Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 05/23/1988 . . JUN KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C/7-'04P 988 May 23, 1988 C� (,'t %Vr COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Badger, Chairman Anne Biteman Greg Greenstreet Nancy Rudy Carol Stoner COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Elmira Forner, excused Linda Martinez, excused Raymond Ward, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Senior Planner Kathy McClung, Senior Planner Dan Stroh, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 23 , 1988 Commissioner Biteman pointed out that the words at #be, , top of page 6 should be changed from "much of the West Hill" to "much of the base of the West Hill. " Commissioner Biteman MOVED that the minutes of the April 25, 1988 meeting be approved as corrected,. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Mayor Kelleher suggested that the Planning Commi ,ion support its recommendation of a 20 percent reduction in multifamily density. This issue has generated controversy. The methodolo "p achieving this density reduction is an issue; perhaps it sh1t �; accomplished through changes to the Comprehensive Plan and map-11 :';04e year ago the Council suggested a zoning code text revision to 7;oduce density on multifamily lands. Over the past five years the average disparity, between multifamily units and single family units has been 40 to 1. In a recent year 1,700 units of multifamily were constructed and only 20 units of single family homes were built. Mayor Kelleher did not feel that the City of Kent should lead the way in multifamily housing. He suggested that Commissioners write letters to Council members, atten# Council meetings and make their views known. Mr. Harris added that the issue would be on the City Council Planning Committee agenda for June 7 at 3: 30 p.m. KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 ,_ 1988 REGULATORY REVIEW 1) AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PUBLIC STORAGE FACILITIES IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT (RR-88-1) Mr. Peter Curran, representing the Berg estate, requested that the Regulatory Review of Public Storage Facilities in the Community Commercial Zoning District (RR-88-1) be continued to May 31, 1988. Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Regulatory Review on Public Storage be continued to the May 31 meeting. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. EAST VALLEY STUDY: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE VALLEY FLOOR PLAN MAP (Continued) Mr. Satterstrom presented a map of Areas 5 and 6 and cross-section illustrations of slope gradients 1100 feet north of South 208th Street and 500 feet south of 208th Street. The Planning Department proposes that Area 5 be designated Single-Family Residential because of the environmental constraints in the area and because existing development is single family residential. The Planning Department proposes that Area 6 be designated Multifamily Residential. Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Planning Commission adopt the plan for Areas 5 and 6 as recommended in the East Valley Study and the staff report. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. EAST VALLEY STUDY; PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE KENT ZONING CODE Mr. Stroh presented the five recommendations for changes to zoning. A. Establishment of a Laj2dscgjge Corridor along East Valley Highway. The purpose of this amendment is to establish a uniform landscaping treatment and thereby improve the visual quality and establish a better transition from the street to the private property. Staff Recommendation Add to 15. 07. 040 General Landscape Requirements - All Zones, as follows: P. All property abutting Eas_t Valley Highway between South 180th 2 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 , 1988 Street on the north to the SR 167 overpass on he south shall be landscaped to a minimum depth of fifj;SejL« J5) feet unless a larger area is regaired elsewhere in this ghapter. B. Establishment of Flexible Front Yard Setback Relations in the M2 (Limited Industrial) District The front yard setback requirement would be 40 feet along arterials and collector , streets, and 30 feet on local access streets. This would actually tie the setback to the classification of the adjacent street. Staff Recommendation Amend 15.04.180(E) (3) M2, Limited Industrial District, Development Standards, Yards. Delete the present paragraphs (a) Front Yard and (b) Side yard on flanking street of corner lot. Substitute the following: a. Front Yard. The minimum front yard ig bAck) shall be related to the classification of the _street. This classification shall be determingI& by, the Kent Transportation Engineer. The setbacks arr, C,& gollows: i. Properties fronting on arterials and, ggl,lector, streets shall have a minimum setback of 40 fget$ ii• Properties fronting on local access strSets shall have a minimum setback gf 30 feet. b. Side Yard on flanking street of corner lgt, „ W& minimum side yard on the flanking street of a corner lot �'shall be related to the classification of the adjacept ,,; street. This classification shall be determined by. the, K t, Transportation Engineer. The setbacks are as follows: i. Properties fronting on arterials aid g9l1ector streets shall have a minimum setback of 40 �. ii. Properties fronting on local access .gtrgets shall have a minimum setback of 30 feet. C. Institution of Rgauirementsfor Screening adin areas in the 2 (Limit2d Industrial) D'str c 3 (General Industrial) District. Because dock-high doors have a significant visual impact, this additional landscaping requirement would provide,,bptter screening and a much higher quality of the visual impact. 