Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 11/25/1986 • KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 1986 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Ward at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 25, 1986, in the Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Raymond Ward, Chairman James Byrne, Vice Chairman Robert Badger Anne Biteman Richard Foslin Linda Martinez Nancy Rudy COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Anderson, excused Jill Spier, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Jim Hansen, Principal Planner Fred Satterstrom, Project Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Ken Morris, Transportation Engineer APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Foslin MOVED and MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 28, 1986 Commissioner Rudy SECONDED a motion to approve the October 28, 1986, Planning Commission minutes. Motion carried. Mr. Harris requested the election of officers for 1987 be added to the agenda. CONTINUATION OF THE WEST Fred Satterstrom explained that VALLEY INDUSTRIAL STUDY: the subject of the continued public PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO VALLEY hearing was to consider the pro- FLOOR PLAN AND ZONING CODE posed amendment to change the Valley Floor Plan Map to accommo- date the "R-suffix" circles at three locations--South 180th, South 212th and South 228th, all • located along the West Valley Highway. This proposal would designate overlay circles on the Kent Planning Commission Minutes • November 25, 1986 Valley Floor Plan Map which would set the stage for the three zoning proposals. The first would eliminate the conditional use permit requirement for office and service-type uses in the Ml zone of the West Valley Study Area. The current regula- tion states that only 25 percent of the proposed development can include office or service uses unless a conditional use permit is obtained. In order to use 100 percent for office and service uses, the concurrence of the Hearing Examiner through the conditional use permit process is currently necessary. At the present time the language on page 60 of the Zoning Code, 15.04.170 INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT OF M1 13, includes both Retail Trade Uses and Service Uses. The pro- posed change would retain Retail Trade Uses under number 13, but the Service Uses would become number 14 as follows: 14. Administrative, professional , medical , financial and business offices and services including but not limited to the following: a. Finance, insurance and real' estate services b. Personal services C. Business services d. Repair services e. Professional services (Counseling services should been added to the list that appears in • the Zoning Code. ) f. Contract construction services g. Educational services h. Miscellaneous services If approved, there would be no limit of these uses in the M1 zoning district in the West Valley Study Area. The second proposal would add the "R-suffix" zoning overlay to three intersections on the West Valley Highway--South 180th, South 212th and South 228th. If the overlay zoning were to be adopted, the application for the "R-suffix" overlay would be admin- istered in the same manner as a rezone. This would give an opportunity for the appli- cant to include the following uses which are proposed: Principally Permitted Uses in Ml-R District (R-suffix) The following retail uses are permitted in addition to those listed in sub- section A on properties designated with the R-suffix pursuant to procedures specified in Section 15.09.050. This list is intended to be illustrative of the types of retail uses permitted. 1 . Hotel , motel 2. Convention facilities 3. Exhibition halls, art galleries 4. Restaurant and lounges • 5. Athletic and health clubs 6. Gift shops 7. Liquor stores 2 Kent Planning Commission Minutes • November 25, 1986 Other similar uses which the Planning Director finds compatible with the principally permitted uses herein, consistent with the purpose and intent of the M1 District and not of a type to adversely affect the use of adjoining properties . On page 64 of the Zoning Code E9, Outside storage or operations yard, the following sentence is proposed to precede the paragraph as it is presently stated. i 9. Outside storage or operations yard. Outside storage or operations yards in the M1 zone shall be permitted only as accessory uses. Such uses are incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the property or structure. Outside storage or operations yards shall be confined to the area to the rear of the principal building or the rear two-thirds (2/3) of the property and reasonably screened from view from any property. . . Mr. Satterstrom presented the proposed procedural changes to the AMENDMENTS section of the Zoning Code (15.09.050) . The Hearing Examiner has requested the Planning staff to establish rezone criteria in an ordinance. The following five criteria are proposed to become number 3. The current number 3 would become number 5. 3. Standards and Criteria For Granting a Request for Rezone. • The following standards and criteria shall be used by the Hearing Examiner and City Council to evaluate a request for rezone. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the City Council determines that the request is consistent with these standards and criteria. a. The proposed rezone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. b. The proposed rezone and subsequent development of the site would be compatible with development in the vicinity. C. The proposed rezone would not unduly burden the transportation system in the vicinity. d. Circumstances have changed substantially since the establishment of the current zoning district to warrant the proposed rezone. e. The proposed rezone will promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Kent. The following specifically addresses the "R-suffix" zone. In addition to the five criteria listed above, anyone seeking an "R-suffix" rezone would be evaluated under the following criteria. The first criterion relates to the relationship of the property with respect to the nodes identified on the Valley Floor Plan Map, and the second criterion relates to the actual development proposal in trying to clarify the proposal at the time the request is made so that an effective evaluation of the • proposal can be made. 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 1986 • The following proposed number 4 would change the current number 4 to number 6. 