Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 11/27/1989 (3) KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 27, 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7: 30 p.m. Monday, November 27, 1989 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Anne Biteman Tracy Faust Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Leona Orr Carol Stoner Raymond Ward COMMISSION MEMBER ABSENT: Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Stephen Clifton, Planner Lauri Anderson, Planner Janet Shull, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary FOSTER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE CPZ-89-5 (Continued) Mr. Harris explained that this hearing was continued from October 23 in order to have a report on traffic impacts at the SR 516/167 intersection. City Council previously adopted C-suffix zoning at the intersections of 212th and 228th and West Valley Highway. The current request is for C-suffix zoning in the Foster Plat area, which is currently zoned M2 and designated as Industrial Park in the Comprehensive Plan. Currently there is no access off SR 516 into this site. Access into the site off SR 167 from the south would be easy, but access from the site to SR 167 would be difficult. Mr. Harris suggested the C-suffix be a half circle instead of a full circle. In the M2 zone, manufacturing could generate 43 trips, and a restaurant could generate 36 trips, a total of 79 potential trips during peak hours. In Ml-C zoning a hotel could generate 74 trips, and a restaurant could generate 36 trips, a total of 110 trips. The projected trip generation difference between the M2 and the M1-C could be a net gain of 31 potential trips during peak hours. He pointed out that there are many trips on SR 516 each day, and regardless of the type of Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 development in that area, there will be "F" level of service during peak hours. When the project is presented to the city for development, traffic mitigation assessment could be at either 50 percent or 100 percent of the difference in trips (the projected 31 trips) . At that point a charge could be assessed for the additional trips. Mr. Harris pointed out that there are four traffic lights in the area of SR 516 and Willis Street. A fifth light would be added. The state monitors the lights on SR 516 at the present time, but in the future the city will be synchronizing the lights so that there will be a free flow of traffic through the area. Ron Healey, John Anderson and Associates, 10312 NE Eighth, Bellevue, 98004, stated that he was present to clarify the request and commented that the railroad tracks on the east side of the site separate the area from the adjacent neighborhood. Commissioner Ward MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Faust SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Stoner pointed out that in addition to the vacant land in the southeast quadrant, there is also some vacant land next to Valley Daily News on the southwest corner, and a very large, vacant parcel on the northwest corner. She urged careful consideration of the size of the circle. Mr. Harris responded that the area on the west side of the freeway, specifically the Valley Daily News area, is currently zoned General Commercial. The area on the north and south side of Willis is zoned M2. The current task of the Commission is to make a decision on this Comprehensive Plan rezone request. If approved,the Hearing Examiner would hear the request to rezone the area to a classification for a specific use at a later time. Chairman Martinez pointed out that the area west of the freeway is currently zoned GC, and hotels, motels, restaurants and retail stores can be located in this zone. If the zoning is changed to M1-C, there would be three quadrants in which hotels and restaurants could be located. Mr. Harris responded that it would be better to have them easily accessible from the freeway rather than have them located sporadically along West Valley Highway. Commissioner Forner MOVED that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to allow M1-C designation in the semicircle south of Willis bounded on the east by the Union Pacific Railroad and on the west by the Valley Freeway off ramp. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 2 r Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 (Verbatim Minutes) Chair Martinez: I would like to open the public hearing by having staff presentation. Stephen Clifton: My name is Stephen Clifton and I am with the Kent Planning Department. And before I start, if anyone has not had an opportunity to sign up on this list and you would like to speak to the areas which have not been decided upon, would you raise your hand and I will give you this and you can speak on that. First I ' ll clarify the areas. They are the Valley Floor areas. They are MF Area-8, MF Area-9A, Option Area I and Option Area III. As Chairperson Martinez indicated, this is a continuation of the Valley Floor Subarea Housing meeting and the East Hill Area Housing meeting. First off what we would like to do is. . .Janet will be starting off with a presentation of the four areas which have not been decided upon yet, and then what we will do is take some public testimony and at that time the Planning Commission can make their decisions on the four areas. We can take a break, and I can run upstairs. I will run some numbers and come back down and tell you what the overall density will be now that we are coming to the end of this meeting. As you remember, last week you made recommendations on five areas on the Valley Floor Plan and what remains of the four areas which I just described before, and so at this time I would like to present Janet Shull and she will be presenting for the Valley Floor. VALLEY FLOOR HOUSING STUDY (CPZ-89-4) (Continued) Janet Shull: Janet Shull, Kent Planning Department, and I 'd like to start out by giving you two handouts. One is going to be similar in format to the handout we gave you last week, which basically outlines what you have done to date, and the four areas you still need to make recommendations on. And the other handout I have is the letter we just received today from D. B. Associates and it is in regard to Option Area 2, and so I have a copy for each of you of that letter. What I 'd like to do is start out and show a video that will hopefully better give you a picture of Areas MF- 81 9A, and Option Area 3, which is something that you requested at the last hearing and, hopefully, will give you a better picture of it tonight. Start out there and then move on and give you a description or go over again Option Area 1. This overhead is basically centered on Option Areas 8, or I 'm sorry, Multifamily Area 8, but it shows how the areas all kind of go together. Here is 8, and 9A just to the north, and Option Area 3 is essentially to the west. If you are ready at this time, I will show the video. We are starting out here looking into Area 9A. We are 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 standing on the Overlook property and looking right into the site. You can see it is heavily wooded. This is the steeper part of the site. This area has been designated as significant wildlife habitat by the Department of Ecology, and it also has a wetland area down to the western part of the site, more of a grassy area. Now we are sort of panning down below. You can see some of the commercial uses that are across the street. . .across 288th. . .to give you a sense of what is down below the site. And now looking back into Area 9A. And that is just a kind of zooming in looking through the trees. This next view is also standing on the Overlook property, and we are panning down. . .this is the lower area of Option Area A. or I'm sorry, Multifamily Area 9A. And now we are looking down on Multifamily Area 8 and looking down toward Jonathan's Landing, and you can see some of those commercial manufacturing businesses that do border the area. Then we are basically looking to the west at this point. So you get a sense of. . .this is from up high on the hill. . .on the Overlook site. Now we are standing in between Area 9A and Area 8. At this point here we are looking back toward the Overlook site and that grassy area there that you can see is the wetland area, the lower portion of Area 9A. And now we are looking up into the steeper slope portion of 9A where it is more heavily wooded. And now we are looking up the road that comes into Multifamily Area 8. And if you could look beneath the trees, you can sometimes see there are three single family homes back on the eastern portion of the site. Now we are kind of turning the corner and looking down across area MF-8 and in the distance you can see Jonathan's Landing. And we are just panning area Multifamily 8. Now we are looking back across. . .you can see across the bark piles, and we are looking down. I don't know how else to describe it. We are looking down the street towards the CM-zoned area, which is Option Area 3, and now we are coming back around looking at this L-shaped piece of Option Area 3 and coming back to the boundary between 9A, which is this grassy part here, and Option Area 3 . So now we are looking back towards the Overlook property. . .as we are coming around here we are looking up. . . Chair Martinez: That point we just passed, is that commercial. The out buildings. . .were these manufacturing, or what were those. I can't recognize them. Ms. Shull: Those would be the CM-zoned area. What we essentially did is. . .we swept a big circle. We started looking to the north at the point between Area 9A and Option Area 3, and we swung a big circle around this direction, so we were looking into 9A, and then around over Area 8, which is the real, flat area. And first we looked up into Area 8, which is a hilly, wooded site where three single family houses are, then we swung around to the lower