3 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 , 1988 Staff Recommendation Add to 15.04.180(E) (8) , Limited Industrial District, Development Standards, Loading Areas: b. Earth berms and landscaping shall be provided along street frontages as necessary tQ_ screen dock-high loading areas from public rights-of-way. Berms shall be a minimum of 30 inches in height. Landscaping located on the berm shall conform to Type II landscaping described in Section 15. 07.050(C) , Visual Buffer. Add 15.04.190(D) (9) , General Industrial District, Development Standards, Loading Areas: b. Earth berms and landscaping shall be provided along street frontages as necessary to ,screen dock-high loading areas from public rights-of-way arms shall be a minimum of 20 inches in height. Landscaping located on the berm shall conform to Type II landscaping described in Section 15.07.050(C) , Visual Buffer. D. Establishment of Transition Area Requirements in the East Valley This is a more comprehensive approach to buffering residential areas from incompatible development. Staff recommendation Amend Section 15.08.210, Transition Area Combining District Map, to include the residential and adjacent areas of the East Valley. E. Clarification of Solid Waste Issues 1. Designation of "Solid Waste Incinerator Facilities" as Reguiring a Special Use Combining District. Staff Recommendation: Amend 15.04.200(A) (8) (b) Special Use Combining District, Uses subject to Special Use Combining District Regulations, as follows: b. Special environmental problems posed by: refineries, nuclear power generating plants, airports, heliports, sanitary landfills, extractive industries, solid waste incinerators. 4 Y KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23. 1988 Add to 15.02, Definitions, as follows: 15.02.499 Solid Waste Incinerator The urocessina of solid . wastes by means of gly,.,g sis, refuse- derived fuel, or mass incineration within an,, gndIgged structure. These processes a a ov so o from such waste or the cgnversiRn of the energyastes to more useful forms or combinations theregf. This ion refers t city-wide or regionalc o erations and dgjM noj;, il2clude soligl waste incineration which, accessory to an IndIvidual Principal use. 2. Establishment of SolidWasta Recycling as a Cgo itignal Use in ths M2 (Limited IndustXial) t ct Permitted Use in the M3 (General IndustriAl) District. Staff Recommendation: Add to Section 15. 04 . 180 (D) Limited Induitrial District, Conditional Uses, as follows: t (8) Source atio ov of recyglabIg materials solid wastes. Add to Section 15. 04. 190 (A) General Industrial District, Principally Permitted Uses, as follows: (22) Source sa 'o ov er'al from solid wastes. In response to Commissioner Stoner, Mr. Stroh staffed the required landscape corridor along East Valley Highway would appiy 'to new uses as well as to expansion of current uses, e.g. , adding to a facility. He confirmed that a request for variance through the , Bo4rd of Adjustment would be an avenue of relief from the requirement. Commissioner Stoner MOVED and Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried' ,,;,, Commissioner Rudy MOVED that the Commi4sip ,, accept staff recommendations A, B, C, D, and E. Commissioner' St' 'ner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PLAN =NDMENTS - CQNTTN=T�'J Mr. Harris submitted into the record corresponder" [1friom Burdic Feed Inc. and Northwest Metal Products Company. 5 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 , 1988 Mr. Satterstrom presented the Central Business District Comprehensive Plan Update and outlined the existing CBD boundaries. Much of the proposal has come out of the deliberations of the Mayor's Task Force on Downtown Revitalization. The proposed expansion of the CBD boundary would incorporate several sites which are developed with manufacturing uses. One of the concepts that has been introduced by the CBD Task Force is mixed use zoning. A single site could have a number of uses, such as a first floor of retail, commercial and/or office, and other floors could be multiple family. There has been some discussion that heavy industrial uses are incompatible with office, commercial and multifamily growth that is desired in the Central Business District. The Task Force has labeled the west side of the UP railroad tracks, between SR 167 and the UP Railroad (James and Willis) as Business Park. Satterstrom discussed possible changes to the Park and Ride lot if the commuter rail project moves forward. It has also been suggested that there be an extension of commercial along Meeker Street to SR 167. Mr. Satterstrom emphasized that the proposal before the Commission is to effect changes to the Comprehensive Plan, a first step and does not effect zoning changes at this time. -• Chairman Badger suggested that the testimony of those present be heard before the elements of the CBD Plan update were presented. Steve Burpee, 704 North State Street, has served on the Task Force for Downtown Revitalization and is President of the Kent Downtown Association. He sees