Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 10/31/1967 KEN•1 PIANNING COP•MISSION October 31 , 1967 A meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by the Chai_rma.n at 7 : 40 p .m. in the Kent City- I:al.l on Tuesday e�Vening , October 31 , 1967 . The Chairman noted that the meeting s.as a continuation of the hearing held on October 24 , 1.967 . Roll was cabled and those preselit on the Commission included Chairman Noel Bicknell, Vice Chairman Fred Frazier, Secretary Richard Land , mcm- bers Robert Coen , Harlan Bull, Donald Eide , Gordon hall and Gordon Magness . Also attending were the City Engineer , Glen Sherwood, the City Attorney, Jack Bereiter and the City Planning Consultant , M. E . Poole. All members having received minutes of the last Commission meeting, the same were approved as printed and distributed. Mr . Bicknell noted that the last meeting had temporarily adjourned with the public hearing open . A motion was made , seconded and carried that the public hearing be temporarily closed. Mr. Bicknell stated that at the last hearing a number of questions had been raised and the Commission hoped to deal with these by supplviiig further information and explanation , especi- c_ally in defining the various terms used in the proposed new comprehensive plan . He noted the rules for the public hearing would be similar to those utilized at the first portion ofthe hearing, held October 24 . tiir. Bicknell further explained that in order to --over all the items , an agenda had beer prepared and i l:as hoped it "would be followed. The agenda was highlighted by means of L. projector, so that all present could read it . b4r . Bicknell explained each point would be explained, after which the public heartn.g would be reopened for discussion, before moving on to the next point on the agenda . After some further explanation, item a of the General Intent was read aloud by Mr . Eide (please see attachment for text) . Mr . Frazier read aloud item b of that same section (please see attachment) and John Bereiter , the City Attorney, gave a presentation on item b - "is zoning the same tiling as the Comprehensive Plan" . In his remarks , Nlr . Bereiter referred to a standard zoning text , "Local Planning Administration", as well as Washington State Statutes (RCW 3S . 63 . 090 and RCW 35 . 63 . 080) , in which he gave the legal basis for a comprehensive plan and in which it was noted that the state requires that a comprehensive plan be adopted before zoning ordinances are adopted . A motion was made , seconded and carried that the public hearing be reopened . The Chairman requested tl-iat all remarks be addressed to the topics just dealt with by the Commission members . Mr. Lou Perretti reG'Uested permission to sneak, en behalf tl~ree corporations and two companies . Mr . Perretti asked whether if; when a ' 7 l n 1.•' u l t-v to re ' '1r` to 'comprehensive plan is adop �.c.d , the Con.m__ss .o__ ca d live �.:; . ,. it . Mr. Bicknell assured him the Commission -would . Mr. K. A. San-,,Tick , Jr. StatP,Cl }i2 lid not on be Jal:- a':y 07 the companies with which he is affiliated that oG•rn property in Kent but said he did feel a nominal statement should be made . His statement's in fact , most nominal . Mr. John O ' Rouke , Seattle attorney, stated he represented tu,o Clients who held nine parcels of property and ire wc+ndered i }let made the present comprehensive plan obsolete aT1Ci defective . IT . Bicknell stated this would be discussed in greater detail later and reminded Mr. O' Rourke that several examples had already been given . Kent Planning Commission - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - -- October 31 , 1967 Page Two Mi-. Bicknell inquired if there was a representative of the Kent Chamber present who wished to make a comment upon the material presented and re - ceived no response . Mr . Harry Olson , attorney Mel Kleweno , Mr. Hunter and other raised questions and made comments , after which the public hearing was temporarily closed again . Mr . Robert Coen read aloud material for item 2 on agricultural use (please see attachment) .After some further comment by Commission mem- bers , the public hearing was again reopened . The City Attorney noted it was his understanding of this definition that if it were adopted, there would still have to be separate consideration given the areas so design- ated. Merlin Jensen of Royal Realty gave his opinions on the areas to which agricultural uses should be confined. Mr. Curran concurred with Mr. Jensen and stated he felt the Commission shortsighted for expecting to retain any of the valley floor for this use . Mr. Perretti spoke in agreement , saying he felt it was already too late to try to do this . Mr. Clark of Investment Exchange also objected to the Commission ' s recommend- ations in this regard. This use and the definition thereof were discussed at considerable length , with John O' Rourke and Gib Kendall objecting to the areas tentatively designated on the proposed comprehensive plan . The City Attorney assured those present that such a designation would not inhibit the property owners from using the land until such time as the municipality might be in a position to acquire it and noted such acquisi- tion would be on the basis of the fair market value of the property at VIC time of purchase . Mr . Herb Pohl and Dr . Melvin Rugg both spoke , stating their views on this use , after which the public hearing was temporarily closed, by motion duly seconded and carried . A motion was made by Richard Land and seconded by Mr . Hall that: "The definition of agricultural use , as presented at this meeting (please see attachment 21 be adopted by the Plan— ning Commission in connection with the proposed Comprehen- sive Plan, presently being considered by the Commission. " When a voted was called, the motion carried unanimously . The next matter on the agenda was item 3 , buffer use and material relat- ing thereto was read aloud by Harlan Bull (please see attachment. 