Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 11/07/1967 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION November 7 , 1967 A meeting of the Kent Planning Commission i,;as called to order at 7 : 40 p . m_ in the Kent City Hall on Tuesday, November 7 , 1967 . The Chairman explain- ed the meeting was a continuation of the public hearing upon the proposed new Comprehensive plan for the City of Kent . Roll was called and those present included Chairman Noel Bicknell , Vice Chairman Fred Frazier, Secretary Richard Land , members Robert Coen , Harlan Bull , Donald Eide , Gordon Hall and Gordon Magness . Also attend- ing were A1. E . Poole , Kent 's Planning Consultant and John B . Bereiter, Kent City Attorney . Mr . Bicknell noted that at the close of the last segment of these public hearings , discussion was in progress on a proposed definition -for public land use and that no final conclusion had been reached. After again out- lining the procedures to be followed during the public hearing, Mr. Bick- nell re-opened the public hearing to further discussion of public land use . Mr. Eide noted he had read written materials at the last meeting and read these materials aloud again (please see attachment 4 , October 31 minutes) . Mr . Tom O 'Connel stated he owned property which the Commission had indicated would be designated for public use and that he objected to such a classification for his land. Mr. Harry Venables , Gerden Clark, attorney Ben Maslan and others gave their opinions on the matter and made suggestions as to the improvement of the definition. After further dis - cussion the public hearing was temporarily closed . Mr . Ei_­ stated he was notsatisfied with the definition read aloud and moved that : "The Planning Commission incorporate into the proposed comprehen- sive plan the following definition of public land use : An area designating existing or future public use and that uses of land encompassed within such an area not publicly owned shall generally be compatible with that of surrounding areas . " The motion was seconded by Richard Land and carried when a vote was taken . The next item to be considered was that of residential uses . Materials relating thereto were read aloud of Mr . Hall (please see attachment S) . After brief explanation, the public hearing was again re-opened. Stewart Rogers of Bellevue , attorney Mel Kleweno, M. E . Poole , Lou Peretti , Gerden Clark, Mr . Hall and Mr . Land, Laura Straub , Don Olson, Mike Waznick and others all voiced their opinions and/or made inquiries about the subject use . Many of the inquiries related to specific parcels of land and the Chairman again reminded those present that at this time the only pertin- ent matter for discussion was the concept and the intent of residential use . After considerable further discussion , a motion was made by Gordon , Hall and seconded by Robert Coen that: "The Planning Cosuiission incorporate into the proposed comprehen- sive plan the definition of residential uses as presented this date (please see attachment 5) . " When a vote was called, the motion carried . The next matter to be heard was concerning industrial. uses . Mr. Fide noted that a written report totalling 11 pages had been prepared and that although he would not read the entire text copies thereof were available and stated he did wish to read aloud the proposed definitions . He did so (see page 11 of attachment 7 for industrial land use and industrial park land use) , after which the public hearing was again re -opened. Kent Planning Commission - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - --- November 7 ,. 1967 Page Two A motion was made , seconded and carried that the report (please see attachment 7) be made a part of theiecord. Mr. Maslan , Mr . Klewano , Mr . Bull and others made comments and asked questions regarding the proposed definition . When asked by Mr . Klewano why the proposed new comprehensive plan is being proposed, Mr. Bicknell. read aloud a letter from James Curran, dated February 11, 1966 , in which this esteemed gentlemen and pillar of the community urged the Planning Commission to take action in a number of areas , including a possible revision of the comprehensive plan . After considerable discussion of the proposed definition, the public hearing was temporarily closed. The Chairman declared a five min- ute recess . Meeting reconvened at 9 : 37 , after which a motion was made by Donald Eide and seconded by Richard Land that : "The Planning Commission incorporate into the proposed comprehensive plan the following definition for industrial land use : An area re- served for uses generallly known as heavy and light industry. Indust- ries permitted in this area will generally be allowed maximum noxious effects , minimal setbacks and minimal lot. coverage restrictions . Re- sidential uses shall be restricted to caretaker facilities incidental to the operation . Such an area will permit compatible public uses . " Motion carried. Mr . Eide