portion of Area 8, which is the flat area, and then you could see in the distance Jonathan's Landing, and then we swung around so you got 4 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 a sense. . .you saw the bark, the mounds of bark. . . looking across the area. . .Option Area 3, then we swung back around, and that is when you saw some of the buildings. Chair Martinez: But those aren't in Option Area 3 . Ms. Shull: No they are bounding on it. Chair Martinez: Fine. Ms. Shull: Now what we are doing is panning down 88th and we are going to drive south on 88th Avenue so you can see into Option Area 3 and you will have to pardon the sun. We did this in the afternoon and the sun was really at a bad angle. We will eventually be driving down the street. Okay. Now we are driving south on 88th, so we are panning all of Option Area 3 . And we will turn the corner at the south portion of Option Area 3 and turn into the Chandler's Bay Apartments, so we will be rounding that corner. So you get a sense of how large this area is. It is 22 plus acres in size. . .Option Area 3 . Okay, now we are about to round the corner and head back into the Chandler's Bay property, and we will be looking north into Option Area 3 at this time. So, the buildings that you can see in the distance, or you could see, there for a second, were on the northern boundary of Option Area 3 . Now we had to switch, and now we are coming down Central, north on Central so you could get a sense of the businesses that are on the west side of Option Area 3 and that front on Central. And these are those mounds of bark and dirt that you could see when you were looking the other direction into the site. That's a bowling alley there. It is hard to make out what that is. Now we are rounding the corner and heading back down 228th, heading east. So we are basically making a big circle around the site. These are some more of the CM type of uses that are located around the property. And then we are pausing here, this is looking south on 88th Avenue, which runs down along the border. Now we are just continuing up to the Overlook site. We are heading east on 228th. So, we are essentially coming back to where we started from where we took this video. So now we are looking back up into the Overlook site, which is this area right here. So we are back to where we started. I thought that was the end, too. I 'm not sure what we are doing now. Okay. What we did now is we shot the other. . .I remember now. . .we shot the north side of 228th so that you could see the businesses on the north side of 228th as well. This is also zoned primarily CM. What we are doing now is that we are heading out Central so that you could see that overpass area where 167 goes over Central, so we will be heading back out to the intersection. You can see the cars up top there, that was 167. That's our video and I hope it helped you. 5 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Commissioner Faust: You were much slower this time in your drive. Thank you. Ms. Shull: It's tough, especially on Central to go slow. At this time if you like, I can go through the areas area by area, if you like. I don't know if you need more information for those three areas, or if you like I can go to Option Area 1, it is up to you. Chair Martinez: Do we need any more information for those three areas. Commissioner Stoner: I 'm have one question. What is the zoning to the north area (unclear) . Ms. Shull: I have a zoning map I can bring. . .a large-scale zoning map I can show you. This is essentially Option Area 3 in here. Area M-8 and Area 9A is this little piece here, and so you can see that the bulk of this area is zoned CM, and then we have high density multifamily which is the Overlook site, we have high density and medium density multifamily to the south, this is the Jonathan's Landing and Chandler's Bay areas. This is Jonathan's Landing and this is Chandler's Bay here. And then we have GC which runs north and south along Central. Chair Martinez: Are there any other questions on these three areas, or shall we go to Option Area 1. Option Area 1, please. Ms. Shull: Okay, Option Area 1 is 4 .25 acres in size, and it is just east of area M-2, just to the other side of the track of the South of Willis neighborhood, which is also known as M-2, and it is currently zoned CM, Commercial Manufacturing. The specific recommendation was for duplex. That would allow for up to 40 units if it were redeveloped at that density. We had a lot of public testimony against this site-specific recommendation. The testimony was for leaving it as is. I ' ll point it out on the zoning map so that you can get a sense for the surrounding zoning. It is located right in this CM strip here, so we have multifamily area on the west side of the tracks, CM directly to the east and to the north. This area here is GC, which comes down again along Central Avenue, so that it kind of borders it as a northernmost. . . northeastern