning Commission September 28, 1992 remember a conditional use permit application that has been denied, so that burden is fairly difficult to demonstrate. The lawyers would probably say that conditional uses are principally permitted uses that require a public hearing before they are permitted. The motion FAILED with Commissioners Haylor, Morrill and Ward voting in favor and Commissioners Dahle, Grant, Heineman and Martinez voting against. Commissioner Ward asked what examples of mixed usage we have in Kent presently. Mr. Satterstrom said there is one example presently under construction on East Hill at Kent Kangley and 109th which addresses the case in point. There are 14 efficiency units on the top floors and several thousand square feet of commercial space on the bottom. He also pointed out that there are some sites in the CC and 0 zones that are not real well suited for commercial and lend themselves more to a mixed use development. The visioning process the City went through seemed to indicate that people perceive the benefits of mixed use and are more likely to accept multiple family when in a mixed use scenario. He admitted that the proposed zoning would create more restrictions. Commissioner Heineman MOVED that the CC, GWC and 0 zones be amended to allow multifamily residential use as a conditional use only when included within a mixed use development. Commissioner Grant SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Haylor spoke against the motion. He felt that mixed use with multifamily is very difficult and would just about kill multifamily in that area. The motion CARRIED with Commissioners Dahle, Grant, Heineman and Martinez voting in favor and Commissioners Haylor, Morrill and Ward voting against. Commissioner Heineman MOVED that the following definition of "mixed use development" be added to the Kent Zoning Code Section 15. 02 : "Mixed use development shall mean two or more permitted uses or conditional uses developed in conjunction with one another on the same site" . Commissioner Grant SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. SANDWICH BOARD SIGNS - ZCA-92-2 Fred Satterstrom outlined the proposed amendment which stems from an actual regulatory review application by Mr. Don Rust of the Bagman Cafe, who together with Mr. Russ Stringham, the owner of the Hungry Bear restaurant, is requesting that the sign code be 5 Kent Planning Commission September 28, 1992 modified to permit two sandwich board type signs per retail type use in the M-1 zone. There are only three types of retail uses that are permitted in the M-1 zone and those are restaurants, tire and battery stores, and vending machine operators. A quick review of the current business licenses indicates that in the M-1 zone there are approximately five restaurants. Restaurants in the M-1 zone are required to go by the industrial signage regulations rather than the more liberal regulations of commercial zones. About a year ago, there was a street use ordinance adopted that allows two sandwich board signs per business to be located in the public right-of-way. The applicants are saying it does not make a lot of sense to allow these on a public right-of-way and not allow them on private property. The idea is that the two sandwich board signs for the restaurants would be in lieu of the signs permitted under the street use ordinance. The staff recommends that the Planning commission add a definition of what a "portable A-frame sandwich board sign" is and amend the sign regulations to allow the retail uses in the M-1 zone to utilize up to two sandwich board signs to identify themselves. These signs would have to be placed on the premises and would be in lieu of the portable signs permitted by Ordinance 2998 . Also, the Planning Department would develop procedures for processing applications for the signs. Don Rust, 12719 SE 256th, Kent, is the owner of the Bagman Cafe. He supports the Planning Department' s proposal. He views the restaurants in the M-1 zone as support services for the businesses which are coming into that area. But without the advertising to show these folks where they are, they have the potential for failure. He also feels it provides a little more safety to place the signs close to his business rather than on the sidewalk. Russ Stringham, 524 W. Meeker, Kent, is the owner of the Hungry Bear. He could purchase a permit under the street occupation ordinance for the nominal fee of $10 per year. In his case, this is fine because he has extremely wide sidewalks so the sandwich boards would not create any access problems. The other restaurants have much narrower sidewalks, so it would make more sense for them to be able to use their private property. One of the things that sandwich boards do for the little street corner merchant is help to level the playing field. The McDonalds, Wendys and Burger Kings of the world can spend thousands of dollars on 40 foot neon signs, but the small merchants can 't afford it. He 6 Kent Planning Commission September 28, 1992 can demonstrate that his sandwich boards do generate business and increase his sales. In the M-1 zone, restaurants provide a service and encourage businesses to move in. They reduce traffic by providing a local place for people to eat. The sandwich board signs benefit the consumers by helping them find an establishment. They also help generate revenue for the City because some of the restaurants get catering jobs as a result of their sandwich board signs. Jerry James, 24228 104th Avenue SE, Kent, offered his support for the proposal. Commissioner Morrill MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Haylor MOVED to approve the following amendments to the sign code regulations in the Kent Zoning Code: 1. Add a definition of "portable A-frame sandwich board sign" which reads: "A portable A-frame or similarly designed sign which is no greater than 36" wide x 42" tall" . 2 . Amend the sign regulations to allow retail uses in the M-1 zone to utilize up to two (2) sandwich board signs to identify themselves. These signs would be subject to the following limitations: a. Said signs would be required to be placed on the business premises; and b. Said signs would be in lieu of portable signs placed on the public right-of-way; and C. The Planning Department shall develop procedures for processing applications for said signs. commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner Morrill MOVED to promote Linda Martinez to Chair. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Grant MOVED to elect Edward Heineman as Vice Chair. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. 7 Kent Planning Commission September 28, 1992 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Haylor MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED and the meeting was adjourned at 8 : 30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, 1 Ja es P. Har is, Secretary JPH/ljh:92892 .min 8