HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 10/21/1997 (3) • CITY OF I 1�11 SV
CITY COJTNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
AGENDA Jim White, Mayor
— df3�L�9P6�
OCTOBER 21, 1997
THE CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE IS HOLDING A PUBLIC MEE77NG ON
OCTOBER 21,_1997AT 4.00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS EAST ROOM OF KENT CITY
HALL AT 220 FOURTH AVENUE SOUT73.
Cgmmi tee Mem ers
Leona Orr, Chair
Jon Johnson
Tim Clark
AGENDA
1. Downtown Strategic Action Plan - ACTION ITEM - YO Minutes
(J. Harris/L. Phillips)
2. Sea-Tac Transmission Citizen Concern - INFORMATION - lQ Minutes
(F. Satterstrom)
3. Water Treatment Facility - (F. Satterstrom) ACTION ITEM - 5 Minutes
4. Regulatory Review - Churches in M-2 - ACTION ITEM - 5 Minutes
(F. Satterstrom)
ANY PERSON REQUIRLN'G A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY IN ADVANCE FOR
MORE INFORMATION. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE, CALL 1-800-635-9993 OR THE CITY OF KENT AT
(206)813-2068.
mp:c:pc1021997.agn
2204th AVENUE SOU"IH / KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895/'I ULLPHONE (253)859-3300
CITY OF ZQ]J�l1V�
Jim White, Mayor
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
To: LEONA ORR, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE, TIM CLARK AND JON JOHNSON
From: JAMES P. HARRIS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
Date: AUGUST 14, 1997
Subject: PROPOSED DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN AND INTEGRATED
PRELIMINARY FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
As discussed in a memo to the Planning Committee from Linda Phillips, dated July 15, 1997,
the Land Use and Planning Board recommended approval of the Downtown Plan to the City
Council, on June 2nd with 9 modifications.
The Board's recommendation was presented to the Council at its Public Meeting on July 1st.
At that time the plan was referred to the Planning Committee where two meetings have been
held; July 15th and August 6th.
Following is an outline of the plan's proposals with an emphasis on the different Downtown
districts. The document that this outline comes from is dated June 13, 1997 and is titled:
CITY OF KENT
DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN
AND
INTEGRATED PRELINIINARY FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PART I
INTRODUCTION page I-1
This is a straight forward section that explains how the plan was formulated.
PLANNING CONCEPT page II-1
This section deals with the market analysis and a redevelopment strategy. It is
important to note here that the Downtown Strategic Plan is intended to implement
the goals and policies contained in the City's Growth Management Act
Comprehensive Plan adopted.on Apn1 18.,.1995.
... .. .. r..r. .......-o�•..vr. oru.v cQ.7gM I«N 0 X19-3334
One suggested addition in this section is.to add a bullet after Hotel/Convention
Center on page 11-3 with the title Natural Medicine Center and which states that
the City Council has supported this concept.
The redevelopment strategy, begins on page II-3 and contains 5 parts:
1. Connect and unify important downtown features.
2. Enhance the periphery of the downtown to achieve a higher quality
development that supports its central activities.
3. Define special activity districts.
4. Select "target" areas as a basis for a phased implementation program to
accomplish redevelopment and/or infiil consistent with the plan.
5. Enhance civic identity.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIONS page III-1
This section needs to have the following general recommendations added to the
plan:
A. Encourage residential development in the downtown.
B. Adopt street standards for the entire downtown area. Currently,
i street standards are often determined on a case-by-case basis. The
street character could be enhanced by matching street standards to
specific areas of the downtown in order to accentuate the character of
each area.
C. Develop a street tree/vegetation plan for downtown which provides a
guide for creating an attractive pedestrian network of green spaces.
D. Continue to incorporate pubV. art into the downtown design pattern
to reinforce Kent's downtown character and unique traditions.
Provide for .public art that appeals to children and that is easily
accessed by children.
E. Work with developers to ensure high-quality development on
designated building sites:
a. Signature Buildings: New buildings on highly visible gateway
sites should receive special attention. For example, commercial
development on these sites should not include parking in front
yards. The City may provide incentives, such as expediting
project review,to encourage high-quality design as specified by
the guidelines.
2
The above recommendations were in the draft that the Land Use and Planning
Board approved but were inadvertently omitted from the June 13, 1997 draft.
The map on page II-2 presents the Summary of Recommended Actions contained
in the different districts beginning on page IV-1. It should be noted here, and
will be noted again in the district discussion, that the Land Use and Planning
Board's modifications affect the summary proposals as follows:
A. The depot location, both north and south be further studied.
B. The North Park area east of Fourth Avenue South and on the north
side of James Street, remain residential.
