Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 03/27/1989 �7 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APR j3 p 1989 March 27, 1989 r1'7'Y(),c KEN-r �LE;?J� The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, March 27, 1989 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Raymond Ward Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Badger, excused Anne Biteman, excused Carol Stoner, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred N. Satterstrom, Acting Planning Director Kathy McClung, Senior Planner Scott Williams, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 27 , 1989 Commissioner Forner MOVED that the minutes of the February 27, 1989 Planning Commission meeting be approved as printed. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. MEAT AND SEAFOOD PROCESSING IN M2 AND M3 ZONES Mr. Williams presented the proposal to amend the Trent Zoning Code Section 15.04.180 (A) to allow meat and seafood products processing, packaging, freezing and canning as principally permitted uses in the M2, Limited Industrial, and , M3, General Industrial, zones. Currently these uses require a conditional use permit in the M3 zone and are not permitted in the �U zone. Staff felt that uses involving meat and seafood manufacturing, processing, packaging and freezing, which would 'not include slaughtering, rendering or curing, would not be poVnter to the stated purpose of the M2 and M3 zones. SThe' objectionable characteristics of slaughtering (noise, sanitary sewer discharge) , rendering (odor, sanitary sewer discharges) and curing (odor) would Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1989 not occur in the same degree in uses where a previously treated meat or seafood product is processed and packaged. The Planning staff offered the following options for review and consideration: Alternative A: Allow as Principally PermittedZse. Under this alternative, meat and seafood products processing (without rendering) , packaging and freezing would be a principally permitted use in the M2 and M3 zones. Activities involving slaughtering, rendering, and curing would remain as conditional uses in the M3 zone. Alternative B: Allow as a Conditiol2al Use. Under this alternative, meat and seafood products processing, packaging and freezing would be added as a conditional use in the M2 zone. Alternative C: No action. Under this alternative, meat and seafood products packaging, freezing,- curing, canning, processing, rendering and slaughtering activities would not be allowed in the M2 zone and would be conditional uses in the M3 zone. Glen Laney, Architect, Food Plant Engineering, Inc. , 1710 South 24th Avenue, Yakima, WA 98902, representing his client, Harvey Baer of King's Command Meats, Inc. , commented that the request was not for processing in the usual sense, but for the preparation of the meat only. Commissioner Greenstreet asked if he would be willing to obtain a conditional use permit for this activity. Mr. Laney had no objection to the conditional use permit requirement if an appeal process were available. Mr. Satterstrom commented that he did not feel that a conditional use permit should be necessary for this type of use. Commissioner Greenstreet MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Ward MOVED to amend the zoning code to allow meat and seafood products processing, packaging and freezing as a principally permitted use in the M2 zone. Commissioner Forner SECONDED the motion. 2 a Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1989 Commissioner Forner felt that this use would be compatible with other uses in the area, and a conditional use permit would create unnecessary paperwork. Commissioner Greenstreet did not feel that food papa , sling should be permitted outright in the M2 zone, because i may not be suitable at every M2 site and the trucking and lather support activities of this use also would not be compatible with other uses in the M2 zone. He did feel that this use would be suitable as a conditional use in this zone and that this use was suitable outright as an M3 use. He supported Alternative B. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner did not foresee any problems in this specific case but considering future requests, the supported Alternative B. Commissioner Ward felt that the conditional use permit process would be an expensive and unneeded one for food and seafood processing. He supported the staff's Alternative A'4, ' Commissioner Forner felt that' food and seafood processing would be more desirable than a dry cleaning operation in the, M2 zone. She supported Alternative A. Chair Martinez felt that food processing would be compatible with other uses in the area as long as slaughtering and iepdering were not part of the operation. She supported Alternative A. Motion carried. (Commissioners Uhlar-Heffner and Greenstreet opposed the motion. ) Ms. McClung pointed out that the staff recommendation was to allow food processing in both the M2 and M3 zones. Commissioner Ward reworded the motion to state' ' that meat and seafood products processing, packaging and fr, Ing be a principally permitted use in the M2 and M3 zones according to staff Recommendation A. Commissioner Forner SECONDED thiaaot�on. Motion carried. (Commissioners Uhlar-Heffner and GreenstreCat� opposed the motion. ) DOWNTOWN KENT PI AN - Continugd (CENTRAL BUSINES9S AX ICT) Chair Martinez opened the public hearing. Mayor Kelleher suggested that the manufacturing Uoinesses be allowed to continue to operate in the downtown s'ret "as they have been able to do for many years. 