Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 02/27/1989 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTZIr February 27, 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was calied; to order by Chair Martinez at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, February , 1989 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Robert Badger, Vice Chair Anne Biteman Elmira Forner Carol Stoner Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner Raymond Ward COMMISSION MEMBER ABSENT: Greg Greenstreet, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: i Fred Satterstrom, Acting Planning Director 3 Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 13 , 1989 MEETING' Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the minutes of the .FOXuary 13, 1989 Planning Commission meeting be approved as print,44, ,fi Commissioner Badger SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. s. r, Mr. Satterstrom entered into the record a let a tom Richard McCann of Perkins Coie dated February 9, 1989. Chair Martinez reopened the public hearing. DOWNTOWN KENT - C t' C Mr. Satterstrom presented the Existing CBD Pla ' , the CBD Task Force Preferred Alternative Map, the Kent Downt'a[wn Posting Zoning Map, the staff proposed Downtown Land Use Map and ,an Alternative Designation Map. The Planning Department has develbped a land use plan map for the downtown area based upon its interp etation 'of the intention of the policies as modified by the , mission, The Alternative Designation Map, presented for discuiion purposes, showed certain properties and areas in the downtowh, that had been selected for overlay designations for possible futU#e use. During 1 Kent Planning Commission Minutes, February 27, 1989 the past 14 years the zoning has not been changed in the CBD. The current CBD Plan has never been implemented. Only in 1984 when the West Hill Plan was completed did the City Council decide to implement the plan through zoning, a procedure not followed for previous comprehensive plan changes. The site which is currently used as a METRO Park-n-Ride lot is designated Mixed Use on the staff proposed map. The existing zoning is M2, Limited Industrial. As an alternative for future use, this site could be changed to Community Facility which would recognize its current use. The area bordering SR 167 and SR 516 is shown as Business Park on the staff proposed map. The Business Park designation includes limited industrial uses with some office and commercial uses. As an alternative designation for future use, this area could be designated as Multifamily Residential, which is also shown on the existing CBD plan. Its current zoning is M2, Limited Industrial. The CBD Task Force Preferred Alternative suggests Business Park zoning for this area. The area on both sides of the railroad tracks, which is currently zoned M2, is designated as Industrial on the staff proposed map with Commercial as an alternative designation for future use. This matches the designation on the existing CBD Plan and is shown on the CBD Task Force Preferred Alternative. A small area south of Kent Junior High School is currently zoned GC, General Commercial. The staff proposed map designates this area as Commercial with an alternative land use designation of Multifamily Residential for possible future use. The CBD Task Force Preferred Alternative is Multifamily. The existing CBD Plan shows this area as Commercial. The area along James Street adjacent to the Park-n-Ride Lot is currently zoned M2, Limited Industrial, and is shown on the staff proposed map as Industrial, which includes general industrial uses. A section of this area representing the Kent Commons is designated Community Facility. Industrial, use would be retained, but an overlay designation could be ap Xied which would indicate a long- term potential for Mixed Use. 'This would allow the flexibility to change land use classification's without having to obtain a comprehensive plan change. The CBb Task Force Preferred Alternative suggests a Mixed Use/Office/Multifamily designation. The Existing CBD Plan shows this area as Manufacturing and Office. Chair Martinez felt the purpose of the overlays was unclear. 2 ti e y Kent Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1989 Mr. Satterstrom explained that the overlay concept was carried over from the CBD Task Force Plan. He felt that if,,changes were made on the map, the Commission might want .to �'g* ,,$ack to the narrative and express the intent that is reflect l,'on the map. Evaluation of the change of use would take place at -the time the uses of a site changed rather than at the time ownership changed. He felt the overlays added meaning to the land use map. The area between Went Gowe and West Saar, adjacent tn` tthe proposed Business Park area, is currently zoned DC2. They stuff proposed a Mixed Use designation with an overlay for offices de4ignation at a future time. Both the Existing CBD Plan and -the CBD Task Force Preferred Alternative show Office designation fdr' t is area. The area between