C. The North Park area between Fourth Avenue South and Fifth Avenue
South, and lying between James Street and Cloudy become mixed use.
D. Eliminate the parking shown on the Commons playfield.
E. Create angle parking on the west side of an improved Fifth Avenue
South, adjacent to the Commons play field and create a drop-off and
pick-up area for children along this improved right-of-way.
F. Study traffic patterns in North Park for ingress, egress and safety.
G. Study the parking for the Uplands playfield located between Meeker
Street and Smith Street adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad.
H. Develop realistic costs for the plan.
1. Develop a gateway at the intersection of North Central Avenue and the
Valley Freeway.
This section also has an important phasing strategy of which the Transportation
part will need to be revised when the actual location for the RTA depot is
determined.
BENT DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS page IV-1
This section is the main part of the plan. The Downtown Districts are:
* North Frame District
* Central Avenue District
* East Frame District
• West Frame District
3
* South Core District
* North Core District
* Historic Core District
A. The North Frame Area (North Park) page IV-1
Important elements of the North Frame Area are:
1). Upgrade Commons Park. Remember, the Land Use and
Planning Board recommends modifying the Commons Park as
Follows:
a). Eliminate the parking on the Commons playfield.
b). Create parking on the west side of an improved Fifth
Avenue South adjacent to the Commons playfield and
create a drop-off and pick-up area for children along
this improved right-of-way.
2). Improve James Street.
The plan states that, ultimately, James Street will be an important
r pedestrian and bicycle route connecting the Commons Park and
Interurban Trail to the Bordon site redevelopment and the
commuter rail station." Note: The Land Use and Planning
Board did not recommend a specific RTA depot site but rather
made the statement that, "The depot location, both north and
south, be further studied."
3). Provide Gateway Improvements at Fourth Avenue and James
Street.
The gateways are discussed on page IV-5. Note: The Land Use
and Planning Board recommends that a gateway improvement
be placed at the intersection of North Central Avenue and the
Valley Freeway (SR 167).
4). Encourage Office/ResidentialMixed Use Development at the N.
Fourth Avenue/N. Fifth Avenue Target Area.
Note: The Land Use and Planning Board recommended that
this mixed use end at Cloudy Street; the staff recommendation
was that it extend three properties north of Cloudy Street.
4
5). Encourage Office Development of Properties Within the North
James Street Corridor Target Area.
Note: The Land Use and Planning Board recommends that the
North Park area east of Fourth Avenue South and on the north
side of James Street remain residential.
The Central Avenue Corridor District page IV-9
The Downtown Plan targets this area for redevelopment. Important
elements of the Central Avenue Corridor are:
1). Upgrade Streetscape Along Central Avenue.
2). Establish gateways.
The plan recommends gateways at the intersections of Central
Avenue with South and Titus Streets.
3) Design Guidelines
The plan calls for specific standards to be added to the Downtown
0 Design Guidelines - see page IV-11.
4). The map on page IV-10 indicates the RTA depot at the north
site and improvements of Smith Street at the depot: remember
the Land Use and Planning Board did not recommend a
specific depot site, but rather a study of the north site and
south site.
The following recommendation needs to be added to this section:
Conduct a corridor study to serve as a basis for improvement
of the Central Avenue corridor. Include Railroad Avenue as
related to the proposed commuter rail station. Address design
guidelines, buffers for adjacent residential neighborhoods,
zoning code enforcement, zoning use issues, and streetscape
improvements.
This recommendation was in the draft approved by the Land Use and
Planning Board but was inadvertently omitted from the June 13,1997
draft.
C. East Frame District page IV-15
5
• Residents of this area emphasize the need for a more stable residential
neighborhood. Key elements of this district are:
1). Construct a Pedestrian Trail along Mill Creek.
2). Improve Meeker and Gowe Streetscapes
3). Design Guidelines to:
* Increase compatibility between commercial and
residential uses through screening and design.
* Increase security and safety in the area by providing
lighting and pathways, reducing hazardous area, and
providing visible entries.
* Provide useful open space and pedestrian-oriented
streetscapes.
D. West Frame District page IV-16
The plan envisions the area south of Smith Street experiencing dynamic
redevelopment. Key elements of this district are:
1). Review Proposal for a New Access Street. This street would
extend northerly of Willis Street to Meeker Street easterly of
Naden Avenue.