further moved, seconded by Gordon Hall , that : "The Planning Commission incorporate into the proposed comprehensive plan the following definition for industrial park land use : An area established to provide high standards of opeation and environment which is reserved for uses generally known as heavy and light Indust- ry where operational development plans and subsequent operation clearly demonstrate that processes will be controlled so as to mini- mize external noxious effects . Reasonable setbacks , screening, marginal landscaping and lot coverage restrictions will be the essence of this concept . Residential use shall be restricted to caretaker facilities incidental to the operation . Commercial uses shall be restricted to service garages , branch banks, restaurants , high rise transient lodging accommodations , regional home offices and offices incidental to the industrial use . Public facilities will be permitted. When a vote was called the motion carried, with Harlan Bull. voting "nay" . The next item to be considered was the proposed definition for commercial use . Richard Land read aloud a proposed definition (see attachment 6) , after which the public hearing was re-opened to consider this matter. Mr . Klewano, Mr. Eide , Mr. Maslan and Gerden Clark al. l expressed them- selves and/or raised various questions which the Commission endeavored to answer . High rises uses was the object of much discussion . After some time , the public hearing was closed temporarily . A motion was made by Richard Land and seconded by Gordon Hall that : "The Planning Commission incorporate into the proposed comprehensive plan the following definition for commercial use : Areas designated to conduct the community 's commerce which include primarily retail stores and offices buildings and other uses generally considered compatible therewith, including high rise transient lodging accom- modations and services ." When a vote was called , the motion carrier . Kent Planning Commission - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - November 7 , 1967 Page Three The Chairman noted it was near time set for temporary adjournment and stated that the next item to be before the public hearing would be densi- ties . Since this item would take some time , Mr. Bicknell declared the public hearing on the proposed new comprehensive plan continued until the evening of Tuesday, November 21 , 1967 at 7 : 30 p .m. in the City Hall of the City of Kent . He explained that the following Tuesday , November 14 , would be the regular monthly meeting of the Commission at which rezone applica- tions and like matters would be considered. Mr. Bicknell urged all interested citizens to be in attendance at the continuance of the hearings on the comprehensive plan and temporarily adjourned the meeting at 10: 00 P .M. /s/ Richard Land Secretary Printed & Distributed Monday, November 13 , 1967 . Attachment Page 1 of 2 Rcsidentiaz Areas Relatingto Com;u-elicnsive Plan Clarification of Intent The m,ip of the proposed Comprehensive Plan purports to sho%v those areas which are ,generally adnptabi.c for resi.dcntial use or a!i being use,' ror such at the present time . Thc, figure "G" that is distributed throughout the map is to be consi,lcrcd only as a symbol of residential use , and ill generrilization only . does it indicate wiuit are the prop ant singl:! residence areas and also where residential areas c,in be considered'.-as being compatible with the Comprehensive Plan . It is to be understood that the terminoloc,y "residolic ." as is related to the Comprehensive Plan also includes nsulti-resi- dential use . The map also signifies by larger figures where multi-residential areas , existing or future , are considered appropriate to the surroundings of certain existing commel: centers . as buffer zones , in transition to the single resi- dential areas . It is to be considered and understood that a Cosnprehenrsivc Plan is only a format for development ; specific areas of zoning cannot be incorporntcd into it . Theref4,re zoning; cat:cp_ories covering residential uses within the d( .:cribcd resid..nci;;l aren_ cannot be specifically delineated; it mist allow lal:itude in this regard for the development of the related zoning plan, and that plan must be specific before .it is adopted . It will be encumbent upon the Planning Commission when pursuir. the development of the forthcoming zoning plan to talc into consid^_ration those areas that are presently designated for multiple residential use and to tailor these into the Man . al o to describe the density requirements roi• those area:s w1iich ttati-c. not been doveloped or not in the process or develolxuent by Lise tir.: th<1t the, revised zoning ordinance may be adopted . It is to be further understood that and �r the concept of the Comprehensive Plan , multi-residential devel.ol,mont within single residential areas as will be dcs:.ribed under the fort"- zoning ordinance as single resi(lcnce areas , %%-ill not necessarily be incompatible with these ;kroas . By .rirtue of this fact it .sill be required of the_ Plann:i s -: Commission to consid,.r chin.