the downtown as a commerce center, not just a retail center. . .a place for government activities, cultural arts, retail, specialty retail, retail services, professional services, a financial center, an area that is pedestrian oriented. If the downtown is a commerce center, does manufacturing play a significant role in our downtown CBD? The Task Force felt it did not. How much of this type of development occurs next to manufacturing? He emphasized that there was no specific timetable for changes and suggested allowing the marketplace to effect the change to higher uses through the creation of higher land values. Richard McCann, attorney with Perkins Kooey, 1900 Washington Building, Seattle, WA 98101, representing Borden Company, pointed out the location of Borden is outside the Central Business District. Of this 20-acre site, approximately 5 acres are used as ball fields by the City of Kent Parks Department. He requested that the Borden property be excluded from the expansion of the CBD boundaries. He felt there were other ways of accomplishing revitalization. Ed Wilson, Regional Manufacturing Manager for Borden Chemical Company, 6 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 , 1988. <, J' ;. E . 470 South Second Street, Springfield, Oregon, 974,77 ,represented Bill Cramer, Plant Manager. Borden recently acquired Merlino's Pasta Plant on 8247 South 194th Street in Kent and they have a ,v�xted interest in the Kent area. The chemical company acquired the property on which they are located in 1957. Last year Borden's property and B&O tax was $316,000. Maintenance and outside services costs were over $200, 000. Borden pays freight and equipment rental companies . In , the Kent area over $2,000, 000. The company has provided steady employment for 38 people. The company and its employees make numerous charitable contributions. In order to meet the needs of, the company, its employees, and its customers and to accommodate the changing work environment, Borden needs to have the freedom to change its processes, to expand, and to adjust production. Borden would beebAppy to work on a Task Force on revitalizing the CBD. Mr. Wilson requested that Borden be excluded from the expansion of the CBD boundaries. ,', Rico Yingling, Plant Engineer at Borden Chemical, 911 Laurel, Kent, explained that Borden has worked with the Kent Police, Fire and Parks Departments. Borden Field consists of five acres,, "at the Parks Department has been allowed to use for $1 per year ifor the last 20 years. Borden purchases from local dealers. It, takes pride in charitable contributions and has supported two elementary school basketball teams because some Borden employees wash .to; work with the community in this way. Mr. Yingling responded to Commissioner Biteman that, ,Oorden pays taxes on the five acres that is used by the Parks Departmentti� ;, Mr. McCann, attorney representing Borden, stated.,, t the proposal presented replaces a major portion of the Compreh s-*e, Plan that has been in existence and has served the city for 14 yeage.� The proposal to revised the CBD Plan includes eliminating large -ara, now being used for manufacturing. The proposal will eliminate J qbs and cause substantial environmental impacts to the City. He„ Bested that the environmental impact issue should be revisited. - ;,-,To change the Comprehensive Plan as proposed compels a full di,061osure of the environmental impacts and it compels a description 'arid an analysis of alternatives. He stated that the proposal is one * teenative in the overall issue of revitalizing downtown. Mr. McWva suggested that expanding the CBD to M2 zoning and then eliminating, it is a short, last-minute method of accomplishing a rezone. That-.;duethod cries out, for an impact statement that can be reviewed apdyaamined by the' Commission, the Council, and the citizens. Borden hiks�bgen in the Kent community for many years, is committed to the communit; , ,and has served it well. The Borden property should be removed $rrpm,�i.the expanded CBD area. Commissioner Stoner asked Mr. McCann to addre11a ;41,1t4e impacts of 7 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 , 1988 relocating the company. Mr. McCann stated it would be a major undertaking. The facility has been at the location for a long tine; it has been upgraded regularly to ensure it is an efficient, effective, and productive plant. Mr. Wilson stated the Environmental Impact Statement for a new location would be one issue. In addition, the cost to relocate the plant would be prohibitive. The plant needs to be in a central area where it can serve plywood and particle board customers. Commissioner Stoner clarified that the processes are related directly to the wood products industry. In response to Commissioner Greenstreet, Mr. Wilson responded that Borden had done a study of the water table underneath the plant and they do not have any environmental problems at this time. Charles Howard, President of Howard Manufacturing Company, requested that the Howard Manufacturing Company be removed from the CBD Plan. In 1928, Howard Manufacturing Company was enticed to move from their location in Seattle to Kent when a group of citizens representing Kent bought the original buildings from Western Rubber Company and gave it to Howard Manufacturing with the proviso that Howard Manufacturing stay in continuous operation for ten years at the Kent location. He admitted to