Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 09/27/2010 (4)Land Use and Planning Board Hearing September 27, 2010 Minutes Page 1 of 6 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 27, 2010 1. Call to Order Chair Ralph Called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Board Members Present/Absent: Chair Dana Ralph, Vice-Chair Jack Ottini, Steve Dowell, Navdeep Gill, Aleanna Kondelis-Halpin Absent/Excused, Jon Johnson, Barbara Phillips Staff Members Present: Charlene Anderson, William Osborne, Erin George, Kim Adams Pratt, and Pamela Mottram 3. Approval of Minutes Dowell MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to approve the July 26, 2010 Minutes. Motion PASSED 6-0. 4. Added Items None 5. Communications Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that the Economic and Community Development Committee (ECDC) will consider extending preliminary short plat approvals and extending the validity of issued building permits at their next meeting. She inquired if the Board would be amenable were the ECDC to decide to direct the Board to hold a public hearing without a workshop preceding that hearing. The Board members voiced their concurrence. 6. Notice of Upcoming Meetings None 7. PUBLIC HEARING: 7.1 CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2 DCE Height Limits Long-Range Planner William D. Osborne directed attention to the staff report regarding Downtown Commercial Enterprise zoning and building heights where adjacent to single family residential zones. He stated that Kent City Code (KCC)15.09.050C evaluation criteria apply when considering the zoning map amendments included in a few of the options such as Option 2 and 3. These criteria do not apply to amendments of zoning code text. The Options Matrix includes “No Action/No Change”, whereby the city’s current regulations would apply for Downtown Commercial Enterprise Zoning where adjacent to single family residential. Osborne stated that the Johnson proposal (Option 1) proposes 35 foot height limits within 300 feet of single family residential zoned properties. Option 4C proposes a four-story 50 foot height limit, ground level and upper floor setbacks based on adjacency to single family residential lot lines rather than zoning boundaries, and includes a number of elements in the Downtown Design Review Guidelines (DDRG) stipulated as requirements rather than optional. Osborne stated that staff is recommending Option 6 which proposes a four-story 50 foot height limit within 300 feet of single fam ily residential zoned properties. Side and rear yard setbacks would apply when adjacent to rather than abutting single family residential zoning. The DDRG would include a number of required elements based on building heights of three stories or greater. In Options 6 and 4C portions of the Downtown Commercial Enterprise (DCE) properties located to the west of Central Avenue would be removed. Osborne stated that KCC would also be amended by adding language to define “abutting” and “adjacent”. This language was taken from the City of Renton’s Code. Osborne stated that the DDRG that would be affected as part of the proposed options would include features incorporating human scale building elements. There would be amendatory la nguage that if a proposed building lot abuts a single family residential zoned parcel, then Elements A and G are required and may be counted towards the minimum of four design elements used. Osborne stated that another section of the DDRG addresses how to handle heights with upper floor setbacks and balconies and would become required rather than optional. Language would be added to the Code that would note that projecting forward would not be something allowed in the DDRG where abutting single family residential property. Osborne stated that Options 4, 4B and 5 feature a DCE Transitional Overlay District. Those parcels affected would be entire parcels selected from a 300 foot buffer adjacent to single family residential property. Land Use and Planning Board Hearing September 27, 2010 Minutes Page 2 of 6 Osborne stated that Option 6 looks at portions of selected properties; a four-story 50 foot height limit would apply within 300 feet of a single-family residential zoning boundary line; The DDRG would apply setback requirements only when abutting a single family residential property. Opt 4C looks at specific whole parcels and applies a four- story 50 foot height limit to the entirety of those parcels and requires ground level and upper floor setbacks based on lot line adjacency to single family residential zones. Long-Range Planner William D. Osborne submitted Exhibits 11 through 18 for the record. Ottini MOVED and Dowell SECONDED a Motion to accept Exhibits 11-18 into the record. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Chair Ralph declared the Public Hearing open. Greg Gorder, 318 Jason Ave N, spoke in favor of Option 1 stating that he would support Option 4C or 4B. Laura Gorder, 318 Jason Ave N, spoke in favor of Option 1 voicing her support for Option 4C with the incorporation of amendments as indicated in the letter submitted by Michael Johnson. She asked staff to clarify the intent of Option 4C. She spoke about traffic concerns. Vern Schultz, 704 E. Temperance St, spoke in favor of Option 1 but stated he would support Option 4C incorporating amendments as indicated in Michael Johnson’s letter. He spoke in opposition to Option 6. Angela Schultz, 704 E. Temperance St, spoke in favor of Option 1 with Option 4C as her second choice. Julie Brown, 802 E Temperance St, spoke in favor of Option 1 but would accept Option 4C. She voiced her opposition to Option 6 as “abutting” is not an acceptable choice. Kim Portera, 617 E Temperance St, spoke in favor of Option 1 but would consider Option 4C after receiving further clarification with respect to the amendments suggested by Mr. Johnson in his letter. Carolyn Clayton, 604 E. Temperance St, stated that her home is located next to the DCE zoning district, and she does not support development of a 7-story high rise development that will shade her community. She suggested the alluvial soils would not support a high-rise building. Ms. Clayton encouraged the City to support residential rather than commercial interests and requested that the City consider State Street as the cut-off for the DCE Zoning District. Stacey Kroeze, 701 E. Temperance St, stated that she is an advocate for Option 1 but would support Option 4C with the caveats as indicated in Johnson’s letter. She stated that she favors State Street as a cutoff for the DCE zone. Daniel Daoura, 112 Kennebeck Avenue N, stated that his property is located on a flat area in the DCE area north of Smith Street. He spoke in support of applying selective height regulations within the DCE zone with the City evaluating parcels on an individual basis rather than applying a broad height regulation for the entire DCE area. He stated that he opposed development of a seven-story building north of Smith Street defining it as a potential eyesore for the community. He spoke about his concerns with traffic. Mary Jacob, 426 Prospect Ave N, spoke in favor of Option 1 stating she would support Option 4C. She spoke about traffic concerns in the DCE area and about the need to limit vertical heights in all of downtown because of traffic. She suggested wider roads, sidewalks and pedestrian signs before densifying. Lyndel Ehlers, 431 Hazel Ave N, spoke in support of Option 1 but would support 4C. She voiced her concern with traffic issues and view obstruction. Ottini MOVED and Dowell SECONDED to close the public hearing. Motion Carried 6-0. Chair Ralph declared the public hearing closed. Deliberations ensued over issues related to parking and traffic in the DCE zone. The Board members debated the merits of Option 4B versus Option 4C with the inclusion of Mr. Johnson’s amendments from his letter defined as Exhibit 18. Dowell inquired if a traffic study had been completed by the city in the DCE zone with Osborne indicating that there had been no study completed with regard to traffic impacts. Ottini suggested that those people voicing concerns with traffic issues should consult the Public Works Department. Ottini voice his support for Option 4C. Land Use and Planning Board Hearing September 27, 2010 Minutes Page 3 of 6 Dowell MOVED to recommend that City Council adopt CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2 DCE Height Limits Option 1. Hearing no Second, Dowell MOVED and Ottini SECONDED to request Council to consider moving the DCE Zone from its current location westward to State Street one block east of Central Street, across James and Smith Streets where the DCE areas are. Motion CARRIED 5-0 with Gill Opposing. Dana Ralph voiced her support for moving the DCE boundary line although stating that this may not be the appropriate forum for this. Assistant City Attorney Kim Adams Pratt spoke to the viability and appropriateness of the motion. Pratt stated that the Council would not be able to act on that motion in regard to the issue before the Board. The Council cannot act on the request for a rezone motion as it requires a comprehensive plan amendment. Pratt stated, however, that the Board has the option to communicate its desire to Council. Ottini MOVED and Dowell SECONDED a Motion to recommend Approval of CPA-2009-5/CPZ-2009-2 DCE Height Limits Option 4C excluding clarification language offered by Mr. Michael Johnson. After further deliberations the Motion CARRIED 6-0. Planning Manager Charlene Anderson clarified that the motion excludes the Railroad Avenue properties, adds proposed language defining “abutting and adjacent”, adds two clarifications to the Downtown Design Review Guidelines; and excludes additional clarification language proposed by Mr. Michael Johnson. Chair Ralph concurred. 