2) Connect Interurban Trail to Core Districts.
The Land Use and Planning Board recommends the following:
3). Study parking for the Uplands play-field located between
Meeker Street and Smith Street adjacent to the Union Pacific
Railroad.
E. South Core District page IV-19
The Downtown Plan encourages residentially-oriented mixed use in this
district to help achieve the Comprehensive Plan's housing goals and to
provide a built-in market for downtown businesses. Important elements
of this district are:
1). Extend Angled Parking Along Saar Street to the Union Pacific
6
Rail Road.
2). Extend Pedestrian/Bicycle Paths from the Interurban Trail to
the Core.
3). Design Guidelines page IV-21
4). Other Redevelopment Incentives page IV-23
F. North Core District page IV-24
Although this district indicates that the RTA depot would be developed in
this district, north of Smith Street, the Land Use and Planning Board
recommends that no definitive station site be identified at this time, but
that the depot location, both north and south, be further studied.
Many of the elements of this district revolve around the siting of the depot
at the northern site, but until a specific site is determined, through City
input to the RTA and the RTA's own determination as to the ultimate site,
these elements need to be placed on hold. A statement dealing with this
situation is recommended as follows:
• At the time of the determination of the site for the RTA depot,
the Downtown Plan transportation elements shall be revised in
the North Frame, North Core, Historic Core South Core and
Central Avenue Corridors, to accommodate peak commuter
travel times with an emphasis on public transportation.
Elements of this district not related directly to the location of the Rta
depot are:
1). Locate a Town Square Park Near the Smith Street/Meeker
Street Spine of the Core.
2). Construct Pedestrian "All Cross" or Scramble System at the
Corner of Fourth Avenue and Smith Street.
3). Redefine Design Guidelines page IV-31
4). Establish Design Parameters and Review process for
Redevelopment of the Borden Site.
S). Support a Civic and Performing Arts Center Between Meeker
7
and Smith Streets. This element is very site specific. Perhaps
one way to address this issue is to support the development of a
Civic and Performing Arts Center Downtown, but without
identifying a specific site.
6). Support the Public Market
G. Historic Core District. page IV-34
The Plan points out that the Historic Core District is the traditional and
geographic heart of downtown Kent. Several actions are recommended
for this district:
1). Enhance the historic architectural character and pedestrian
amenities.
2). Develop vacant or underutilized sites.
3). Visually and physically connect the Historic Core District to the
surrounding districts.
• 4). Make pedestrian Improvements
5). Enhance Gateway (Meeker and Fourth Avenue).
6). Design Guidelines and Historic Preservation Activities page IV-
36
PART H page VI-1
IMPLEMENTATION
This section of the downtown Plan deals with the Preliminary Final
Environmental Impact Statement. Alternatives and mitigating factors will change
as the plan is amended. Traffic impacts, discussed on page VI-9 will change as
the Downtown Plan is amended.
The Land Use and Planning Board recommends that, Realistic costs associated
with the plan should be developed.
As discussed in PART I, C PROCESS, page I-2, the Plan was prepared to be
consistent with the requirements of State Law (ESHB 1724) which contains a
8
provision to allow cities to adopt a "Planned Action" ordinance if the city has an
adopted comprehensive plan. A city can create a subarea or neighborhood plan -
in this case the Downtown Strategic Action Plan is a subarea plan - develop a 20
year vision for the "Planned Action", and analyze the environmental impacts of
the actions with a Planned Action environmental impact statement. This is the
course of action Kent's Downtown Strategic Action Plan has followed and as
stated on page I-4, "This plan meets the requirements of the Planned Action State
Environmental Policy Act(SEPA)provision by providing public participation and
environmental analysis in advance, in conjunction with a subarea plan."
This Implementation Section contains the required elements of the Planned Action
environmental impact statement. Section A is the typical EIS fact sheet (page VI-
1). Section B is a summary of the process used to arrive at a preferred alterative
(page VI-3). Section C is a summary of the preferred alternative and the
recommendation process (page VI-5). Section D is organized by recommended
action. It contains a discussion of each action, the environmental impact
evaluation, the mitigation measures, and it identifies the entity responsible for the
action (VI-6). Section E outlines a monitoring system which would be further
refined for administration by the Planning and Public Works Department (page
VI-58).
An analysis of the current capital facilities plan for downtown in relation to the
planned actions recommended by this plan will take place when the plan is
adopted. The phasing schedule for the actions will be revised if necessary, and
the capital facilities plan will be updated to reflect the actions proposed.