4. The Hearing Examiner and the City Council shall use the standards and criteria provided in Section 15.09.050(D) to evaluate a request for rezone to M1-R. In addition, the Hearing Examiner and City Council shall evaluate a request for M1-R on the basis of the following standards and criteria. Such an amendment shall only be granted if the City Council determines the request is consistent with these standards and criteria. a. The proposed rezone is in close proximity or contiguous to major arterial intersections identified on the Comprehensive Plan map as being appropriate locations for retail/service type land uses. b. Rezoning to M1-R shall not be speculative in nature. Such requests shall be based on specific development plans and uses. Further, the proposed uses shall be supportive to the surrounding industrial area and shall not be in conflict with land uses permitted in the Central Business District. Commissioner Biteman asked how much acreage would be involved at the South 212th intersection and if there would be a limitation on the types of uses in the "R-suffix" area. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the Planning Commission would not be placing a zoning designation on any land. The Commission would be addressing the allowed uses under • the use provisions of the "R-suffix" proposal . If an applicant came in at a later time and sought a rezone to place the "R-suffix" on a piece of property, there would be no limitation on the number of different kinds of uses as long as the uses were permitted within the code. Commissioner Martinez asked if there were specific development plans at the present time for the three nodes under discussion, and if the Planning Department had con- sidered the traffic implications. Mr. Satterstrom responded that he was not aware of any plans for "R-suffix" develop- ment in any of the three nodes at the present time. The Planning staff believes that these three locations offer opportunity for additional retail opportunities in an otherwise industrial district. The staff is not trying to propose uses which will conflict with established retail areas. It is hoped that the types of uses that the Planning Commission would recommend to be allowed in the "R-suffix" area would complement and support the industrial area that is currently present and not try to compete from a retail standpoint with established retailing in the City of Kent. When the original proposal was made, Fred stated that they realized there would be traffic implications but did not realize that elimination of the conditional use permit would have such a traffic impact. The Public Works Department is developing a mitigation strategy to address these impacts. If these impacts cannot be mitigated or if they are significantly adverse, the Planning Department would not recommend this proposal for the Commission 's approval . The traffic issue is one of the reasons • that a declaration of nonsignificance is not available. Commissioner Martinez asked for clarification regarding the circles. 4 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 1986 • Mr. Harris responded that the vague circle is a comprehensive plan circle. This has nothing to do with zoning. It means that someone could apply for "R-suffix" within this vague circle. At that time the applicant would define exactly the kind of development desired and the precise location on the site. The land use would not be considered until the applicant had submitted an application specifically requesting the "R-suffix" zoning. If passed, this ordinance would give the applicant only the right to apply for this zoning. Commissioner Badger asked about accessory and principal uses of the property. He wondered if he would see cranes in a storage area behind a fence. Mr. Satterstrom responded that storage of equipment is not a principal use of property in the M1 zone. Storage must be subservient to the principal use, therefore an acces- sory use of the property. The storage should not be visible from the main roadways. Ken Morris, Kent Traffic Engineer, presented a map showing critical traffic volumes in the valley area. Critical volumes were outlined in gold and red. Red showed the current arterials where the volume exceeds the capacity for at least a one-hour period during the day. Pacific Highway, I-5, West Valley Highway, South 180th, South 212th, the Valley Freeway, Benson Highway, James Street, Canyon Drive and SR 516 were shown in red. All these intersections reach capacity mostly in the afternoon peak hours when most of the commuters are returning home from work, plus a mixture of shopping trips, business trips, etc. The yellow lines represented 70 to 100 per- cent capacity. • The second map showed critical volumes projected for the year 2000. Corridors that had been added to this map included the South 196th, South 228th and South 277th corridors. These corridors are expected to relieve some of the congestion on some of the existing arterials, specifically West Valley Highway. There will be a West Valley Highway improvement which will extend from South 180th to approximately James Street. Mr. Morris commented that the volumes do not take into account the increased densities within the West Valley Industrial Area. He is currently working on a projection of the number of trips that can be expected from increased densities within the valley floor. Retail establishments produce more trips than office establishments; office use produces more trips than warehouse or industrial -type use. He planned to present additional projections at the next hearing. He felt the main issue would be around South 212th and West Valley Highway where additional trips would be generated. Boeing will be locating its headquarters at this location. Uplands is considering develop- ment in the South 228th area. Mr. Morris felt that the study would show if additional lanes would be needed or if the present arterials could handle the increased den- sities, and which arterials would be overloaded. Commissioner Badger asked if 64th Avenue South from South 212th Street south to Meeker Street would be an arterial . Mr. Morris responded that this was part of the plan for the future arterial system. Several committees are involved in these projects. The Mayor's Task Force on Traffic . Congestion, the Valley Transportation Committee which is sponsored by the Puget Sound Council of Governments, Kent, and other cities in the Valley, Auburn and Tukwila, are developing a strategy to fund some of these corridor projects. One funding 5 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 25, 1986 • strategy would be to ask developers to participate in the corridor projects in order to mitigate the trips