7.2 ZCA-2010-1 Zoning Density – Rounding Calculations Planning Manager Charlene Anderson stated that rounding is how the city calculates maximum permitted density. Often we think about density in terms of lots for single family residential zones. For multifamily zones we think about density in terms of number of units or apartments within a particular project. Thus, there is the distinction between lots and dwelling units in the options. Anderson drew attention to the staff report while describing the options. She clarified that new Option: 5A states that no rounding would be allowed for subdivisions located within SR -3, SR-1 or A-10 zoning districts. Option 5B adds not allowing rounding in the SR-4.5 zoning district, and Option 5C does not allow rounding in the SR-3, SR-1, and A-10 zoning districts or in the Lake Meridian Watershed. Anderson stated that staff recommends Option 3, which is similar to the Kenmore Washington option which uses different calculations for rounding up or down. Anderson submitted “3” Exhibits for the record presented to the Board this evening. Ottini MOVED and Dowell SECONDED a Motion to accept the Exhibits for the record. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Chair Ralph opened the public hearing. Sally McDonough, 26441 137th Ave SE, stated that she submitted an exhibit in response to Charlene Anderson’s letter dated September 20, 2010. The impact of rounding has not been in effect long enough to know what will happen yet. The number of applications submitted in the last couple years are down dramatically. McDonough stated that Charlene Anderson clarified how many places are zoned SR-4.5 versus SR-3 with a few parcels zoned SR-6.0 in the watershed area. McDonough stated that she brought forth the need to look at density rounding on August 23 rd and she disagreed with staff’s description of the Pruss Short Plat as only a worst case example of what could occur by using current density rounding calculations. McDonough stated that due to staff’s re-review, developers will be required to include information on their applications to meet specific code requirements related to water quality and flow control. McDonough stated that the community and many members of the Land Use and Planning Board advocated to down zone the watershed, asking the Board to vote to retain the actual zoning that they effected with the down zoning on the lake. McDonough stated that she believes Option 5C is the best choice for a literal zoning of the SR -3 and SR- 4.5 zones in the Lake Meridian Watershed to ensure “optimum utilization by Kent citizens and the preservation of the residential neighborhoods” as stated in Kent’s Comprehensive Plan. Option 5C does not have the impact Option 5B would have on the rest of the Ci ty. Land Use and Planning Board Hearing September 27, 2010 Minutes Page 4 of 6 Seeing no further speakers, Ottini MOVED and Johnson SECONDED a Motion to close the public hearing. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Dowell MOVED and Johnson SECONDED a Motion to recommend to City Council Approval of Option 5C. Motion CARRIED 6-0. 7.3 ZCA-2010-2 Vehicle Auto Repair in M3 Zones Long Range Planner, William D. Osborne stated that the City received a code text amendment application from a private business owner seeking to allow auto repair, washing services , and auto body work on parcels located along east/west arterials in the M3 zoning districts. A number of issues analyzed by staff in drafting their recommendation includes: 1) Auto repair is currently prohibited in the M2 and M3 zones including in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center (MIC) and 2) the competition for industrial land. Osborne stated that Kent is one among a handful of jurisdictions with designated MICs. He stated that Kent’s comprehensive plan goals and policies are consistent with those of the County and with the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) and the PSRC’s guidance on protecting industrial lands for future industrial use by discouraging and limiting nonindustrial uses particularly in the MIC. Kent’s MIC zones generally prohibit auto repair with minimal exception. Where the City has split designated properties such as the Gateway Commercial in the M3 zones, auto repair may be allowed when truck and heavy equipment repair is also a part of that use. However, gas stations are restricted as part of those uses. Some nonconforming uses that might be considered in the nonconforming M3 zone are actually accessory to another principally permitted use. Osborne stated that the Almeida proposal suggests an amendment to Kent City Code (KCC) 15.04.100, Condition 21 to add language parcels on east/west arterial streets consisting of at least two lanes in either direction would allow for auto repair, body work and washing services Thirty-one properties located adjacent to east/west arterials in the M3 zone would be affected. Osborne stated that two parcels running north to south along South 196 th Street are used by South Seattle Auto Auction, and cannot access S. 196th as it overpasses both parcels which instead access onto 77th Avenue South. A number of parcels along South 