Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 03/20/1989 APR KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES p 6 1989 bff CITY OF March 20, 1989 �;t CL ,��r The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, March 20, 14,69 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Carol Stoner Raymond Ward Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Badger, excused Anne Biteman, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Satterstrom, Acting Planning Director , Dan Stroh, Senior Planner Kathy McClung, Senior Planner Ken Astrein, Planner Scott Williams, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary LEGAL DEPARTMENT: Sandra Driscoll, City Attorney ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: Marty Nizlek, Transportation Engineer MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUAM 27, 1989 Approval of the February 27, 1989 minutes was deferred until the March 27, 1989 meeting. Commissioner Stoner MOVED to reopen the hearing on the East Valley Zoning Study. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDZD the motion. Motion carried. Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 1989 BAST VALLEY ZONING STUDY (GWC)' Dan Stroh reviewed the three actions before the Commission: 1) creation of the Gateway Commercial District, uses and development standards; 2) application of the Gateway Commercial District to an area along the East Valley Highway; 3) application of Office designation to an area at the northeast corner of SR 167 and the South 212th interchange. The public hearing of February 13, 1989 was continued in order to conduct additional study and consultation on the issue of traffic. The SEPA Decision Document of the East Valley Zoning Study (#ENV 89-1) includes several conditions. The first SEPA condition is that the staff recommendation for the proposed rezone to Gateway Commercial be reduced by approximately 15.2 acres. The second SEPA condition is that the staff recommendation for Gateway Commercial be modified to require a 1,000-foot separation between drive-through restaurant uses. Fast food uses generate AM and PM peak-hour traffic at the rate of three to four times the next highest, most intensive generator that was surveyed for the Gateway Commercial area. The third SEPA condition is that mitigation of traffic impacts associated with new developments will be applied to site specific cases. The SEPA condition requires the applicant to participate in the East-West Corridor project, which is required for new developments within the city. The applicant shall also conduct a study to identify and address trips generated by the proposal, specifically identifying the number of trips over and above those which could be generated under the zoning in effect prior to the rezoning to Gateway Commercial. Examples given in the SEPA condition include capital improvements at the entrances to the rezone area, purchase of development rights in the vicinity, and participation in a North- South 88th Corridor Project. The fourth SEPA condition directs staff to develop a proposed Transportation System Management ordinance which would address alternative methods of transportation, including ride haring, transit, van-pooling and related approaches. Based on these changes, the modified GWC proposal presented to the Commission includes: 1) reducing the area of the Gateway Commercial District by 15.2 acres. Approximately 10.3 acres are currently vacant or undevel.oppd; 2) imposing a 1, 000-foot separation limitation on drive-through restaurant uses within the Gateway Commercial District. This would be an amendment to the development standards proposed., , for the new Gateway Commercial District. Commissioner Stoner asked about the requirement of participation in the North-South 88th Corridor project. Mr. Stroh explained that 2 r Kent Planning Commission Minutes 1 March 20, 1989 this was only an example of a condition; it has not,been placed on any developments at the present time. Commissioner Forner asked what was meant by limiting the drive- through fast-food restaurants. Mr. Stroh explained' that the traffic impacts of the fast-food uses were extremely �hjgh and that a 1,000-foot separation between drive-through restauiant uses would limit the number of fast-food sites that could-ocopr ;within this corridor area. Based upon this limitation, the tbziffic, projections were modified to show no more than 10 percent of theavailable land could be used for fast-food uses. This would be in Addition to the development standards, and the language would state ',,that drive- through restaurants would have to observe at least, a 1,000-foot separation. There is currently one fast-food service etablishment in this area. Four others could be added for a, total of five in the area. Ken Astrein stated that one of the goals of the, mit,igation was to reduce the traffic impacts of the proposed Gateway Cpmm,ercial zone. Staff analyzed underdeveloped and undeveloped land,throughout the study area. After identifying that land, staff fociused on a two- stage analysis: 1) review of permitted uses and 21; review of the boundaries for the proposed zone. Two of the original rules were to avoid splitting original parcels and to avoid nongon'forming uses whenever possible. Staff reprioritized decision, ru.les in order to present the "Mitigated Gateway Commercial Proppa#111 which has reduced traffic impacts. The end boundaries were ,not reduced because one of the original goals of the GWC zone.,,,,Vas to have an identifiable and recognizable Gateway Commercial ark Staff felt that SR 167 with the overpass and South 212th with °' t's uses was a primary intersection and these were appropriate phy .cal boundaries at the present time. The net traffic additions fro= the existing zoning to the originally-proposed area of Gatewtty';Commercial are predicted to be in the range of 745 to 1,042 