the record a copy of the Bill of Sale dated April 28, 1928. Howard Manufacturing has been ' in operation for sixty years, has employed from 80 to 100 people, and has made a large financial contribution to the City of Kent. The company has cooperated with the Fire and Police Departments, supported an athletic team each season, and has even allowed the City of' Kent to place the fence for Kent Commons on the Howard property to allow people to use the fire exits on the west side. Does it make sense to restrict the growth of a manufacturing company that has contributed so much to the city through the years, especially on property that is located beside a very active railroad track? Mr. Howard described for Commissioner Rudy the location of the plant in the existing CBD Plan. Commissioner Biteman asked how may acres Howard Manufacturing had. Mr. Howard responded it was approximately 9 acres. Chairman Badger asked to have -the letter and copy of the Bill of Sale admitted to the record. Dell Noack, Vice President of Operations for Northwest Metal Products, identified the property on the Wrap and stated that Northwest Metal 8 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 . �88 Products was lured to Kent in 1935-36 and during the war employed nearly 600 people. Between 1946-56 they expanded -their plant from 50,000 square feet to 205,000 square feet. Noll Manug*cturing Company of Richmond, California, purchased the company in 19681-ond now there is an average employment of 175. Improvements have Leh made to the property and buildings. Mr. Noack stated Borden, Ho'vs �'I�Manufacturing, and Northwest Metal Products and their employee6 604'ribute to the stability of the downtown business and the City of Rent. Mr. Satterstrom stated the Task Force sees the -downtown growing in commercial, office and multiple family residential. They see this growth as imminent and in the, long range they see manufacturing as a transient use. If the proposed revisions to the CBD *lan were adopted and if the properties were rezoned, present zoning r qulations do not require businesses to move. ' There are regulationsli, that relate to nonconforming uses, their expansion and other develookeint issues. Mr. Satterstrom stated the city could make these uses• mvre, compatible with the future downtown, commercial and office development 'and added that at the present time these uses are somewhat incompat le with multiple family and office use. visual screening might make,' these uses more compatible with the future development. An environ�e�Ga:l checklist has been completed on the CBD Plan and can be reviewe4', by the general public. Questions on procedure can be addressed'i''by the Hearing Examiner and the courts. SEPA does not evaluate ec6hlbimic impacts. In response to Commissioner Stoner, Mr. Satterstrap responded that expansion of nonconforming uses usually involves additional floor area and internal changes would not be impacted. Commissioner Biteman asked about the rationale for 'including single family residences at the north end of the CBD expansion: To the east it is commercial in the existing CBD. Mr. Satterstrom responded that it was rounding off the study area boundaries to follow Jason Street. The CBD Task Force felt that including single family in this area made a statement that single family was a compatible use ad that there are natural barriers and parking lots which provide barriers for some of the single family residences in the area. Mr. Burpee stated that the City needsto plan for, , in the valley and could not look only at the, number of years W- '` " ';,!t a has existed at a location or a company's contribution to the, !" The City� can anticipate higher uses, higher tax revenue, and ; for spending in Kent. •J } Mr. McCann responded that the issue of where manufacturing fits in the CBD is the smaller issue. The ' greater issue is how 'tb revitalize the downtown area. He felt that the proposal has focu� se , can expansion of the CBD to eliminate manufacturing. What is requirtd now is a step 9 r KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23, 1988 backward to examine the real issue, how to revitalize the downtown area. Do that with the participation and representation of those people who own property that will be most affected by the expansion and elimination of zoning. The policies in the proposed Comprehensive Plan change use the terms "eliminate,, incompatible uses" and "eliminate incompatible zoning. " It has been- clearly stated that manufacturing is an incompatible use within the proposed CBD. Once a comprehensive plan is changed, zoning changes follow. , Once zoning follows, the use, the structure and the property itself become nonconforming. He quoted from the code that "No existing building, structure, or land devoted to a nonconforming use shall be expanded, enlarged, extended, reconstructed, intensified or structurally altered.," No company can afford to keep a plant modern with the type of restrictions that are specifically and thoroughly stated in the code. To adopt the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment without an EIS and, without participation in the Task Force by the affected property owners is to do an injustice that the code disfavors. He stated that an environmental impact statement and the consequences of the environmental impacts ig the Planning Commission's business. This proposal would eliminate 5 