3) . Upon a motion duly made , seconded and carried, the public hearing was re- opened for discussion . Mr . O' Rourke , Mr . Klewano and others , including Mr. Springer, questioned the interpretation of this definition and after discussion, it became apparent furt;ier clarification would be desirable . The public hearing was temporarily closed, after which a motion was made by Donald Fide and seconded by Robert Coen that : "Further discussion on this item (buffer use) be tabled and this matter be referred to a workshop committee of the Commission for further refinement and presentation to the public at a later time . " When a vote was called , the motion carried unanimously. The next item to be considered, item 4 - public use , was read aloud by Gordon Magness (please see attachment 4) . After brief explanation, a motion was made , seconded and carried that the public hearing be re- opened once again . Harry Olson, Gib Kendall , Irvin Calvert , Herb Pohl , Kent Planning Commission _ _ - _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ October 31 , 1967 Page Three Verden Clark , James Curran , Dr . Melvin Rugg, John O'Rourke and Mr . Cl.ein all voiced opinions on the concept . Most of the gentlemen, either repre- selves as property owners or on behalf other property owners , senting them protested the designation of property for public use , stating this re- stricted the use of the land. Mir . Bereiter stated that the land would be zoned for specific uses , but would be designated publicpublic use in order to specify that at some future time the City hopes this land will be developed for public use . It was also noted that in order to qualify for federal matching funds it was necessary that certain areas be so shown in a municipality 's comprehensive plan. It was also noted that the areas tentatively designated on the proposed comprehensive plan were placed in conjuntion with the recommendations of the City 's Park and Recreation department . The Chairman noted it was 10 : 30 , the hour previously designated for ad- journment and asked for a motion to close the public hearing on a tempor- ary basis . The motion was supplied , seconded and carried . Mr. Bicknell noted the hearing would reconvene at 7 : 30 p . m. in the Kent City Hall on Tuesday , November 7 , 1967 and asked all interested persons to be in attendance . Meeting temporarily adjourned at 10 :3.5 p .m. /s/ Richard Land Secretary Printed $ Distributed Tuesday, November 6 , 1967 . • Attachment 1 a GENERAL CLARIFICATION OF INTENT ( a) What_ is_the Cor�rehensive Plan? The official comprehensive plan is the document legally adopted by the City Council after proper public hearings have been held before the City Planning Commission and the City Council . This document, consisting of both text and map, converts community-wide goals and aspirations into policies to be used as a guide in the orderly development of the City. The Plan presently before the public is a "preliminary draft" or "proposed plan" prepared by the Planning Commission for presentation to the public to test the public sentiment . . Only in this manner can the public give expression to the three possible alternatives which are : I . Embrace the goals as proposed 2 . Suggest alternative goals in part or in total . 3. Reject in favor of existing plan . Attachment 1 b • Page one of two General Clarification of Intent (b) Why is a Revised Plan Desirable at this Time? The City of Kent is rapidly changing; houses, apartments, stores and factories are being built on vacant land opened to development by new roads and highways as well as by new utilities services . This development is occurring at a rate unprecedented in this region . To guide this rapid growth and development, it is the concensus of a number of Kent citizens and city officials that a revised plan is needed now, one that provides the necessary framework for future decisions. The opinion is offered to the public that a more current and concise policy should be formulated to provide this framework for future development . Some of the specific areas of concern which motivate this present hearing are listed as follows: I . The July 1959 Ivan Bloch � Associates Report used as basis for the 1960 Comprehensive Plan, concludes that Kent City proper 1958 population is expected to double by 1970, whereas the proposed 1967 Plan now forecasts a 1970 population in excess of_triple the 1958 population. 