Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 05/22/1984 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 22, 1984 The Kent Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Stoner at 7: 30 p.m, on Tuesday, May 22 , 1984 , in the City Council Chambers . COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Stoner, Chairman Robert Anderson Douglas Cullen „ Richard Foslin Chuck Lambert Nancy Rudy, excused 4 James Byrne, excused Raymond Ward, absent PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James Hansen, Principal Planner Will Wolfert, Associate Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Cullen FOR MAY 8, 1984 MOVED that the minutes of the May 8, 1984, meeting be approved as presented. Commissioner Foslin SECONDED the MOTION. MOTION approved unanimously. PUBLIC nEARING FOR RECLASSIFYING Mr. Wolfert presented HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TO the five main areas GENERAL COMMERCIAL involved. Area 1 is the area along Pacific Highway South. Area 2 encompasses several pieces of property ad- jacent to Military Road. This includes Valley I-5 Recreational Vehicle and Car Sales and Century Motel . Area 3 is located at the corner of South 180th and West Valley Highway and is currently occupied by a service station. It is a single ownership. Area 4 involves four pieces of property at East Valley Highway and South 180th. Area 5 is the largest area and extends south from 222nd to approximately the Kent Memorial Park. It covers both sides of the highway and is approximately 50 percent occupied or developed. The proposed ordinance has been formulated to take three specific actions: Rent Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1984 1. Eliminate the HC, Highway Commercial, zoning district. 2 . Reclassify all HC, Highway Commercial, property to GC, General Commercial . 3. Modify the text of the GC, General Commercial, zoning district by expanding the Purpose Statement and redefining the uses allowed as Principally Permitted. Mr. Wolfert pointed out that the matrix which outlines the changes are part of the staff report . The following are three problems which have been recurring regarding these areas : 1. The decreased development of potentially smaller parcels of land. 2. The decreased use of existing buildings which were unsuitable for occupancy by the activities permitted in the Highway Commercial district. 3. The inability of a large number of legal nonconforming uses to expand or enlarge their operations. Four conditions were precipitated by this situation: 1. Vacant properties which were small and unable to combine with other properties remained undeveloped. 2. Buildings which were unsuited for occupancy by permitted uses remained vacant. 3. Highway Commercial property was frequently rezoned. 4 . The illegal use of vacant land and buildings was common. Rezoning has been a common action. There have been 11 requests for rezones for HC property since 1973 . Eight of these requests have been granted. These applications affected nearly half of the HC zoned property so designated in 1973 . Items #1 and #2 of the Planning Department's proposal are to elimin- ate the HC, Highway Commercial, zoning district and to rezone all HC property to GC, General Commercial. The purpose of this action is threefold: 1. Eliminate zone (HC) which no longer serves the purpose for which it was created. 2 . Eliminate a zone (HC) which has begun to deter development. 3 . Eliminate administrative problems by rezoning this property to GC, General Commercial . This classification is the most suitable given the wide range of existing uses. The rezoning of Highway Commercial property to General Commercial should cause few, if any, of the existing users to be classified as nonconforming. In conjunction with the proposal to eliminate the Highway Commercial zone, text amendments are also recommended to the existing Commercial -2- Kent Planning Commission Minutes May 22, 1984 zone. These proposed amendments affect three elements of the GC zone and are designed primarily to add clarity for administration of this zoning district. The first element of change affects the purpose statement of the GC zone . This statement has been revised to include elements of the previous Highway Commercial zone . It has also been liberalized, eliminating a portion of the existing statement which restricted future expansion or creation of new General Commercial zoned property. The second element of change is a redefinition of the Principally Permitted Uses . The purpose of this change is to better enumerate the types of activities permitted. This approach will establish a more comprehensive list of Principally Permitted Uses . It will also give staff a broader and more substantial base upon which to make interpretations. This list will also give the public broader and more complete information and eliminate much of the need for staff intervention. The third element of change modifies a portion of the GC development standards pertaining to paving and fencing of outside storage areas . This amendment is being proposed as this existing section is in con- flict witn more recent amendments to the zoning code . Ar. wolfert pointed out tnat two changes have been made to the pro- posed ordinance. One involves punctuation changes in the first paragraph, and the other is rewording of Section 7 on page 28 to read as follows: All property zoned Highway Commercial , HC, is rezoned to General