acres of park and recreation use. This proposal will create new multifamily zoning for this area despite the recommendations of the Mayor that, density be reduced by 20 percent because of the great disparity between multifamily and single family construction. Mr. McCann requested the Planning ;pmmission require the preparation of an environmental impact statement and that the CDB expansion boundaries be revised to eliminate the Borden property. Mr. Wilson pointed out that there,. were present for the hearing many Borden employees who were concerned about their jobs. Mr. Yingling expressed concern that ,Borden was not in the Task Force's vision for Kent. He felt that Borten is a part of the future of Kent; The company is expanding and becoming better every day. Last year $300, 000 was spent on capital improvements to the facility. Mr. Howard stated that if the Tam Force wanted to do a thorough and fair job, they would have invoXV, ,ed some of the people from the manufacturing companies. Commissioner Rudy MOVED that the hearing be continued to June 27. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Stoner asked for inp3lt regarding nonconforming uses and asked to see the environmental chsoklist. 10 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23, 1988 � ORELINE MASTER PROGRAM V SMV-8 - NT Ms. McClung presented the request for a shoreline variAnce to allow an impervious surface within the shoreline area for Signer ure Pointe. The project of 51 buildings includes 584 multifamily r ' idences located along the Green River. Recreational facilities, pub ,c, access to the river, and a proposed Green River Bicycle Trail ara,, 'ihcluded in the project proposal. The property is located on 64th A'v4aue South, south of Meeker Street at SR 516 and is surrounded on, 00 sides by the Green River. The property contains approximately 3$. , Acres. SR 516 bisects the site into an 8.5 acre parcel to the north, and a 30.8 acre parcel to the south of the highway. The property , ii- *oj}ed MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential. Surrounding zon3� ' includes GC, General Commercial, to the north along Meeker Streeand MRM, Medium Density Multifamily Residential, directly north and W t. The units are designed to be clustered so that there is open space In, the interior. The applicant has submitted revisions to the site ,plian to correct building height and placement of buildings too closet the river. The layout provides large areas for recreational/op a pace use. The proposed landscaping is sufficient to meet code requir eats and should enhance the development and river environment. The .d eloper proposes to provide a landscape buffer between the dike and the ,4evelopment and to leave the river's edge and dike area undisturbed.' "In addition, the developer will provide a public access easement or land' dedication of 50 feet along the entire length of the Green River. A public parking area is proposed for north" of SR 516 and west of the,,entry road as it turns south. Provisions were made when SR 516 was constructed to allow access to the southern parcel by way of an access easement under t $R 516 bridge. , The Kent Shoreline Master Program requires 75 feet frPt the centerline of the dike or 100 feet from the ordinary high wateJ mark along the Green River. In order to utilize the property it is necessary to provide a paved access road to the southern portion.., - The variance will allow the construction of the only access road to' th� 'siouthern parcel and therefore allow the development which is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Shoreline Master ProVF ,. The staff recommends approval of this request. Mr. Harris explained that the original rezone was an ke!.north side of SR 516. It had been zoned ' VA and - was rezoned J� �' 11979 with the conditions that they participate in a traffic signal o't i64th and Smith Street and participate in the building of 64th AgenCauth south of Meeker Street. The southern area was rezoned on or b,pre 1973 . Discussion followed regarding the fact that this road *oUld be the only access to the property. Mr. Harris stated that th0",gate has approved the access to this multifamily area. it , KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 , 1988 Elizabeth Mountsier, Project Manager with Driscoll Architects, 2121 First Avenue, Seattle, is working with the Planning Department to ensure that this development is a neighborhood of multifamily residences, not just a group of buildings. There is an easement for a 24-foot wide road but only 20 feet *re needed for emergency access, and a 16-foot overhead clearance. There will be a sidewalk along the road that can link with the existing " pedestrian bridge underneath the highway. She was not aware of plans to phase the development. Work will begin at the southern part of the site and move northward. The architects have included many different building types and sizes of buildings so that roof configurations and facades will vary and be more attractive from SR 516. Buildings within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark will be 25 feet in height; buildings that are inland will be 35 feet. There will be a mixture of two and three-story buildings on the site. Harold Porter, 1420 West Willis, Kent, directly east of the property that is being developed, supported the project but expressed concern about the width of the roadway and, the