corner. And then we have the Downtown Commercial designation to the north of Willis and then to the west of the railroad tracks. And then the CM strip continues south to the city limits. Commissioner Stoner: Which portion are you looking at? Ms. Shull: Okay. We are looking at this two-square-block portion here, the railroad tracks to the west, CM to the east. Do you have any more questions on that site. 6 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Chair Martinez: Any questions. Thank you. Ms. Shull: Thanks Chair Martinez: I have five people signed up. One person for 0- 2 and one for 0-4 and I would like to not take that testimony because we are hearing testimony only on the sites that are currently still under discussion. That's 0-1, 0-31 M-8 and M-9A. Two people did not put down what sites they are going to speak to. I will call you. If you are speaking on the right thing, you may go ahead. The first one is, I belief Jacqueline Whiteman or Whitman. Please come to the microphone and state your name and address, please. Jacqueline Whiteman: My name is Jacqueline Whiteman and I live at 9427 South 213th Place Kent, and I was here in regards to the grocery store business. . .I see is under 0-4 . Chair Martinez: We have already decided on that one so we are not taking further testimony. Jacqueline Whiteman: You are leaving me alone. Chair Martinez: Yes Jacqueline Whiteman: That's all I wanted to know. Chair Martinez: G. Richard Hill. Richard Hill: Members of the Planning Commission, good evening. My name is Richard Hill and I was thinking about Option area 3 and Multifamily Area 8. As you will see, we have prepared a larger scale diagram of the one that Mr. DiJulio presented at the last Commission hearing to show you the area in its context. On behalf of. . .Oh, I need to state my address for the record. . . 1111 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington. I am counsel for the Carpinito family, and on behalf of the Carpinito family, the Carpinito family would urge the Planning Commission to make no change to Option Area 3 and Multifamily Area 8 at this time. As the letter that we have submitted to you demonstrates and has been stated before, downzoning these two areas does not fulfill the objectives of the planning study at issue. We understand that the density reduction has been met by the Commission's decisions to date, so it is not necessary to downzone these two parcels for density reduction proposes. Indeed as our letter to you states, there will actually be an increase in the number of dwelling units if both of these denseness take place. These properties are appropriate in their current zoning, but if the Planning Commission determines that it 7 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 is appropriate to study these zoning designations further, it should do so in the context of the properties in the vicinity off 167 and commercial and high density multifamily developments in that area rather than essentially single family focus that has been the Planning Commission's focus in the current setting. Therefore we'd urge the Commission to delete these areas from the study areas at this time. If further study is proposed, it should be done in the context of 167 and the development of that area as a whole. Chair Martinez: Are there any questions? Commissioner Faust: Would you go over now using this larger map exactly what we are seeing. Richard Hill: Certainly. First I am going to take away the constituent parts of it. . .the wonders of modern diagram making. Here you see Option Area 3 in the vicinity of 84th and 228th, Multifamily Area 8 in the vicinity of 88th and 228th. The steep slope which you saw at the beginning of the video is to the right of the map. The flat area that you saw adjacent to 88th moving towards the left. Again, moving across 88th is the Option Area 3 , and to the right again where the mounds of bark and soil and the commercial retail development that you saw. The overlay that I am showing you now is the existing zoning on the property. Again, currently MRH is the existing designation on multifamily Area 8. CM is the existing designation on Option Area 3 . The proposal is to downzone the MRH-zoned property here to Garden Density Residential which again would result in an MRH zone to the north, and MRH zone to the south, a CM zone to the west and a CM zone on this portion to the north, essentially creating spot zone of Garden, excuse my loaded expression, unique zone, let me say, of Garden Density. The natural buffer area between property on the slope by virtue of the existing steep slope on the eastern portion of the property. This is a diagram that shows one possible development of the property, including the MRH designation here and potential development here to the left. And this final overlay shows the location of Option Area 3, the location of Multifamily Area 8, and the location of Area 9A. Chair Martinez: Are there questions? Commissioner Ward: Sure. The area that you are concerned about is Area 8 and it is supposed to be used for agricultural purposes. Richard Hill: That's correct. 