trip* ,during the PM peak hour. Net additions from existing zoning tO, the Modified Gateway Commercial (with an area reduction of 15.1 acres and the fast-food separation requirement) are predicted ' to, be�, 135 to 240 trips during the PM peak hour. I Chairman Martinez asked for an explanation of changes in traffic totals from the previous meeting. Mr. As rein explained that the initial proposal of traffic figuroo; 1,.Toflected the conversion of land zoned MI 'or M2, primarily the '�hern half of the site. Staff had assumed that a conversion o Commercial Manufacturing or General Commercial to Gateway, C06sercial on the southern half would have had negligible traffi impacts. The Engineering Department expressed concern that . , tuff had not addressed the entire zone. Since the last h*aAhg, staff has 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 1989 conducted a full land use analysis of vacant or underdeveloped land. The original figure provided was 32.5 acres. The revised figure is 62.9 acres which reflects all the vacant or underdeveloped land. This figure represents a maximum buildout for the entire zone. Staff felt that five years would be the earliest date that buildout could occur;' Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner asked if the boundary had been realigned to take care of the concerns of the Petzoldt Brothers' site. Mr. Astrein responded that staff originally had avoided splitting the parcel and had accepted the fact that the parcel would become a nonconforming use. Now the land has been split between two zones and the nonconforming use has been avoided. Chairman Martinez asked for in explanation of the difference between the 72,838 average daily trips and the 46,537 average daily trips for the reduction in acreage and limited fast food uses. Mr. Stroh explained the 72,838 figure represented the figure presented for the earlier proposal for the entire 102.5 acres to be rezoned to GWC if it were developed to its full potential. The modified figures show a reduction in the land area by 15.2 acres and a reduction in trips generated when the 1,000-foot separation between drive-through restaurant uses would be in effect. Commissioner Stoner asked what the 'zoning would be for the parcels of vacant land that would be excluded from the GWC. Mr. Astrein responded that the western side would be M3 and the eastern side would be M2 except for the Petzoldt property which would be zoned Commercial Manufacturing. Commissioner Greenstreet asked if the mini marts had been addressed. Mr. Astrein responded that staff had not addressed mini marts because it felt that the reduction in drive-through restaurant uses was strong enough to reduce the traffic levels. Most gas stations are located on corners at busy intersections, and there are already two gas stations at the 212th intersection. Gas stations and mini marts both require conditional use permits which are handled through the Hearing Examiner process. Torgy Torgerson, 24456 164th Aftnue SE, Kent, pointed out that the current zoning in the northern, or southern areas allows retail businesses, but the proposed new zoning, GWC, specifies retail businesses with no outside storage. Home Club would not be allowed in the proposed GWC zone. He felt that personal services would not be suitable for this area and that the landscaping requirement would hide the retail uses and make them undesirable for many customers. He pointed out that-no nonconforming structures may be expanded, enlarged, extended, reconstructed or' structurally 4 Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 1989 n qi 1, altered, nor could any major nonconforming building structure or lot be occupied after discontinuance of use for a' iod of time. He felt this would be a hardship on the owner of, !building if it remained unoccupied for period of time bec�us' •of loss of a tenant. Fire or earthquake Damage could presenta•1 rdship to the owner of the building. He added that retail uses arae` p' ermitted in the southern half of the• area and could be rob , It under the current zoning. Chairman Martinez asked for clarification regarding the statement "existing dwellings may be rebuilt, repaired and- OiUerwise changed for human occupancy. " Mr. Stroh responded that thiillsi� a principal use within the proposed Gateway Commercial, i ow , � repair and rebuilding of an existing dwelling would not be N nonconforming use. For actual nonconforming uses, if the cost to 'repair is less p►- than 50 percent of the fair market value of the ro ,arty, it could be rebuilt, i.e. , after disasters such as an earthquake, landslide, fire or hurricane. Mr. Torgerson expressed concern about a machines .shop that would become a nonconforming use under the proposed ` C`Boning. if a fire occurred and cost to rebuild was more than $0-r, ercent of the value of the building, then the structure could f6t'� be rebuilt. The owner could collect the insurance but would be out of business. Mr. Torgerson did not feel this would be fair. He 4J4 not believe that the City of Kent would be gaining anything by ' raging the GC zone in the southern part and the CM zone in the 'ti thern part. He felt that GWC zoning should have been imposed 40 years ago before all the truck gardens were covered with conciete. He also pointed out that 40 percent maximum site coverages' ii, lower than the current zoning requirement. ' He pointed out that the part of the site that is not a parking lot or building must be landscaped. He did not feel that landscaping would be a useful ;a.ddition to sites in this area. P' Jim Rust, 8619 South 218th, 'Kent, stated that he Mi'aw no value in changing the zoning to GWC. I He suggested that-tho' 'O'outhern part be zoned M2 because it is currently industrial.; H jwias concerned about the increase in traffic. He asked if Kent „jftery came under the Open Space Act. Mr. Saiterstrom responded-!' h It currently is under the Open .,Space Taxation Act, but this t�'fr mn t mean that in the future it could not be developed. Mrs. Rust, 8619 South 218th,,' Kent, expressed c6iioo ibout what is happening in the downtown area. She could not'•un 'orftand why the commercial area is being extended to the proposed fWO area. r• I 5 1 Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 1989 Chairman Martinez responded tho,t the Commission has been working on the Downtown Kent Plan whibh is hoped to help bring a more diverse community into the dowtown area. She stated that the Commission has been considering' %, he downtown area at the same time as it has been considering the ,proposed GWC zone. Commissioner Ward MOVED to clo ea the public hearing. (Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Commission accept the mitigated Gateway Commercial proposal for the area shown on the map. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the Motion. Commissioner Stoner asked how many nonconforming uses would be created by the proposed Gatewey Commercial zone change. Mr. Astrein estimated that there would be less than 15. Commissioner Stoner asked where the trucking uses were located and if they would be included in the GWC zone. Mr. Satterstrom responded that DiPietro Trucking and United Trucking would not be affected by the proposed GWC zon4ng. It had been recommended that Petzoldt Brothers be deleted from' the proposed GWC zone. Commissioner Ward expressed concern about the 17 nonconforming uses that would be created through ,i4e proposed GWC zone. Mr. Stroh responded that the intent of thl proposed GWC zone was to create a uniform commercial area with high set of development standards and a focus of a higher-quality type of retail/commercial area. One of the reasons behind this pro oral is to upgrade the appearance and quality of the East Valley �ighway area. The proposed set of uses, development and landscapifi4 standards are designed to improve the quality of that area. The are some developments that are ready to begin developing if this is approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Some of the impacts of the upgrading may be visible soon. In the meantime there will be some nonconforming uses and nonconfci=1,ng development standards. The Kent Zoning Code is lenient on nconforming uses. If a business were established prior to 1� and remained under the same ownership, this business ,could .eXpand and enlarge its use through a conditional use ,permit in th6' City of Kent. This business can continue as long as there is nq,.interruption in use. Commissioner Forner agreed that the proposed, GWC zone was a good approach to creating a betteV ' atmosphere for ' the strip along Central Avenue, but she felt that it did provide one more area of competition for the downtown area. She felt this was a valid concern and realized that the downtown area was not flourishing at the present time. She agreed with the intent of the plan, but 6 ,a Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 20 1989 � l agreed that it would be another means of drawing b"i,ness out of the downtown area. Commissioner Ward felt that the proposed Gateway Commercial zone was an innovative approach. If the solution works in this area, the approach could be applied to other areas in the city. He felt this should be an encouragement for development i ,FAnt. Limiting the fast-food uses in the area he felt would help td hOld down the increase in traffic. Mr. Satterstrom asked if crop and tree farming had been added to the motion noting that Phyllis Mauritsen had made this request at an earlier hearing. Commissoner Stoner responded 'that crop and tree farming had been included as a permitted use in all zones. Chair Martinez clarified the motion by stating that the Gateway Commercial zoning district will promote "quality" commercial and mixed-use development in an area which is currently without a dominant, recognizable character. It should help to create a new and upgraded appearance for East Valley Highway. Implementing the provisions of Gateway Commercial will encourage, development and redevelopment that will have long-term benefit to the ,East Valley Highway and the entire City of Kent. Carol Stoner MOVED that the mitigated Gateway Commercial zone be established as recommended by the Planning staff ai'nd' that it be applied to the land designated as Area 1. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Stoner MOVED that tree crop nursery ;_activities be included in the list of principally permitted uses for the Gateway Commercial zone. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Forner felt that tree crop farming and' nurseries did not have any place in this zone because of the use of chemicals for spraying. Discussion followed. Motion carried. ; Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Office designation be ' applied to Area 2. Commissioner Greenstreet SECOND96 the motion. Commissioner Stoner did not feel that the other uses that had been suggested for Area 2 were appropriate for an area t) t', is so close to the freeway. She felt the area was more appr, , " to for Office designation. Commissioner Greenstreet supported tion because the site seemed like a natural solution because ok ilho overpasses over the freeway and closeness to the other commerOia�l area. He felt that the Office designation would add more to the city than vacant land or a mobile home park. He had concern about the cemetery, but staff had assured him that the preservation of the 7 Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 20, 1989 cemetery would be addressed with the developer at the time of development. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Stoner MOVED tO, adjourn the public hearing. Commissioner Greenstreet SECOP�D the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted VAA red N. Satterstrom cting Planning Director