bike path. He did not believe a ten-foot-wide bike path would be adequate for a large development. For biker safety, the path should have_ striping and a path to cross the road. He mentioned that access to' 167 could be purchased across his property. M. J. Patoc, 25575 West Valley Highway, expressed concern •about the width of the access road, the emergency access and the height of the buildings. Joan Hertel, 25421 64th Avenue South, expressed concern about the additional traffic on 64th. She was concerned about the height of the buildings. Louise M. Koch, 25430 70th Avenue South, was concerned about the traffic impacts. Grace Studer, 25607 West Valley' Highway, was concerned about the traffic impacts on Meeker and West Valley Highway. She felt that emergency equipment would not be maple to respond adequately. She felt her open space was being violated and that the valley has been destroyed. Fred Grimm, Triad Development, 120 Andover East, the developer of Signature Pointe, stated that the project has been designed to be a benefit to the community, with an , attempt to erase negative feelings about apartments, specifically Riverwood. Included in the development will be a child care center and recreational facilities that will accommodate the residents. The state built SR 516 and made the 12 h•11 J � r t; KENT PLANNING COMMISSION ` MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 , 1988 provision for the road into the southern section of the site. The bike trail will be continued at the river's edge around ;horseshoe. Chairman Badger asked if an additional access treet had been considered. Mr. Grimm responded that no study had ;b"h done regarding a second access road to the property. They will,- poWtibipate in the installation of a signal and contribute to the 272*Vd,'Street Corridor. Chairman Badger asked how the storm water would be h4jhdled. Mr. Grim stated that an LID is being formed to handle the dr4in&gd from the area so that it will protect the river. A levee will prot"t 'ithe river from the road, and a swale along the river will channel tbe water into the city drainage system. Commissioner Stoner MOVED to Continue the public' l+ ring to May 31. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. i AMENDMENTS TO ADULT USE REGULATIONS Commissioner Stoner opened the public hearing regairding adult use regulations and continued it to .May 31. Commissioner.. tdy SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. HAZARDOUS WASTE ZONING Brad Collins, consultant to the City of Kent regarding the hazardous waste zoning amendments, presented the recommendation for language to permit the city and the state to site those facilities which treat and store hazardous waste materials. In order for the< ,Oi.ty to have the opportunity to zone those type of facilities, state legislation requires that the city provide 'the language to the state by June 30, 1988. Otherwise, the opportunity would be preempted by the state. Philip Morley, consultant regarding hazardous waste, ;pointed out that where hazardous materials are allowed, storage and treatment facilities also must be allowed. The purpose of the amendments! is to limit and guide responsible placement of hazardous waste storage and treatment facilities. Left over from an economic activity, � h4iiardous waste is that waste which is either harmful to the envirormont or is toxic. This is distinguished from solid waste. Storago can be in an underground or in an above-ground storage tank. !treatment is any process that reduces the hazardous nature of hazardous waste, reduces its volume or recycles it for some other purpose. This is not a form of disposal, such as incineration or landfilling. Ontsite storage and treatment and storage facilities deal only with waste that is generated at that particular site. When a substance is imported from another facility, it becomes an off-site facility. Starae , and treatment facilities are not allowed in residential zones. In a#iicultural zones 13 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING OF MAY 23 . 1988 they are allowed as an accessory use for 20,000 pounds or less and above that as a conditional use. There is a 5,000 pound limit in Downtown Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial and there is no provision for conditional use above this amount. In heavy commercial areas there is a 10,000 pound limit, and more than that would require a conditional use permit. For on-site facilities in all the industrial zones 20,000 pounds or less would be an accessory use and above ,that a conditional use would be required; He added that 20,000 pounds would be approximately 40 drums. Hazardous uses are allowed under current zoning without any controls. The amendments would provide an opportunity to place special conditions on these. Commissioner Rudy MOVED and Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Stoner MOVED and Commissioner Rudy SECONDED a motion to adopt the recommendations in the Hazardous Waste report (attached) . Motion carried unanimously. REGULATORY REVIEW 21 AMENDM NT TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL OPERATIONAL HOURS FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS (RR-88-2) This item was not discussed and is continued to the hearing of May 31, 1988. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Badger adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James H ris, Secretary 14