2 . The July 1959 Ivan Bloch Report recognized that in some instances the thoroughfares shown on the Plan do not form a discernible pattern of neighborhoods because the neigh- borhood had not yet developed and the perimeter boundary streets were yet in the county . Because of the status of reorganization of the county planning operation, Ivan Bloch recognizes it was not possible at that time to make headway on anticipation of future thoroughfare and collector patterns for the street system in those areas showing signs of seeking admission to the city . The Planning Commission was admonished at that time to initiate future joint determinations with the county to establish major road patterns in the fringe areas . 3 . Even prior to the city's contracting with John Graham Company in August 1964., in part for evaluation of Kent Planning, the City Council on occasion has expressed con- cern as to the adequacy of the 1960 Plan . Attachment I b Page two of two 4 . Experiences encountered by the Planning Commission in numerous public hearings of requests for rezone indicate that the f-ramework of the 1960 Plan does not in some cases adequately provide guidance to t-he members in their deiiber- . ations and subsequent recommendations to the City Council for legal adoption . • Attachment Z Ac-ricultutrn AAs It liel at(>s. to mac, :; cla--j :f,i_c;.Lio:i of 1Y; 1.Kr'i1. Under the proposed CoInprohensive Plan c+ rta:in 1p.nd in .cnt lying, on the West side of Green 1'd'ver s dosignated for a:-ri- cultural use . An a_e-ricu.ltura.l d-.:.trict �_eserles a rice ltin-al lands and discourn�-es the encroac;imc.tit oi' urban-t•.po dcvLclop- men" in areas that have been or still arc in agricul_tu�,-!. u_e . Under the present plan , ac'aopted in 1360 _ that re': as. RA classification which is a tranr;itional zone f oni ac�ricultu_�al to residential use and al-lows a mi.nirmua jot of 1 acre F;er resi- dence and certain public facilities . The proposal by the Planning Commission 10 c1.1^.ssify thi_= land as agriculture is based upon ; (1) that it is in the best i::-�erest of the public to limit industrial development to the ec,st side of the river in that area wliere the river m.,anders alon- t .ie west side of the valley and thereby establ.i.s{, i ng a Buffer z n+ Betz, ten industrial areas and the more westerly f and uhicli is J,(,cll Li._�rly adaptable .for residential use and; (2 ) t:iat this `ras ot•>iouely the intent of tee 1960 plan which is pr ::;ently of 'eci4 By fire proposal . under the comprehensi: elan , it 1<s i_rt ndcd b the Planning Coinrnission tIrat when it cc::siders the fortl:cominf, related zoning ordinance , to prescribe cc,;nparablc usc,s in 'Lire agricultural zone which arc presently .-7_loared n ; : ii;', 1= sent RA zone , or as may be modified pursuant o public h. rir at tie forti.coriin zoning lu,arings . It is the opinion of t,re Planning Commis:-,ion that iuturc request for higher density residential use pertninin,- to tyre wren in re- fcrerice nrur:t be cnns:i<lered in re.l:at:i_on ! -> th( c:n :in^ t;:,- d at th„ tiuic that: such .roqucsts may be flindr, . Proposed Motion It is recommended the following definition be incorporated in the proposed P,Lan and Text : Agriculture !and Use An area preserved primarily for agriculture which discourages the encroachment of urban-type development , in general uses considered compatible in this area shall be: Agriculture, dairying, grazing , horticulture excluding commercial or industrial processing or manufacturing Stands for the sale of agricultural or horticultural products grown and harvested on the premises Single family dwellings including quarters for hired help Accessory uses, buildings and structures Home occupations Open space territory Parks, playgrounds and public facilities Churches Attachment 3 It is recommended the following definition be incorporated in the proposed Man and Text : Buffer Land Usc Areas designated to insulate two or more dissimilar land uses, which would not otherwise be harmonious. In general uses considered acceptable in buffer areas shall be those uses permitted in the dissimilar areas which will not conflict when located in close proximity. Attachment n, Public Use As It Relates tc Conpreliensive Plrtn Clarification of lute ::t Tile map of tile. pr Oposcd. CJmpr eheI:E1vC L to d"oslgnates certaill areas for public use such as parlcs i�nd open space , but not necessarily limited to these public rc+c_uirements , ihesc areas have been determined by studies .by cos; )etent planner_,, consul_taats in co3laboration with the Kent Parr Department and the Plannin�, - Commission . A number of tale sites so indicated. arc presen tly privy ( ly 01'M The intent of describing these areas to the map coverin._ the pre- posed plan is to establishthe record t:iat future acquisition of these parcels may be desirable in the best interests of the public . By so indicating . this does not preclurle the use of these properris= by their owners in the mean time. It is intended and is to be understood that such uses will be compatible with the surroundings and iL :gill be upon this premise that the forthcoming zoning decisions relating to the cornprehensivc plan and pertaining to the respective rtrcas in reference, shall 1L,: determined by the Planning Commission :in preparing its recornmen('rz- tions to the city council . Proposed Motion_ It is recommended the following definition be incorporated in the proposed Plan and Text : Public Land Use An area designating existing or future public use . Interim uses of land not publicly owned shall generally be compatible with that of surrounding areas .