9
CITY OF L"L22 �
• Jim White, Mayor
O4A
Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544
James P. Harris,Planning Director
OFFICE OF THE LAND USE HEARING EXAMINER
(206) 859 3390 Theodore P. Hunter
Hearing Examiner
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
FILE NO: SEA-TAC II TRANSMISSION #V-96-14
APPLICANT: Dwane Ott
EOL STF T: A request for variances from Section s 15.04.140E.4 and 15.07.0601.1,
sideyard setback and landscaping requirements of the GC, General
Commercial, zone.
LQCATION: The property is located at 2628 S. 248th Street in Kent, Washington.
APPLICATION FILED: November 5, 1996
DETERMINATION OF
NONSIGNIFICANCE ISSUED: Exempt
MEETING DATE: December 4, 1996
DECISION ISSUED: December 18, 1996
DECISION: APPROVED with conditions
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Department
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Pat McAllister, representing applicant
Other
Linda Houser
WRITTEN TESTIMONY: Richard J. Bjorneby
EXHIBITS: 1. Hearing Examiner file containing application, staff
report and public notice.
2. Richard J. Bjomeby letter
_. ... _ __ ,. ....,. ..i� : . r�^• —oc:. v- n^. Vtt" lVwr=A Y a v54.111-1
Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision
Sea-Tac II Transmission
#V-96-14
INTRODUCTION
After due consideration of all the evidence presented at public hearing on the date indicated above,
and following an unaccompanied personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding area
by the Hearing Examiner at a time prior to the public hearing, the following findings, conclusions
and decision are entered by the Hearing Examiner on this application.
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
The applicant filed a request for two variances on November 5, 1996. One request is for a variance
from the required sideyard setback and the other is a request for a variance from landscaping
requirements. The Planning Department conducted a review of the application and prepared a
recommendation for approval of both requests, with conditions, on December 4, 1996. A public
hearing was held on November 21, 1996, to allow surrounding property owners and interested
citizens an opportunity to respond to the application. The opportunity to be heard was published,
• mailed and posted consistent with city ordinances.
At the hearing, the Hearing Examiner accepted testimony and evidence related to the application.
The city and a representative of the applicant were present at the public hearing. A representative
from the Sunset Vista Condominiums was also present.
Linda Houser testified on behalf of the Sunset Vista Condo Association. She expressed the concerns
of the neighbors about the commercial character of the area. She stated that the neighbors accepted
the landscape plan and would cooperate with the applicant to rem
The Findings, Conclusions and Decision stated below are based on the testimony and evidence
presented at the public hearing.
FINDINGS
1. The subject property is on South 248th Street off of Pacific Highway South and across the
street from the Sea Tac Transmission auto repair business. The applicant plans to build an
8,300 square foot building for office and repair space and a 32 stall parking lot. The
applicant requests a reduction in sideyard setback along the easterly boundary from 20 feet
to two feet. The applicant also requests a variance from landscape requirements along the
westerly boundary where the subject property abuts the City of Kent land. Exhibit 1,
Application&Staff Report.
2
Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision
Sea-Tac II Transmission
#V-96-14
2. The property has a zoning designation of GC, General Commercial. A residential zone (Rl-
7.2, Single Family with 7,200 square foot minimum lot size) abuts the property on the north,
west and a portion of the east sides. The zoning code requires a 20 foot setback and a ten
foot landscaped strip when property with a GC zone is adjacent to a residential zone.
Sections 15.04.140 (E)(4) and 15.07.060 (L)(1) of the Kent Zoning Code; Exhibit 1, Staff
Report.
3. Land use around the subject property includes commercial use to the south and a portion of
the east sides, undeveloped property to the north and west, and a small wedge of
undeveloped residential-zoned property to the east. The property to the west is owned by the
City of Kent and is intended for park use. The Sunset Vista Condominiums are on the south
side of S. 248th Street. Exhibit 1, Staff Report Testimony of Mr. McAllister.
4. The residential zoning line does not follow the property lines in the area. The RI zone
intersects with the applicant's GC zoned property at an acute angle. Residential development
of that RI property is not possible in the area adjacent to where the applicant proposes to
construct a commercial building. Exhibit 1, Staff Report.
5. The property to the west is a wooded wetland area. The applicant will construct a
walking/jogging trail on this adjacent property so it may be accessed for recreational use.
The property will not be developed for residential use. The required landscape buffer along
the westerly lot line of the subject property would not provide an additional visual buffer.
Exhibit 1, Staff Report; Testimony of Mr. Satterstrom & Mr. McAllister; Site Plan.