-cs or zoning from single residcs;c- status to ! iulti-residence upon request and upon certain criteri:� including , but not necessarily limited to the following r:ctOrs : 1 . Thcrc being a gcnui.ne need. ?. Ground coverage & density use consistent wit": the requirements of the Spec i. t' Led zone. Avoidance of detrimental cffc <� t upon rroun dill�,_s . Availability of public facilities and scr:•ic• s . j. Resulting traffic generated r _> it may rel: i.c cc% public safety. 6, Present traffic patterns in the area and str: ci characteristi-cs . Attachn;.ent 5 Page 2 of 2 7. Proximity to business areas . 3. Topography of the area. 9 . Proximity of otlier multi-resid(.,ntial areas 10. A public licaring. With reference to the forthcoming zoning plan as it Compraliensive Plan and in relation to density nro•:isious . ti:e Commission proposes to incorporate the basic features of the sent It-1 zone , includi.ng some inccutive,s as an indnce:aOnz for - struction under the concepts of a Plaunetl Unit Dev:lopaicnt . Planning Cornmis.sion further intend n Co give considcl•nLion to t. .: posts hi ity of developing; a zone whorel,y in certain arena: , ltig;h-rise apartments may be coin. Lructad t:iL;iou : deLrim. ,. to tho neighborhood. Such developmouL . if determined Lo be wou.la allow higher density use than hhr, L i. an Az one , but :.it:: ;; �,�� � . sacritice>of desirable open space and �uaans = ab—tv-- -requ:_:: menu relating to a Planned Unit Development . Proposed Motion It is recommended the following definition be incorporated in the proposed Plan and Text : Residential Land Use Areas designating exist:i;ng or future uses which when developed will create residential neighborhoods than meet the needs of family life. This goal will be achieved by consideration of the following factors: I . Centrally located elementary schools serving each neighborhood �PP�oyna���y 2 . ApFrrr n e-ly located p I ayground-parks in the neighborhoods 3 . Local shops to meet daily household needs, grouped together at accessible points . 4 . Residential living environments where the internal street system discourages through traffic and where major thoroughfares preferably bound the neighborhoods; centrally located community buildings; and a harmony of design and development that helps establish and maintain a healtliv and satisfying environment . Attachment 6 Page 1 of 1 It is recommended the following definition be incorporated in the proposed Plan and Text : Commercial Land Use Areas designated to conduct the community' s commerce which is composed primarily of retail stores and office buildings and other uses generally considered compatible therewith , Attachment 7 0 INDUSTRIAL A"ZZAS RELATING TO COMPREkI 13SIVE PLivJ Clarification of Intent Pfany metropolitan industrial areas throughout the country are today suffering the stigma of blight and ugliness . The con- sequences of the lack of foresight and proper planning are serious and alarming. The impact of the deterioration of social climate and 'economic setbacks is requiring costly emergency corrective surgery. An indifference to the need to control air and water pollution had been the rule rather than the exception . It is evident that little or no consideration was given to en- vironmental control. Reverberations from Washington D.C. in recent years are ominous notes of warning for all to heed. It says , if we are willing to hear , that communities must effectively and adequately plan orderly growth and maintain environmental control , or such planning shall be imposed from higher levels of government . The welfare of the public is at stake . Organizations to implement :.his action are established and are alady to move , should local. governments fail to meet their responsibilities in planning. The Planning Commission believes that the right of I:ent to control its planning for groi,th on an orderly basis should not be forfeited. The views and comments which f.ollo,.•: are predicated upon this concept . Your Planning Co.-mmission bears a direct responsibility therefore . to diligently remain abreast of the growth potentials affecting the city and . by the e"crcise of fares_ Pub and forethought ma?.e recorimendat:ions for i.mplement.i.ng orderly growth of the community in harmony with its environs . In keeping with its official Page Two • . responsibilities , the comi-Assi.on Must review the trends of record and be prepared to recommend changes that are deemed - to be conducive to the general welfare of the public and to the betterment of the city . When the 1960 comprehensive plan was developed , the rapid industrial growth i•;hich was to coiamence after a lag of several years , did not then appear imminent . Nor was it then known how fast the population of the area was to increase. It could not then have been foreseen that in 1967 it would be predicted that by 1985 the population in Bing