West Titus and West Willis, salt of Kent Elementary School, is currently zoned DC2. The �stwf' proposed a Mixed Use designation for this area with a possible: overlay of Mixed Office /Multifamily Residential. The ' CBV , Task Force Preferred Alternative designates this areav , as Mixed Use/Office/Multifamily. The Existing CBD Plan sbaw's: this area as Office. A A small area between East Meeker and East TitUs ( with North Kennebeck on the east is presently zoned MRH, High Density Multifamily Residential. The staff propusea- 1zoning of Office/Multifamily would allow the existing dwlings to be utilized for a more intensive use. The Existing OBD Plan shows this area as Commercial, and the CBD Task Force Preferred Alternative shows this area as Mixed Use Office/Mult,ifamily. The area bordering North Kennebeck, East Smith and RaSt Meeker is designated as Commercial on the staff proposed map VAth an overlay of Office for potential future use. The current ,z,on g, designation is GC, General Commercial, the Existing CBD Plan A*gWs"Commercial; and the CBD Task Force Preferred Alternative sugesta an Office designation. . j The noticeable difference between the staff proposed map and the present zoning is the prevalence of the Mixed Use + d Industrial classifications. The Industrial classification is Ose+d in lieu of the Mixed Use/Office/Multifamily on the CBD Tas;JC, Jr0e Preferred Alternative. Mixed Use allows more flexibility t m current zoning allows. Mr. Satterstrom suggested that the Single Family Residential area be retained in the northeast corn4W, of the map. Discussion followed regarding the overlay concept. ' 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1989 Chair Martinez emphasized that the Commission has made a commitment to continue the industrial uses, in the downtown area and asked to hear verbally and in writing from the manufacturers regarding the type of commitment they are tilling to make to implement the Downtown Plan. Dick McCann, attorney with Perkins Coie, 1201 Third Avenue, Seattle, representing The Borden Company, stated that he would provide a written response expressing dissatisfaction with the overlay map. He quoted from the, Land Use Goals and Policies, Goal 1, Policy 2 "Recognize that the existing manufacturers are a vital part of the Planning Area and should be encouraged to participate in the development land growth of the Planning Area." He felt that an "overlay zone" would create problems since there has been no precedent for this type of zoning. Overlays in land use normally impose additional standards or performance criteria on an existing zone. An overlay has been used to preserve historic areas and preserve and protect sensitive environmental areas. He did not know of any overlay that was being used to designate future zoning. He quoted the implementation to Goal 6, "Review this document as appropriate (at least every five years. ) 11 He felt the idea of zoning is to take into account the present policy, facts and circumstances that affect a piece of property and the community, then make a decision based on, -those facts and circumstances and policies. The idea of the exercise of zoning powers is to act on the present situation. He felt that to take the power away from the Planning Commission in five or ten years would be an illegal exercise of the power. Property owners rely on zoning for certainty and predictability with respect to property. He felt an overlay would create with the property owner and potential lender a feeling of uncertainty; a. lender usually requires certification that the property is properly-- honed for the use that is being placed on the property. If a property were zoned for manufacturing with a 'future designation for another use, this would cause the lender concern since'At would not be known if the use would become nonconforming in the future. He urged the Commission not to add the confusion of the overlay map. Chair Martinez reminded him that the Planning Commission has stated in their goals and policies that they are committed to the existing manufacturing companies for expansion as appropriate; however, Kent would not seek manufacturing businesses for the downtown area. Mr. McCann responded that the overlay did not add a viable option for the property owners; having the City look at the area every year or every f ive years would be, a usual and acceptable procedure. 