6. The applicant does not seek variances from landscaping along S. 248th Street or on the north
side of the property where residential use is more likely to occur. At the public hearing, the
applicant's representative also agreed to limit employee parking along S. 248th Street and
to make all reasonable efforts to increase the landscaping along S. 248th Street to reduce any
off-site visual impacts to the residential neighbors in the area. Site Plan; Testimony of
Mr. McAllister.
7. Public notice of the hearing on this application was given by mailing, posting and
publication. No one appeared opposing the requested variance. Exhibit 1, Affidavits of
Notice.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide this application because of
authority granted by the Legislature in Chapter 35A of the Revised Code of Washington and
authority granted by the City of Kent in Chapters 15.09 and 2.32 of the Kent City Code.
3
• Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision
• Sea-Tac II Transmission
#V-96-14
2. To approve an application for a variance from the terms of the zoning code, the Hearing
Examiner must decide that:
a. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property
is located;
b. The variance is necessary- because of special circumstances relating to size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundings of the subject property - to provide the
property with use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity
and zone in which the property is located;
C. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the
property is located.
3. Based on the Findings specified above, the Examiner concludes that the variance
applications meet the criteria for approval as detailed below:
a. The variance is not a special privilege. Setback: The subject property is in a unique
situation in that the residential zone which it abuts does not follow property lines in
the area and would be nearly impossible to develop as residential property. Thus,the
reason for the setback of a commercial building from a residential zone - to protect
the residences in a residential zone - does not apply to this site. Finding of Fact
No. 4. Landscape: The same reasoning is true for the landscape variance. The
commercial use need not be separated by a landscape buffer from the wooded
wetland. The fact that the property is zoned for residential use is irrelevant in that
it is City of Kent property that will be used as a park. Findings of Fact No. 3,5.
b. The variance is necessary because of special circumstances. Setback: The special
circumstance in this matter is the location of the subject property between acity of
Kent park and a residential zone that cannot be developed with residences. This
special circumstance obviates the need for the twenty foot setbacks that would
otherwise be required. Landscape: The same special circumstance applies to the
landscape requirements. If no residential development can occur next to the
commercial development proposed by the applicant, there is no need for the
landscape buffer. Findings of Fact No. 3,4,S.
C. The proposed variance would not harm the public nor be injurious to property in the
vicinity. With conditions of approval, the variance would not harm the public or
injury property in the vicinity. Conditions are necessary to help ensure that
4
Hearing Examiner Findings and Decision
• Sea-Tac II Transmission
#V-96-14
employee parking and parking of vehicles to be repaired do not interfere with the use
and appearance of S. 248th Street. Conditions are also necessary to help ensure that
the landscaping along S. 248th Street between the fence and the street is of the depth
and type that will provide a sight-obscuring buffer between the Sunset Vista
development and the proposed development. Finding of Fact No. 6.
DECISION
The application for a sideyard setback and landscape variances from Sections 15.04.140 (E)(4) and
15.07.060 (L)(1) of the Zoning Code is APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed site perimeter fence be sight-obscuring on the property's west and north sides.
The applicant shall provide landscaping between the fence and S. 248th Street to a depth of
at least five feet to address the neighbors' concerns about the character of the street.
Additional landscaping shall be provided if possible with the intent of providing a sight-
,--obscuring barrier between residential and commercial uses along S. 248th Street.
2. V\ The applicant shall not use S. 248th Street for employee parking or for storage of vehicles
that are in need of repair services.11
Dated this 18th day of December, 1996.
THEODORE PAUL HUNTER
Hearing Examiner
Section 15.09.040 E: Any variance authorized by the hearing examiner shall remain effective only
for one(1)year, unless the use is begun within that time or construction has commenced. If not in
use or construction has not commenced within one (1) year, the variance shall become invalid.
i
5
�i'j
CITY OP ZQ,224204T
•
Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (206) 859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544
James P. Harris, Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
October 21, 1997
MEMO TO: LEONA ORR, CHAIR AND CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MEMBERS
FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER
RE: PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - WATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES
The City of Kent is presently caught in a catch-22 situation with respect to zoning and the
development of certain water treatment facilities. In order to meet the requirements of the Federal
Safe Drinking Water Act, the City must add sodium hydroxide (NaOH) to the City water supply.