Commercial, GC . Commissioner Foslin mentioned that half of the HC zoning had been changed since 1973 to a different zone and asked what the predomin- ant rezone had been. Mr . Wolfert responded that the normal change had been to General Commercial . The entire Area 4 at one time had been Highway Commer- cial and had been rezoned to General Commercial . The Hearing Examiner has held firmly to the precise wording of the Zoning Code . This was the main reason for the changes at this time . Commissioner Lambert referred to the correspondence from Production Plastics regarding their comment that this amendment would not affect their M-1 zoning . Mr. Harris explained that Production Plastics is located in an M1 zone and that properties in this zone are not involved in this amendment. -3- I� Kent Planning Commission Minutes Aay 22 , 1984 Chairman Stoner asked if the new section on Principally Permitted Uses was a combination of the two existing use statements . Mr. Wolfert responded that they had attempted to include all of the currently existing uses . Commissioner Lambert MOVED to admit the Production Plastcs letter of May 17, 1984, from Edward Rriskovic, into the record. Commis- sioner Cullen SECONDED the MOTION. Motion approved unanimously. Chairman Stoner opened the public hearing. Don Baer, 918 East Laurel, Rent, was present to represent Aarian Capps and Jack Sampson who own property on Novak Lane, which is off North Central south of Bowen Scarff Ford. He pointed out that there exists a diagonal line which extends across the back of cer- tain properties. He spoke in favor of the elimination of the designation of Highway Commercial and the replacement of General Commercial . He expressed one objection--that the recommendation of the zoning code revision committee had not been totally followed. There were a number of items which had been deleted, specifically fresh, frozen, packaged fish and sea foods, handbags, felt goods, canvas products, pleating, millwork and cabinetmaking, furniture and fixtures, commercial printing, fur repair and storage, and direct mail advertising. Most of the original list had been included, but these items had been omitted. Commissioner Lambert commented regarding the property line. He believed that zoning should run from street to street instead of having diagonal lines extending across property. Chairman Stoner asked if Mr . Baer had a list of the items that had peen deleted . Mr. Baer responded that he had given a copy to Mr. Wolfert. ,io other persons spoke either in favor of or against the proposed amendment. Commissioner Lambert MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Foslin SECONDED the MOTION. Motion approved unanimously. Mr. Wolfert responded to Mr. Baer' s comments by stating that the items had been intentionally deleted. Those uses are not currently permitted in the General Commercial zone, and the attempt of this ordinance was not to add or delete from the uses which are currently permitted in the General Commercial zone . The uses that the Zoning Code Advisory Committee recommended were to go into the zone in the future . This would be appropriate after additional review and -4- Rent Planning Commission Minutes ,lay 22, 1934 as a package with all the zoning changes that will be presented to the Planning Commission in the future . Mr. Wolfert felt that it was not appropriate to include them at the present time, because it would make a substantial change to the General Commercial zone by adding some manufacturing uses and other activities that are generally not acceptable in the zone at the present. If these were included, the Commission and the staff would have to consider the development standards and other issues which would be involved with manufacturing uses in commercial zones . He agreed that the use of a diagonal line across property was not appropriate, but these lines had been in existence long before any of the present staff had arrived and suggested that this should be carefully considered before the next Zoning Code is approved. He suggested that the appropriate way to deal with these properties at the present time would be to submit an application for a rezone . This would be acceptable to the Planning staff . It is not within the scope of this ordinance to involve properties outside the HC and �3C zones, and this property is currently zoned M2 . Commissioner Lambert asked if this could be handled by designating it a transitional zone . Ar. eiolfert responded that currently under the Zoning Code a 50-foot variance is allowed. Chairman Stoner pointed out that if the ordinance is adopted as presented, those property owners have the option of expanding the General Commercial zone to their properties . Mr. Wolfert agreed stating that was true if done under separate application. Commissioner Lambert MOVED and Commissioner Cullen SECONDED the :MOTION that the Commission adopt the zoning amendment ordinance as amended by the City Attorney which had been presented to the Commis- sion. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. Mr. Harris felt that since this had not been a controversial issue and there had been no opposition to the proposed amendment, indivi- dual notices mignt not be required. i Commissioner Cullen MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the MOTION. Motion approved unanimously . The meeting was adjourned at 3 :10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J es P. Harris, Secretary -5- i