they generate from their facilities. The developers would sign an agreement with the City of Kent agreeing to participate in a future LID. Commissioner Martinez asked if the money would be put in escrow. Mr. Morris responded that this would not be required. The developer would sign a no-protest LID at the time of development. When the roads are constructed, they would be assessed at that time according to the number of trips going in and out of the facility. Another strategy would be a Road Improvement District. The county is working on this concept. Mike Patrick has proposed the MAP program, which is the Multijurisdic- tional Arterial Program. This would provide state funding for new arterials. Mr. Morris expected to have available at the December Planning Commission meeting some of the traffic impacts solidified and to be able to identify some of the additional improvements needed, if any, in the West Valley Industrial Area. Commissioner Badger asked if the Commissioners would be able to have a reduced copy of the transportation maps at the December meeting. Mr. Morris responded that maps would be made available to the Commissioners. • Mr. Badger asked if the MAP program would include county participation in the con- struction of new arterials. Mr. Morris answered that the county could participate through the Road Improvement District program or through the MAP program. The city/county or city/state could also be a developer with the city, county or state. This would also be considered multijurisdictional . Chairman Ward asked if there was a clause in the MAP proposal which would prohibit the diverting of funds. Mr. Morris responded that a commitment from Tim Hill had been obtained which would prohibit the diverting of MAP funds. Mr. Hansen asked Mr. Morris if additional calculations for the year 2000 could be available for the December meeting, and also what impact increased Metro service might have in mitigating some of the traffic impacts in Kent. Chris Crumbaugh spoke as a representative for Corporate Property Investors, which is interested in developing properties across the street from the Boeing Aerospace Center. He felt that if this proposed amendment is approved, it would seem unnec- essary to go through the rezoning process. He also felt that the list of seven principally permitted uses was not a very extensive list. He planned to present an extended list of retail uses at the next hearing. • Mr. Harris pointed out that the Planning Commission Bylaws require letters and reports intended for presentation to the Commissioners at the hearing arrive in the Planning Department's office at least one week prior to the hearing date. If the 6 Kent Planning Commission Minutes • November 25, 1986 materials are mailed to the Planning office ten days before the hearing, then copies of all the materials for the hearing can be mailed to the Commission members one week prior to the hearing. Ted Knapp, Uplands Industries, has been working with the Planning staff and supports the proposed "R-suffix" zone. He also supports broadening the list of retail uses. He suggested that the Commission establish criteria for possible future areas where additional retail could be located. He felt there was little available space in the three designated nodes and felt the criteria should be flexible enough to allow other arterials to be identified at a future date. He felt the wording "major arterial intersection" limited the possibility of additional circles. Robert Fadden, architect, 130 Lakeside, Seattle, Washington, read a letter from CPI and Uplands addressed to Jim Hansen which summarized his thoughts. Dear Jim: I have now had the opportunity to review the proposed office and retail ordinance and comprehensive plan modification prepared by the Planning Department for the MI zone. It is my understanding that the new code provisions and comprehen- sive plan improvements are a result of the Planning Department's recognition of changing land use patterns and concern for the needs of the industrial area popula- tion. The addition of office, personal services and certain retail functions to the M1 zone, along with the existing light manufacturing and industrial uses, will provide an area in the city where a wide diversity of uses occur and complement the existing uses now present. The uses in the M1 zone during the last five years have grown. The evolution has resulted in ordinance changes that now allow a limited amount of retail and pure office use within a development. Proposed additions to the code is another phase in the maturity of the M1 zone. The M1 zone, through the growth process, is becoming what has been traditionally known as a business park zone. Characteristically business park zones have contained a wide variety of light industrial , office, service retail , personal services and commercial uses that support business and people within that zone. A successful industrial park district ordinance requires both strong development standards and site flexibilities in order to produce complementary projects for a variety of uses. He added that this letter would be available at the next meeting with supplemental information. Kirk Johnson, representing Trammel Crow Company, spoke in favor of the "R-suffix" proposal stating that he favored the changes it would bring to the valley. He agreed with CPI and Uplands that the retail use definition needed to be expanded. He sug- gested two additional nodes--East Valley Highway at South 212th and East Valley Highway at South 180th. Mr. Harris responded that this study included only the area west of the Union Pacific rail lines. He expected the staff to work on the area around East Valley Highway in 1987, but it was not part of this study. The West Valley Industrial Study should be finished so that expansion to the other side of the valley could take place. • Commissioner Badger MOVED to continue the hearing to the third Tuesday in December, December 16, 1986. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. 7 . 'n Kent Planning Commission Minutes 9 • November 25, 1986 PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE Chairman Ward presented to Anne Biteman OF APPOINTMENT a certificate of appointment signed by Mayor Dan Kelleher. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner James Byrne was elected Chairman and Commissioner Robert Badger was elected Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1987. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Rudy MOVED and Commissioner Byrne SECONDED a motion to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted , James Harris, S cretary • • 8