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1989 Dick McCann, attorney with Perkins Coie, 1201 Third Avenue, Seattle, referred to a letter dated March 22, 1989 in which the history of the Downtown Kent ,Plan hearings was reviewed. He pointed out that the hearings 'began with two opposing positions and ended nine months later with a compromise. He felt the overlay would be inappropriate 'for this type of zoning. Jerry Hann, Wilsey and Ham, Pacific 1980 112th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98009, stated that even though overlays are often used, they can be confusing and lead to much argument and debate, particularly when conflicting issues are involved in the overlay. If approved, this overlay would require frequent interpretation. Redevelopment of the downtown area is dependent on its economic vitality. Amenities and living improvements must be supported by the economic vitality. There have been many beautification grants that have torn down blighted areas, and those areas have turned into vacant blighted areas. Everett recently amended its comprehensive plan to add about 200 acres of manufacturing east of the downtown area. He pointed out that in Vancouver B. C. False Creek and Granville Island have a vital retail center. In order to get to this retail center from a very expensive hotel, it is necessary to walk past a rock crushing and processing plant. This is an example of a very heavy industry that is working csampatibly with a successful retail center. Manufacturing uses can 4thcourage carpooling, swing shifts, flex-shift times, and remote pork-and-shuttle systems which can help significantly in reducing tM traffic in the area. An office complex couldn't organize sufficiently to have a significant impact on the traffic situation. Chair Martinez asked what kind of manufacturing uses were compatible with a retail area.; Mr. Hanna responded that real compatibility comes with economic compatibility. If you have two uses that are not visually compatible, because they feed on each other economically, they can create a mix that is vital. It isn't the street trees and beautification that makes the downtown vital; it is the feeling of the communitiy that this is the heart of the city. When this occurs, beautification is not difficult to achieve. He felt that the comprehensive plan should set the goals of what the Commission wants to achieve, but the Commission should not try to determine how these goals will be implemented. The Commission cannot accomplish everything, because it takes the cooperation of both the private sector and the public sector. Charles Howard, President of Howard Manufacturing Company, 421 Sixth Avenue North, Kent, submitted a letter dated March 24, 1989 (Exhibit 1) to Chair Martinez and the Commissioners as a response to Chair Martinez' request of February 27, 1989 that the 4 j Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1989 manufacturers state in writing their commitment regarding the implementation of the Kent Downtown Plan. The monetary contribution of Howard Manufacturing, Northwest *ot*1s and Borden Chemical was included with details of combined payroll figures and numbers of employees in all three plants, thotr collective participation and support of civic, charitable, , d government committees and organizations, and Kent Chamber ''o'f {Commerce. The following is quoted from the letter: "Our participation throughout this long planning process demonstrates, we hope, our commitment to the revitalization of Downtown Kent. More specifically, Northwest Metal, for several 'years, has been engaged in continuously upgrading its property. It has refurbished the exterior of its plant, painted, blacktopped, landscaped, and generally enhanced the appearance of its facilities. decently, it has also rerouted truck delivery traffic to keep 6ofigestion off Fourth Avenue in front of its plant. Northwest Metal is committed to continue to upgrade and maintain its plant and to comply with the spirit and letter of the amendments to the Downtown Kent Comprehensive Plan. Frankly, we believe that the Northwest Metal plant is one of the most attractive facilities in Downtown Kent. Howard Manufacturing also has taken steps to' enhance its appearance. The fencing and, landscaping along J#mas ', Street is a big improvement. In addition, Howard Manufacturing has removed the sticks of wood pallets and otherwise generaAy cleaned up its yard. It also has recently installed a gas pipeline which will eliminate offensive smoke stack emissions and improve,,' the quality of air. Although grandfathered under the law, it Also has agreed to remove the Howard Manufacturing sign on top of its plant in the spirit of cooperating with the final adoption of the amendment to the Downtown Kent Comprehensive Plan and Downt©wn ' Land Use Plan Map. Howard Manufacturing also is prepared, ''to 'discuss and implement other reasonable ways of improving the appearance of its plant. Borden also has taken steps to begin to improve its visual appearance to the community. It has recently ' ciit and is now maintaining the open space adjacent to its plant. 'Of the 18 acres owned or leased by Borden, only six acres are actually used for its plant. This leaves 12 acres to buffer the plant facilities, for which extensive landscaping plans are under way. Borden is ready and willing to take other reasonable steps to enhance its appearance to the community." 5 Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1989 This letter was signed by William Kramer of Borden Company, Charles Howard of Howard Manufacturing Company, and Barry Miller of Northwest Metal Products Company. Commissioner Greenstreet asked -If Mr. Howard liked the overlay. Mr. Howard responded "No, he did not." Bill Kramer presented a preliminary landscaping plan which depicted the entire Borden site showing the location of structures and proposed landscaping. He pointed out that Fourth Avenue is the busiest frontage; consequently, it would receive the heaviest landscaping treatment. First Avenue would receive lighter treatment. The plan included green grass, trails through the site and numerous trees. He pointed but that the landscaping would not hide the plant but would contrast it. There would be other visual treatment used to make the site more attractive. He pointed out that the company would not make this type of commitment unless it felt Borden would be able, to continue operation at this site. Jack Strother, Attorney with Graham and Dunn, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, representing Howard Manufacturing, Northwest Metal and Borden Chemical, admitted Exhib. t 1, dated March 24, 1989, into the record and noted that his March 22, 1989 letter should be admitted as Exhibit 2. He pointed out the original division of philosophy with respect to the manufacturers' role and contrasted this with the strong consensus,' ,at this point, 10 months later. During this