Sodium hydroxide adjusts the pH level in the water which, in turn, reduces corrosion within the
Swater lines_TQ_add this chemical to the City water supply, treatment facilities must be developed
at two water utility sites:11)Pump Station#5 at 98th Ave./SE 238th Street and 2)East Hill Well Site
at 1t�4th Ave/SE 246thr,eet Treatment facilities include a small building (approx. 1000 sq. ft.}�
afeach site which encloses storage tanks of NaOH in quantities up to 12,000 gallons.
City zoning regulations do not permit such treatment facilities at either site. One site is zoned Office
(0) and the other is zoned single-family residential (SR-6). Neither zone permits the storage of
sodium hydroxide in quantities over 500 lbs. While water storage facilities and pumping stations
require conditional use permits in order to locate in the 0 and SR zones, no provisions in the City's
zoning code allows for integration of water treatment facilities at these sites.
Therefore, similar to the regulatory review process, the staff requests that the Planning Committee
refer this matter to the Land Use&Planning Board for review and possible amendment to the zoning
code. Following review of potential alternatives, the Land Use &Planning Board recommendation
would come back to the full City Council for action.
FNS/mp:p:admin1h20treat.zca
cc: James P. Harris,Planning Director
Don Wickstrom,Public Works Director
Brad Lake, Water Maintenance Superintendent
11111th AVENUE SOUTH / KENT WAS.—WO—ON Q?-11-1N1q t— x:^,v- ,�c>, c•cQ r ,,.
RECEIVED
CITY OF KENT
REGULATORY REVIEW OCT U 91997
KENT
• The Kent City Council has determined that ongoing review of the City's regulatory proc$s i��KP EKT
public's best interest. The Council wants the public to be able to participate in this review. he outline
on this page is intended to give the public an opportunity to write down those things that they do not like
about an ordinance or regulation. The Council will then review the public's comments and,when
appropriate,make changes to ordinances and regulations.
1. What ordinance or regulation do you want the Council to review?
Current City zoning regulations applicable to 835 N.Central Ave.
2. What is it that bothers you about this ordinance/regulation?
We feel it severely limits the ability of religious organizations to function as viable ministries
within the City's downtown core.
3. What changes do you suggest to this ordinance/regulation?
Current zoning regulations in this location allow for warehouse and 25%service organization
use. We believe it would be in the City's best interest to allow religious organizations, like
ourselves,to co-exist under the same zoning ordinance.
4. What significance to the Community will occur with your proposed change?
Our ministry, which is pri manly directed towards the restoration of men, women and children,
which in turn ultimately affects the family's well being, will be allowed to continue to have a
positive impact upon Kent's Community. By servicing the needs of the whole man,body,soul and
spirt4 we are helping to create vibrant balanced and productive members of our Community.
5. What effect,if any,will your proposed change have on related ordinances,regulations,plans and
policies?
We hope that by changing current zoning regulations,the City's overall zoning ordinance
process will create a more favorable environment towards the existence of religious based service
organizations. -
6. Have you reviewed your concern with a City staff member?
Yes,representatives from our church have met with the City Fire Marshal;City zoning officials
and the City Mayor.
7. Do you have any general comments you wish to make(can be about the ordinance/regulation you
want changed or about anything else to do with ordinances/regulations or the permit process)?
It is our intent to work along side of existing community based outreaches located within the City.
Currently,we are feeding an average of 30 homeless men,women and children on a weekly basis
wherein ourfood supplies are purchased from locally based businesses. We provide temporary
housing to needy individuals in motels and private homes located within the City limits. Alto,we
provide spiritual counseling related to substance abuse,marital and familial issues andlob
referral Lastly,we serve as a gathering place for people residing within and outside of the City.
They in turn patronize City businesses contributing to the City's current tax revenue. Our
continued existence at this location will insure none ofthese investments are lost
NAME Johnny Williams-Pastor Word of Praise Ministries
ADDRESS 835 N.Central Ave.-Suite 135 PO Box 1142 Kent WA 98035
PHONE NO. (253)813.9451
f
• CITY OF ��1SV i3
tV==.........jimWhite,, Mayor
Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206)850-2544
James P.Harris,Planning Director
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
September 16, 1997
Planning Committee Members present City Attorney's Office:
Leona Orr, Chair Roger Lubovich, City Attorney
Tim Clark Laurie Evezich,Assistant City Attorney
Jon Johnson
Other City staff:
Planning Staff: Gary Gill, City Engineer
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Ed White, Transp Eng Supervisor
Kevin ONeill, Senior Planner
Matthews Jackson, GIS Coordinator/Planner
Linda Phillips, Planner
iMargaret Porter, Administrative Assistant
Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary
RESOLUTION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - (F. Satterstrom)
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that the Growth Management Act allows for
Comprehensive Plan amendments once a year. Mr. Satterstrom explained that in order to make an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan other than once a year, Kent must declare a state of
emergency through a Resolution. He explained that the Resolution is necessary to move forward
with the Meridian Valley and Del Mar annexation Comprehensive Plan amendments and zoning map
changes.