County will have increased by 800 000 which, in magnitude , is equivalent to another city larger than Seattle is today. In 1960 the die was cast for the inevitable expansion of industrial development in the valley. The land to the north of the city was then preponderately in open 'space and agricultural use and , at that time agriculture was a prime factor of the city' s economy. The city was eagerly anticipating industrial development Promotional effort was being made at many levels . Quality was then not a main consideration . The comprehensive plan and zoninJ ordinance cc.iceived in 1960 was therefore a declaration that Lent was desirous of obtaining in- dustry. In those docuiaents , however , the only juide lines refer- enced to quality pertain to obnoxious elements inherent to some industries which , if not controlled , would be detrimental to the environment of the city. There are no restrictions as to land coverage relating to the industrial zones in the 1960 zcning ordi- Page Three nance , hence wall to wall congestion is virtually being invited. The city is now vulnerable to a disorderly growth of its industrial area tm-' other than by the avoidance of this by self imposed discipline on the part of industry. An essential ingredient for implementing orderly growth is environmental control. Open space is elemental to environmental control . The inherent dangers due to a lack of control in this regard became into focus when the economic forces resulting from the industrial expansion came into play. This is one of the concerns ti.hich motivated the Planning Commission to develop the proposed comprehensive plan now before the public for hearing. Another area of concern relates to the MI-A zone contained in the 1960 zoning ordinance . This zone. indicates land that is transitional from agricultural use to industrial . It contains no guide lines . It provides no latitude for decision on the part of the city. The element of need cannot be considered. From time to time , the Planning CorNiission has found itself a witting but unwilling instrument in affecting premature changes to less restrictive zones . Under this situation , neither the Planning Commission nor the applicant has any knoi;*ledge at the time as to the type of development that may be intended for the location , nor when construction will. start . It is the opinion of the Planning Commission that the present practice is detri;:iental to the city. It believes that it is to the benefit of the public that requests for zone changes should be supported by evidence of actual need because it otheri,-ise deprives the city of one means of affecting orderly growth. Page Four • The commission became concerned about what was happening much before the time that it was kno:-n that the Boeing plant was to be established in the valley. This concern was one of the reasons why it initiated by recommendation , the late 701 study by Graham & Co. At that time , however. the most evident pressing problem was to determine a means by which the identifying core area of Bent , commonly referred to as the CBD District , could be secured and revitalized. Consequently, the preponderance of the study by Graham & Co. was devoted to that phase of development . In their study only nominal consideration was given to the 1960 zoning ordinance . Toward the end of the study. it became apparent to the Planning Commission that insufficient attention was Bing given to this important element of the plan and the commission made this knoim to Graham & Co. As a consequence .. a representative of that company sat s•rith the study committee of the commission on several occasions . Workshop sessions conti hued after the time the Graham study had been completed. when the items of concern were gone over in depth. The research disclosed other inadequacies in the 1960 plan . It became evident that it would not be practical to revise the plan by amending it on a fragmental basis . A complete revision of the zoning ordinance and thus the comprehensive plan which is complementary to the zoning ordinance and which must, by a legal necessity, precede the zoning ordinance , becomes necessary. This therefore is another reason for the preparation of t-he proposed comprehensive plan whic`, is i;o.4 before the public for hearing. Page Five Another area of concern by the Planning Commission is hereby provided for public information so that it will better understand the reasons underlying the recommendations it is proposing. It is pointed out that the present zoning ordinance at the time of its adoption , established an M-2 zone , for heavy industry in the area in the northerly part of the city that lies between the NPRR and the East Valley Highway. It is a logical designation for such due to the proximity of existing rail facilities .. An M-1 zone . for light industry was prescribed , but was not interpreted to the map and most of the valley area that was then new in Kent was designated as M-A. As previously mentioned, the M-A zone