time the Chamber task Force, Chamber Government Committee and the Chamber Board of Directors all unanimously adopted a plan substantially the ' same as the one unanimously adopted by the Planning Commission. The manufacturers support the staff recommended Downtown Land, Use Plan Map. He opposed the overlay stating it was inconsistt with Policy 1 and would create confusion and uncertainty. Under Goal 5 the land use goals would be reviewed as appropriate, but .not less than every five years. He felt this was adequate. ''He emphasized that the three manufacturers are committed to this City of Kent to do whatever they can, and this should start with economic vitality. Bill Stewart, 224 West Meeker, owner of Stewart's Jewelry and the property at this location, felt 'uncomfortable about the proposed overlay. He felt it would put a cloud on a piece of property in the years to come. Commissioner Greenstreet express6d concern that the downtown area should appear vital and affluent. He hoped the manufacturers would live up to their commitment. Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1989 Dee Moschel, 448 Alpine Way, and owner of property„fn the downtown area, stated that she would like to see Area A (Metro Park and Ride) be retained as a Community Facility rather than ,be designated as Mixed Use. Commissioner Ward MOVED to close the public hearing.,F, ,Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Forner MOVED that the Commission adopt the Land Use Goals and Policies as presented and previoui�ly approved. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner pointed out the following implementation statement: "Review this document as appropriate. (at least every five years. ) " She amended the MOTION to reword this 46pplementation statement as follows: "Review this document at least every five years. Certain sections of this document may be reviewed every year or at the discretion of the Planning Cc *scion. " She expressed particular concern regarding transportation'. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Forner supported the original wording bause she felt the Commission has the authority to ask for ;a review as appropriate. She considered the amendment to be redupd4nt and felt the updates would be counterproductive if they were provided at a time when the Commission was not considering that specific update issue. Commissioner Ward agreed with the intent of the amendment but felt that reviewing the implementation annually would be;unpecessary. Commissioner Greenstreet was concerned about the general appearance of the manufacturing area and agreed that an annual . update would be appropriate. Chair Martinez presented Commissioner Stoner's d roc regarding the review process which included listing spec concerns and periodically obtaining a detailed progress repo l�� riling these concerns. She was hopeful that the downtown ,Uses would be compatible, and she also expressed concern about transportation. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner felt that implementatio)� I,follow up was very important. Mr. Satterstrom presented the following statement suggested by Commissioner Stoner: "The Planning Department ' s*lj work with existing manufacturers and other groups to ' promote the compatibility of existing manufacturing uses with other 7 Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1989 non-industrial uses. The Planning Department shall prepare an annual report to the Planning Commission on the progress of such efforts. " Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner concurred with this statement but wished to have the issue of transportation included. Chair Martinez felt that an annual update was a reasonable request. Discussion followed. Commissioner Ward felt that if the Commission wants to maintain manufacturing as a, viable member of the downtown area, manufacturers should not be req'ired to report each year on their compliance with the plan. Commissioner Greenstreet explained that he desires to have a healthy and vibrant downtown. New businesses might not wish to locate next to manufacturing used. He agreed that the plan should be reviewed each year. Discussion followed. The amended motion was repeated." Review this document at least every five years. Certain sections of this document may be reviewed every year or at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Motion carried. (Commissioners Forner and Ward opposed the motion. ) The original motion was repeated.-' The Planning Commission adopt the Land Use Goals and Policies as presented and amended. Commissioner Ward 19ECONDED The, motion. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Forner MOVED that the Commission adopt the Staff Proposed Downtown Land Use 'Map.", Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Uhlar--Heffner supported the motion and felt that the annual review could accommodate change. 8 Iv • t ' 1 Kent Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet supported the motion but moved to amend the map to designate the Park and Ride Lot as Community Facility rather than Mixed Use. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner SECONDED the motion. Mr. Satterstrom responded that as long as the site remains a park and ride lot, the zoning is unimportant. If the use thould change, the existing M2 zoning would prevail if the zoning wore changed to Community Facility. If Mixed Use designation is adopted, the property might be designated as commercial. Commissioner Greenstreet rescinded the amendment. The previous motion to adopt the Staff Proposed Downtown Land Use Map as presented was carried unanimously. Chair Martinez asked for a commendation to go to Council detailing how much work has come from the community and commending the community for that participation. She noted that this issue started with two opposing sides and has ended with a compromise which the Commission strongly recommends to Council. She emphasized that the Commission would be reviewing their decisions on an annual basis, and that they care very much about the downtown area and how it develops. She thanked those who had persevered for ten arduous months. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, F ed N. Satterstrom Acting Planning Director 9