Committee member Jon Johnson MOVED and Tim Clark SECONDED a motion to approve the
proposed resolution. Motion carried.
BILLBOAR ISSUE - (T. Clark)
Committee member Tim Clark stated that the commuter rail will cause significant traffic delays.
He explained that the 196th corridor will become the first non-stop east-west route. Mr. Clark
explained that this overpass will become the City's only unobstructed panoramic view of the area
and he would like this to remain an unobstructed view. He asked the Committee to create a billboard
ordinance that would prohibit billboards that would obstruct this view. He commented that he would
• like to prevent a problem before one occurs.
Assistant City Attorney Laurie Evezich explained that there was a relatively recent Washington
Supreme Court decision that determined the placement of billboards could be limited for reasons of
220 4th AVENUE SOUTH / KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)859-3300
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
September 16, 1997
protecting traffic distraction,health and safety, the preserving of aesthetics, or the preservation of
natural resources. However, she explained that this could notbe enacted retroactively.
Clark MOVED and Johnson SECONDED a motion directing administration to draw up a"billboard"
ordinance that would expressly protect the views of the 196th and 272nd corridors by prohibiting
the placement of billboards.
Chair Leona Orr questioned whether the ordinance should be specific. Clark commented that the
uniqueness of the overpasses takes out the consideration of existing roadways.
Evezich commented that the City should avoid an ordinance that would require constant
maintenance. She suggested limiting the ordinance to the 196th and 272nd corridors to ensure that
the ordinance would not effect existing billboards.
The motion carried.
108TH AVENUE FENCE - (L. Evezich)
Assistant City Attorney Laurie Evezich explained that the Committee had requested an update for
• this item. Ms. Evezich explained that the City received a citizen petition regarding the previous
existence of a fence along 108th Avenue. After substantial research,the City Attorney concluded
that the fence was not a condition of development and, therefore, could not be required of the
property owners. The property owners decided for their own reasons to add a fence on 108th
Avenue. Ms. Evezich stated that, as of this date, the owners expect to have the fence in place by
years end.
Committee member Tim Clark questioned whether it was still the intent of the property owner to
construct a heavy metal fence. Ms. Evezich commented that those details had not been discussed
but, she will contact the owner and confirm this was still their intent.
DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN - (L. Phillips)
Chair Leona Orr stated that she had spoke with the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) and they are
only considering the north location for the commuter rail station in their environmental review
process. Chair Orr suggested that the Committee take action to formally request that RTA consider
both the north and the south commuter rail station locations. She commented that she was prepared
to take this issue to full Council tonight, if necessary.
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained that staff did contact the RTA and they indicated that
a letter from the City Council would be appropriate if the City would like the RTA to consider both
the north and the south site. Mr. Satterstrom commented that it had been staffs understanding that
• the RTA would automatically be considering both sites during their environmental review.
2
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
September 16, 1997
Committee member Tim Clark MOVED and Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to compose a letter
from the Council to direct the RTA to consider both the north and the south commuter rail locations
in their environmental review process. Motion carried.
Chair Leona Orr stated that Mr. Alden Eld had not been sufficiently notified regarding the
August 6, 1997 Special Planning Committee meeting and therefore,was not given an opportunity
to testify. She explained that Mr. Eld is here today to add his comments for the record.
Alden Eld,P. O.Box 866,Oregon City,OR 97045. Mr. Alden Eld owns property located at the
comer of Fourth and James. Mr. Eld discussed his concerns and stated that his property is unusable
as residential. He requested the Committee to consider the inclusion of five parcels in the area being
rezoned to office/mixed use.
Planner Linda Phillips introduced a recent letter from Marily Manthy and commented that one issue
that was discussed in the introductory phase of the downtown plan was identifying market
opportunities for natural medicine facilities. Ms. Phillips explained that this was inadvertently left
out of the draft. Ms. Phillips discussed adding language promoting Kent as a center for health car,
including natural medicine, in the"Market Opportunities"and"Enhance Civic Identity" sections of
the Downtown Plan.
Clark MOVED and Johnson SECONDED a motion to add the language promoting health care
facilities and services, including natural medicine opportunities,as discussed above. Motion carried.