is a zone considered to be transitional from agricultural use to industrial use. The 1960 comprehensive plan does not provide criteria for determining to which portions of the valley the M-2 heavy industry should be confined. By this fact , it is implied that this is left to the discretion of the city. Until recently, it has been the opinion of the Planning Commission that M-2 zoning should not extend west of the Milwaukee so that a proper transition to a more restricted area in keeping with planning principles could be maintained between the railway and the river. The same thinking has applied to the area lying east of the East Valley Highway in the flat land. The Plannin- Coimmiission has therefore acted accordingly in recent years when affecting zone changes that have been requested in those areas . In the propose( compre nsl - plan . the comm:ission is reC.JI;11::::17 din„ that t less restrictive industrial zone should be extended to the idest Valley Highway. Page Six Due to there being no limitations of density , in the Al-2 and 1d-1 zones , modification of the M-1 zone has bean considered in study sessions whereby reasonable allowances for open space in interest of environmental control , hence in the bast interests of the public , could be achieved. The study group had agreed to propose reason- able setback requirements and marginal landscaping requirements along fronting streets . To support these conclusions , strong consideration was given to the fact .that a. number of the established industries have protected their amenities along those lines of their own volition , thus providing enviromental benefit to the public as well as to themselves . This is a fortunate trend, but the ordinance does not provide assurance that this will always be the case . The Planning Commission considers it is important that environ- mental qualities should not be sacrificed in the interest of expendiency. It believes that reasonable controls applied on a uniform basis are essential to an orderly industrial growth of the city and to the vrelfare of the present and future citizens thereof. With reference to the aforementioned studies and the tentative recommendations aJreed upon by the study groups to amend the M-1 zone to affect such controls , the Planning Cotn;nission 1-L sub- sequently advised that there was some doubt that such provisions would be enforceable under the 1960 comprehensive plan . Further research and consultation therefore became necessary. Page Seven 0 A new avenue of approach emerged, which is the "industrial park" concept referred to in the proposed comprehensive plan . It is not a new concept in the field of planning but it is new to Kent . It . is a matter of record that industry itself took the leadership in the development of the principle of industrial park planning. Subsequently, public planners accepted it as a desirable technique . In the first instance , the desired standard of amenities are controlled by covenants established by the developer . , Under public planning authority, the performance standards to be met are set forth as legal requirements and so instrumented. Under public planning concepts , the term "industrial park" is tantamount to emphasis upon performance standards . The PlanninS Commission 's reco;mner.dation that this concept be adopted in the proposed comprehensive plan is as a consequence of the points of concern highligated herein , having been taken into consideration . and all were deliberated in depth during the study periods by the planning members . By the adoption of the industrial park concept in the comprehensive plan , the intent and' ob,jective of that plan to influence desirable performance standards for industrial expansion will be made legally clear. As stated earlier , the 1960 plan does not incorporate such intent . As it relates to the co,-iprehen v sie plan the ter;:i "industrial paric is to be considered as a type of area and in that sense it is not capitalized. I-nien eventually reduced to zo_,in it ;•.iZl becc::ie a capitalized. ter,m under zoning category. The mooning Shen established must be precise in context and the areas :r:ust bc3 specifically defineu Page Eight and, as a zoning plan , will be subject to public hearings before the plan may be adopted. It is to be understood that regulation requiring uniform performance standards throughout the areas designated as industrial park will be affected if the plan is adopted. For reasons which have been stated, the Planning Commission is recoimacnding the adoption , as it believes such regulation is necessary for the .guidance of orderly development of the city and is therefore in the best interests of the public. Some of the features to be given consideration by the Planning Commission when establishing zoning requirements in the industrial park areas will be : minimum lot size , possibly not less than 1 or 2 acres ; maximum lot size , tentatively bein considered as unlimited to permit flexibility in placements . Total