212th Street are used for auto repair or associated with auto uses including another South Seattle Auto Auction used for outdoor automobile storage. South 228th Street is an east/west arterial in the M3 zones and most of the uses are warehouse distribution and manufacturing. Osborne stated that Option 2 proposes to add a condition No. 22 to KCC Section 15.04.090 the Service Land Uses Table. That condition would allow auto repair, auto washing and auto body work in the General Industrial zone for adaptive reuse of existing site structures. The following conditions must apply: 1) the site is not currently served by a rail spur , 2) existing site structures do not have dock high loading bay doors and the finished floor is generally level with the floor of freight containers, 3) all ground level bay doors of existing structures have a height of less than 14 feet which will generally impede full access to freight containers, 4) existing site structures have a clear height from finished floor to interior roof trusses of less than 20 feet, and 5) maximum building area per parcel allowed for auto repair uses would total 40,000 sf. Osborne stated that in Subsection B for proposed site development all the following conditions must apply: 1) the site is not currently served by a rail spur, 2) based on parcels existing at the time of the effective date of this code amendment, the maximum parcel size allowed for development of new auto repair structures is 40,000 sf. Osborne stated that there seems to be a significant number of parcels that will be available for such development under Option 2. He stated that 9 of 12 parcels available for new site development are located along South 212th Street on the north side and are smaller than 4 0,000 sf. The proponent’s parcel of interest is located among those. Osborne stated that there is a split-designated parcel (Gateway Commercial) located in proximity to 216 th and one parcel north of the SR-167 underpass. One parcel is in partial use as outdoor storage for automobiles by South Seattle Auto Auction. Other parcels identified have structures or buildings 40,000 s.f. or less in size. One of the criteria for adaptive reuse of existing structures is that those buildings are not served by a rail spur on their site; the buildings aren’t suitable for excluding nonindustrial uses. Osborne stated that where commercial condominium properties exist that have been split into commercial condominiums, the minimum lot size would be applied to those as well. Some parcel sizes may be 4000 or 6000 s.f. in size and would meet the criterion for auto repair use. Land Use and Planning Board Hearing September 27, 2010 Minutes Page 5 of 6 Chair Ralph questioned if the intent of Option 2 is to help keep the intent of that M3 zoning but allows the understanding that some of those properties are not suitable for the intended us es of a M3 zone, thereby allowing repurposing of those buildings or properties. Osborne concurred and offered further clarification. Chair Ralph opened the public hearing. Ted Almeida, 7604 S 212th St, stated that the 212th Street site was chosen as it is adjacent to the Manheim Auto Auction and our business plan is to acquire approximately 50% of our business from dealers that travel back and forth from the Manheim Auto Auction. He stated that 212 th is a major arterial route that funnels much of the East Hill residential traffic through to I-5 traveling to Tacoma or Seattle for their business. There are approximately 25,000+ cars per day that travel this route and it became apparent that it was a good location for public use of vehicle repair. Almeida stated that in scouting out the area, he noticed about a dozen different businesses operating in the area as vehicle repair facilities, with some grandfathered in and some legal nonconforming businesses. He stated that though some of those businesses have applied for a type of business that would have been allowed; a majority of their business is in vehicle repair and denies them the ability to run their business. Almeida urged the Board while considering the options to consider the major impact to these businesses, their employees and their families if they are not allowed to continue in business. He stated that by allowing his business to exist, it will bring tax revenue to the City and provide employment. Eric Muench, 7604 S 212th St stated that he works at Guaranteed Auto as a senior account manager. In my travels as a salesman, I have encountered over a dozen taxpaying businesses in the M3 zone that are not heavy industrial uses. He stated that many of their customers benefit from their location in this area. Our business can service the truck and van fleets of neighboring heavy industrial companies. In the business park across from Guaranteed Autos south of 212th Street, no dock high loading bay doors exist and the property owner has removed the railroad tracks that heavy industry would require. If this rezone request is not considered, a dozen businesses in that area would be shuttered, Kent would lose tax revenue, and our state’s unemployment ranks would increase. Approving this change suggested by Mr. Almeida is a win for the city and the businesses. Seeing no further speakers, Ottini MOVED and Phillips SECONDED to close the public hearing. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Ralph voiced her concerns regarding impacts on existing businesses in terms of the two options. Osborne stated that it is staff’s understanding that some of the known auto repair businesses may be licensed but not operating within the Zoning Code in terms of compliance. Both options provide a significant amount of land area for those uses. Option 2 provides a less guaranteed land area for auto repair uses than Option 1. Option 2 acknowledges location of properties in terms of parcel size and building characteristics and that where it is viable for warehouse and industrial uses that those properties be protected. Osborne stated that when those signals are not clearly identified, there is the opportunity for real estate speculation. Typically industrial users are not going to be able to pay as much rent as a service use like auto repair. Osborne entered an exhibit for the record submitted by a real estate broker who deals with some of these properties. Johnson MOVED and Dowell SECONDED a Motion to accept the Exhibit for the record as submitted by William Osborne. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Ottini MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to recommend Approval of ZCA-2010-2 Auto Repair in M3 Zones Option 2 and to forward this on to City Council. Motion PASSED 6-0. 7.4 ZCA-2010-3 Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Senior Planner, Erin George stated that although currently there are a low number of electric vehicles on our roads due to the lack of affordability and of charging stations, more are coming. She stated that auto manufacturers will have two electric vehicle models available for consumers by the end of the year with a Federal tax rebate of $7500. She cited the Nissan Leaf at a cost of $33,720, and the Chevy Volt at a cost of $33,500. It is estimated that 10-12 models of electric vehicles will be on the market by 2012. Land Use and Planning Board Hearing September 27, 2010 Minutes Page 6 of 6 George described the vehicle charging stations and systems under development and explained the three vehicular charging levels. She stated that King County is planning to locate charging stations in public locations pursuant to receiving energy grants. It is anticipat ed that approximately 2000 stations will be located throughout the Puget Sound area within the next 2 years. The Washington State Department of Transportation and the Department of Commerce will create an I-5 Electric Highway from Vancouver BC to Mexico with Federal funding, with the first phase to begin this fall. Kent is exploring possible sites for charging stations considering Kent Station and ShoWare Center. George stated that House Bill No. 1481 passed May 12, 2009 mandates local governments to allow electric vehicles infrastructure. Staff has reviewed model regulations to create a proposal. She stated that staff proposes adding definitions to Kent City Code Section 15.02, proposes additions to Section 15.04 adding two types of uses - Level 1 and Level 2 with rapid charging broken out separately as it is not recommended for residential use. Staff proposes allowing battery exchange stations in Commercial Zoning Districts as an accessory use only in an enclosed building. Staff recommends implementing design and signage regulation criteria, such as dealing with charging station cords usi ng a hook or retractable system. Staff proposes allowing only Level 1 and 2 charging systems in residential zones. Staff proposes adding a SEPA Exemption to KCC Section 11.03.200 to ensure that battery charging and exchange stations are categorically exempt from SEPA Review. George submitted an exhibit for the record from Mel Roberts. Phillips MOVED and Dowell SECONDED a Motion to accept the exhibit from Mel Robe rts for the record as submitted by Erin George. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Chair Ralph declared the public hearing open. Dan Silvestri, 431 Scenic Way, spoke in support of electric vehicles. He explained why it was less costly to maintain an electric vehicle versus a gasoline fueled vehicle. Seeing no further speakers, Ottini MOVED and Phillips SECONDED a Motion to close the public hearing. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Ottini MOVED and Johnson SECONDED a Motion recommending Approval of ZCA-2010-3 Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Zoning Code Amendment as presented by staff. Motion CARRIED 6-0. Adjournment Chair Ralph adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. ___________________________________ Charlene Anderson, AICP, Planning Manager Secretary of the Board P:\Planning\LUPB\2010\Minutes\09-27-10-LUPB-Minutes.doc