4 Kent Planning Commission Minutes ��a4 February 27, 1989 Commissioner Stoner felt that the existing manufacturing area was thoroughly protected to continue to operate, to sill"and to expand. Commissioner Forner did not support the overlay cagnc pt; and pointed out that restrictions should not be placed on th4;, ianufacturers because these restrictions would financially cripple' them. Commissioner Stoner did not feel that any manufacturing uses in the currently zoned M2 area were appropriate and that tt,4s, concept had been stated in the policies. , She felt that theref sh, ,*d be either an overlay on the comprehensive plan or the Commi;ssan', should look at the policies again and be more specific in the language used. Bill Kramer, Manager, Borden Chemical Company, 'lpo$nted out that many businesses have changed in the downtown area, et the years. Howard Manufacturing has been in Kent since the X92Ws, Northwest Metal Products has been in Kent since the 19i0';s,r -fond Borden .has been on its present site since the 1950's. Bord" 4W in o interest in rezoning to multifamily, off ice or commercial., ,.T. it investment is in their business, and the value of the propa#ty has little impact on the value of their business. He di4; nqt iobject to a review of the zoning every three or five years, but,,pe objected to the overlay because he felt that it added confusion"pmd would make it difficult to make million-dollar decisions. Chair Martinez pointed out that the Commission is; trying to attract people to the downtown and to make it a more liveage;,place. She asked what Borden Chemical Company plans to contribe, to make the downtown more liveable. Mr. Kramer responded that Borden contributes employment to Kent. He suggested that they could address landscaping, cleanup, painting, etc. He felt that there may be other ,,properties that might have detracting influences that do not ',have , the Borden employment base. He said that Borden would becoma+,more positive if they took care of some of. the detractions. He 43.c this could be addressed. He added that Orden has a large b -4r of land and a large setback and that Barden has not taken act�aage of this. Seventy-five percent of the Borden property s green and unoccupied. He felt that Borden could be one of. t Est-looking properties around if it took,advantage of the back area. Chair Martinez asked if the Borden Company had spe c plans to address the issue of attractiveness. Mr. Kramer desponded that Borden has extensive landscape plans which they wtl,l; ,mplement when they are assured they can continue lousiness at thi,�, i.Qcation. 5 Kent Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1989 Jack Strother, attorney with Graham and Dunn representing Northwest Metal Products and Howard Manufacturing, stated these companies would respond in writing with regard to the type of commitment the manufacturers were willing to ke. He felt the overlay created ambiguity and uncertainty that'`Could stifle expansion, growth and financing. As circumstances change, the zoning should be reviewed. He saw no benefit, only confusion, resulting from the overlay. Charles Howard, President of Howard Manufacturing, agreed that the overlay clouds the issues. Manufacturing has contributed to the community, and this ' commitment-, goes back 60 years. He has no interest in developing the land to another use. He pointed out that Northwest Metal Products has spent thousands of dollars to pave their southern border so that their trucks could unload off the streets and not cause traffic problems on North Fourth Avenue. He said that Howard Manufacturing had cleaned up their James Street border. They have brought a gas line to the property; when it is connected, they plan to stop burning wood waste. This will help to provide cleaner air in downtown Kent. He said that if the map makes sense, he would take down the Howard Manufacturing sign that exists on top of their building. it has been grandfathered in, but it would be replaced. They feel Ithey have shown commitment to the downtown area. Don Bogard, architect and property owner in the CBD, pointed out that businesses need predictabil'`ity. Zoning can be understood, but not a land use map. He suggest6d that the DC zone be changed to add the word "multifamily residence" rather than add a new zone. He stated that the DC1 zone should not be eliminated or become a "mixed use" zone. Commissioner Forner explained that it is the charge of the Commission to look at the comm�ity as a whole and make sure that the different areas complement each other and can coexist. It is also the charge of the Commission to look at the standards imposed on the different land uses and t.6 require the owners to comply with designated standards so that the uses will be able to coexist and perform in the way it is fares n. She opposed the overlay. Commissioner Biteman felt thit the requirement of the visual appearance of buildings was a"iluhtely expressed in objective 3, Policy 1 of Land Use Goals and policies. Commissioner Stoner suggested ,-that additional time was needed to specifically define the implementation statement of Goal 6 "as appropriate". 6 Kent Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 1989 Commissioner Uhlar Heffner suggested a work sessipn to discuss overlays and language used in the policies. Commissioner Stoner MOVED to continue the hearing to ; arch 27, 1989 preceded by a workshop at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Fc�rper SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Stoner MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. , Thy meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully stitted, F ed N. SatterattoX Acting Planning .l?irector 7