HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 05/19/1987 KENT CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMITTEE
May 19, 1987 3 : 00 p.m.
Council Members Present Staff Present
Judy Woods, Chair Lenora Blauman
Berne Biteman Jim Hansen
Steve Dowell Jim Harris
Ed Heiser
Mayor Libby Hudson
Kathy McClung
Dan Kelleher Fred Satterstrom
City Administrator Other City Staff
J. Brent McFall Gary Gill, City Engineer
Bill Williamson, Ass't City
Others Present Attorney
Amy Kosterlitz, Attorney for Trammell Crow
Jim & Leona Orr
Lyle Price, Kent News Journal
Colin Quinn, Centron
Dennis Riebe, Centron
REGULATORY REVIEW REQUEST - AUTO SERVICE CENTER IN M-2 ZONE
Amy Kosterlitz, Attorney for Trammell Crow, presented a Regulatory
Review Request to allow automotive service, maintenance and repair
facilities at centralized nodal locations in the M-2, Limited
Industrial, zoning district. The location specified by Trammell Crow
is a two-acre site at the northwest corner of 212th and East Valley
Road. Attorney Kosterlitz suggests three alternatives for effecting
this change to the Kent Zoning Code M-2 district: 1) add this use to
the list of special permit uses and specify location at centralized
nodes, 2) add this use to the list of conditional uses and specify
location at centralized nodes, or 3) amend the purpose and add C-suffix
nodes to allow this use in the East Valley. Attorney Kosterlitz stated
studies have shown a change in the valley from industrial uses to more
service-oriented business; the response has been an increase in
Conditional Use Permit applications for commercial uses; one of the
West Valley plan goals is to attract businesses providing services and
selling diverse products; and where arterials intersect are locations
most logical and beneficial for commercial uses to locate. Trammell
Crow does not believe the East Valley Study will add to information
already available on the uses needed in this area. The area is too
small to perpetrate strip commercial and the request is narrowed to
centralized nodal locations. The request is not for spot zoning
because it is not for a use arbitrarily outside of those uses indicated
by current studies and plans.
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF 5-19-87 MEETING
PAGE TWO
Jim Harris cautioned against taking results from the West Valley Study
and shifting them to another area of the City with different zoning and
different land uses; we need to study the area first before making
changes. He stated Trammell Crow's comments are valuable and will be
taken into consideration during the study. The only alternative staff
might be able to support is to add the requested use to the special
permit uses listed in the M-2 zone. Jim Hansen stated that by doing
the East Valley Study, staff is attempting to avoid piecemeal decisions
and he suggests that the Planning Committee recommend against a change
in the zoning code until the East Valley Study has been completed.
REGULATORY REVIEW REQUEST - DECISION - RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING IN
MULTIFAMILY ZONES
Jim Harris stated this request from Centron seeks to eliminate the
requirement in the zoning code that multifamily developments set aside
certain land for RV parking. Ed Heiser suggested staff could support
using a Type I landscaping screen but that it could not support
eliminating the requirement entirely, due primarily to the number of
enforcement problems that would result. Ed stated there was a
substantial amount of land in the City presently zoned for mini-storage
areas and he does not believe providing additional areas is necessary.
In response to Berne Biteman's concern about citizens' increased demand
for storage in future years, Dennis Riebe of Centron stated having an
optional storage area is beneficial because as storage needs change it
is easier for owners to redirect the use of space. Jim Harris
suggested referring this issue to the Planning Commission. Judy Woods
and Berne Biteman favor flexibility in the zoning code relating to this
requirement and directed the Planning Commission to review this issue.
Steve Dowell abstained from comment due to conflict of interest.
TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
Libby Hudson has contacted Professor Robertson of the University of
Washington's Department of Landscape Architecture regarding community
value of native trees. Professor Robertson is unaware of any studies
relating to community value of trees outside of monetary value. Libby
distributed a memo with attachments discussing monetary value of trees
and the marketing value of trees in residential and industrial areas.
Brent McFall and Jim Hansen discussed the tree ordinance with Jim White
and Jim indicated he is satisfied with the proposal in terms of
enforcement.
Judy Woods clarified with staff that the ordinance is meant to assure
that developers have planned for preservation of trees including
special species and have considered environmental impacts of cutting
down trees. In response to Steve Dowell and Berne Biteman's request
that the ordinance clearly defines the City's intent in regulating tree
CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF 5-19-87 MEETING
PAGE THREE
preservation, staff will consider having a one-acre floor on those
properties regulated and will show the Committee aerial photographs of
the kind of tree canopies the City is attempting to protect. Berne
Biteman and Steve Dowell stated the ordinance could be written to
protect forested areas and peripheries of forested areas while placing
a one-acre floor on those properties generally regulated by the
ordinance.
GREATER KENT STUDY
Gary Gill stated that when the City extends utility service to an area
located in the county, the City requires owners to execute annexation
agreements. The development must meet all conditions -- street
improvements must be consistent with construction standards, use must
be consistent with plans, developers must contribute toward corridors
defined in the Master Transportation Plan. Bill Williamson stated the
City could refuse to extend services and the Council could condition
extension of service to immediate annexation. Presently, approval of
75% of the assessed valuation is required to annex an area to the City.
A large development could agree to annex and because of its size could
pull in a larger area just because the development represents 75%
approval.
ADDED ITEM: REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGN
Mayor Kelleher stated he had just received the subject report. Mayor
Kelleher requests that the Committee discuss the report' s
recommendations, that the report be distributed to the Council and
others interested in it and that a presentation to the Chamber of
Commerce might be appropriate in light of the significant
recommendations made in the report.
NEXT MEETING DATE
The next meeting of the Planning Committee is scheduled for June 2,
1987 at 3 : 30 p.m. Another meeting is scheduled for June 4, 1987 in
order to address the large number of items on the agenda.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4 : 30 p.m.
4