ground coverage of a given parcel will not be permitted and . the percentage of coverage to be allowed will be consistent with the overall intent embodied in the industrial park concept and coaunensurate with the lot size. Practices else:,rhere and the views of the owners of the property ..rill be taken into consideration by the Planning Commission in further- ing its studies . Reasonable street frontage setbac'_cs will be considered commensurate with the lot size . Marginal landscaping fronting streets will be recommended. Screening of property by tree pl-antin- will be proposed as a requirement under certain situations and as may be deemed necessary by the city for the protections of the irrumediate environs of the area and for the benefit of the general public . As emphasis is beinu placad upon having higher standards of performance in the industrial park areas and is intended, a feature Page Nine • of the related zoning plan that follows will be a requirement that construction plans must be submitted to the city before proceeding . Since plans always proceed construction , it is believed that this requirement should not pose a problem. Among the factors that will be taken into consideration at that time will be : characteristics of processing , the size of lot in relation to the nature of operation : situations that may be detri- mental to the surroundings , potentials of pollution to air , water and ground, noise factors , employee count as it relates to parking, traffic generation , shipping characteristics , public hazards , out- door storage requirements , structural characteristics and require- ments of public facilities . In the development of the forthcoming zoning ordinance as it relates to the industrial park areas ., it is the intention of the planning commission to propose and recommend that the folloz:-in; categories of use be also permitted in the industrial park areas : regional offices , transient lodging facilities , restaurants , service garages branch banics and public facilities . Under the concepts of an industrial park, retail outlets and general commercial enterprises will not be permitted in those areas other than those that may be incidental to the internal operations of restaurants and service garages . nor will residences be allowed , other than dwellings for caretakers . With reference to the proposed co-3prehensive map , which is before this hearing , it indicates that one of the industrial park areas extends westwardly from the East Valley Highway. For the purpose of clarification of the intent , this will advise: that it is only , Page Ten the area that lays on the east side of the Fast Valley Highway which is bein.- proposed as an industrial park area. It is to be realized that the map is only a guide line . By eliminating the M-A zone as proposed and by establishing the industrial park concept in the areas of reference , it will pre- clude having to make zone changes on a piecemeal basis as is no-or the case . Furthermore , by so doing it will eliminate the un- certainty as to what is intended for the industrial segment of the city. The foregoing thus suiamarizes the thought-process upon which the recommendations now before the public for hearing have been conceived. The Planning Commission considers the proposals to be sound. They are based upon recognized principles of public planning. It submits for consideration by the people of dent that the adoption of the reconwiondations set forth in the proposed com- prehensive plan will be in the best interests of the public . The objectives are framed by the premise that what tomorrow 1•rill look like will depend upon irhat we plan today. The exercise of fore- sight and forethought is an essential ingredient to good planning,, . Page Eleven w h It is recommended that the following definitions be incorporated in the proposed Text and Plan : Industrial Land Use An area reserved for uses generally known as heavy and light industry. Industries permitted in this_ area iri.11 generally be allowed maximum legal noxious effects , minimal setbacks and minimal lot coverage restrictions.. Residential use shall be restricted to 'caretaker facilities incidental to the operation . Industrial Park Land Use An area established to provide high standards of operation and enviro-ru:ient irhich is reserved for uses gaicrally kno-rn as heavy and light industry where the operational development plans and subsequent operation clearly demonstrate that processes will be controlled so as to minimize external noxious effects . R3ason- able setbacks . screening , marginal landscaping and lot coverage restrictions will be the essence of this concept. Residential use shall be restricted to caretaker facilities incidental to the operation . Commercial uses shaLl , be restricted to service {:. rt, NC-fs garages . branch banks , restaurants .,-�ransze t lodging p.cco.:;r:io- dations . regional home offices and offices incidental to the industrial use. Public facilities i•:ill be permitted.