Ms. Phillips outlined the East Frame District. She explained that this district includes a mixture of
commercial activity interspersed among single and multifamily residential uses. The
recommendation encourages preserving and developing additional residential uses within this area
along with the existing commercial services.
The East Frame District also recommends the construction of a pedestrian trail along Mill Creek that
would connect Mill Creek Park and Memorial Park, the improvement of Meeker and Gowe
Streetscapes which would include landscaping and lighting, and design guidelines to help increase
compatibility of uses.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that the East Frame District is fairly limited in scope. He explained that
the area is zoned for commercial, but the majority of the existing development is single family
residential. He explained that design guidelines are a way to provide transition within this area as
the area develops with more large scale commercial or residetnial projects.
Mr. Clark discussed his concern with the recommendation to encourage a pedestrian trail crossing
. at James. He also discussed his concerns regarding the Meeker and Gowe street improvements and
stated that this may be premature due to the potential impacts of the commuter rail station. He
3
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
September 16, 1997
commented that he had a great concern subscribing to a plan which may require major adjustments
once specifics are determined. Ms. Phillips explained that the plan recommends pedestrian
improvements and they would be adjusted for safety or other issues at the time of implementation.
Mr. Clark commented that he is concerned with the recommendation that commits to current street
standards. He explained that the RTA location could have a tremendous impact on streets in the
downtown area and may need substantial upgrade beyond the current standard. He was concerned
with the impact of increased bus traffic.
Ms. Phillips explained that the recommendations for street standards are more general in nature and
can be revised during the implementation to accommodate any such impacts. Chair Orr questioned
whether a decision on this area should be delayed until the site of the commuter rail station had been
determined.
Clark questioned how quickly these projects would be fed into the Capital Facilities Program.
Ms. Phillips explained that the improvements would be prioritized and the timing would be
determined by funding and Council approval. She explained that recommendations involving the
commuter rail would be given a priority and others would be prioritized based on the City's wants
and needs.
Mr. Satterstrom explained that the Council will decide based on funding and other issues whether
or not improvements will be made and where. He explained that improvements are merely
recommendations for specific improvements but the details would be worked out prior to
implementation.
Committee member Tim Clark MOVED and Johnson SECONDED a motion to adopt the East
Frame District recommendations of the Downtown Plan. Committee member Jon Johnson
commented that he felt it was very important to create as many trails and pedestrian links as possible.
He stated that busy trails would need to cross busy streets and stated that the safety concerns would
be addressed and the best solution adopted at the time of implementation. Mr. Johnson also
discussed his concerns with the scale differences in this area and hoped the design guidelines would
address these concerns. Motion carried.
ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA:
BAYBERRY CREST PRELIMINARY PLAT- (R. Lubovich)
City Attorney Roger Lubovich explained that the City Council had modified the Preliminary Plat
for Bayberry Crest and these changes had effected the conditions of the plat. Mr. Lubovich stated
that the Council's decision to cul-de-sac 129th Avenue Southeast, eliminated the need for certain
conditions that no longer applied and gave the applicant enough land for an additional two lots.
4
City Council Planning Committee Minutes
September 16, 1997
Mr. Lubovich explained that a letter had been received from the applicant requesting that conditions
that were no longer applicable be removed and asked that the additional two lots be approved.
City Engineer Gary Gill explained staff s position on the conditions. He explained that staff
supports the applicants request to eliminate the conditions outlined in their letter with the exception
of Condition 6. G)iii. which should remain as written.
Committee member Tim Clark questioned the status of the pedestrian walkway. Mr. Gill explained
that the pedestrian walkway would remain unchanged.
Mr. Lubovich explained that the conditions being removed relate directly to 129th Avenue SE not
going through.
Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom asked for time to review the changes before making a
recommendation to Council.
Jim Howton,600 - 108th Ave NE, Suite 343,Bellevue,WA 98004. Mr. Jim Howton explained
that this is time sensitive and would like to have this item go to Council tonight.
Committee member Jon Johnson MOVED and Clark SECONDED a motion to approve the changes
to the Bayberry Crest Preliminary Plat as discussed pending Planning Department approval.
City Attorney Roger Lubovich questioned whether Planning had authority to make minor
adjustments. The Committee concurred that any minor adjustment necessary including lot
configuration could be made by staff based on zoning regulations. Motion carved.
Chair Leona Orr stated that the Downtown Plan will be continued to the Planning Committee
Meeting on October 21, 1997 at 4:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
5