8 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Commissioner Ward: Is this a hypothetical plan, or is this a plan that you have for the development of the property within a reasonably short period of time. What do you say. Why not MRG. Richard Hill: There is no specific plan for a development in the immediate future; however, MRG zoning would obviously hamper the development of a plan such as this in the future. The property has been zoned MRH and been acquired under MRH expectations, and really should not be a downzone to the MRG zoning designation unless there are very good reasons . . change circumstances justifying the downzone. Again there is MRH development to the south, there is commercial zoning to the north, and MRH zoning is appropriate for development in the future. Well we can't say the development will occur in six months or nine months. That is what the property was acquired for, and that was the basis for the investment in the acquisition. Chair Martinez: Other questions. Commissioner Forner: I had a real concern when I was looking at that land, is there going to be a problem with that being protected under the wetlands. Richard Hill: There are existing regulations governing wetlands both under Federal Law Section 404 permits would be required as well as the City of Kent has wetland protection, and the State Environmental Policy Act. So to the extent that there are wetland issues, those will be addressed under independent and preexisting land use policies. The designation of the MRG will not add additional protection to the wetlands. Indeed the MRH zoning designation would allow development to occur in a more protective way in the sense that there would be a sufficient amount of density so that if there are wetlands on the property to the extent there are, they can be protected while also developing the nonwetlands portions of the property. voice: (unclear) Voice: Option Area 3 is about 23 or 25. Mr. Harris: Could you address yourself to the chair please. Richard Hill: For the record Mr. Carpinito, my client, identified Option Area 3 as about 22-25 acres. Commissioner Ward: What is the present consideration been given to 9A by some environmental. . . 9 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Richard Hill: There was a reference by staff that the Department of Ecology has identified a portion of the property as wetlands and/or sensitive wildlife habitat. The owner has been unable to confirm that and has received no formal notice of that. Mr. Harris: Could I clarify that a little bit. Chair Martinez: Yes, please. Mr. Harris: When we were dealing with that. . . is this on or off. . .when we were dealing with the Overlook people, at first they came in with a plan that covered 9A. When they discovered that we were going to be working on some significant wildlife habitat and wetlands in the area, they dropped that out of their plans. Subsequently they sold it off. I do see that the drawing shows a lot of green in that area, so I would assume. . .this is very hypothetical. . .that they are recognizing that potential in this plan right here. Richard Hill: That was definitely the intent. Chair Martinez: Other questions. Okay. Commissioner Faust: How does your client feel about a rezone of 8 to MRM. Richard Hill: A rezone of 8 to MRM would obviously not be as drastic as MRG, and while it would hurt substantially, it would not hurt as much. Again, we don't believe at this point that it is appropriate. We would prefer that the matter would be studied in the context of the immediately surrounding area rather than the other portions of the property. Commissioner Faust: Do you have any idea what kind of traffic increase is going to result to the two exits out onto Central if this is left MRH. Richard Hill: There hasn't been any formal traffic study of the traffic impacts. Obviously if there was a development proposal, there would be SEPA review. The City of Kent is becoming increasingly sophisticated at imposing traffic mitigation conditions and improvements on development applications, and I am certain that would be evaluated and mitigated, but in terms of answering your question, no, there hasn't been a specific traffic study. Commissioner Stoner: Could I ask a question (unclear) current issues on the CM property on 03. 10 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Commissioner Faust: Lettuce fields. Richard Hill: Yes, I think I might invite my client, Mr. Carpinito, to come up and answer that specifically with the Commission's permission. Chair Martinez: Please identify yourself and give your address. Mike Carpinito: Identify myself. My name is Mike Carpinito, 23032 88th Avenue South in Kent 98032 . Along the highway on North Central from the present Kent Bowl south to the car lot of the Kent Auto Brokers, and behind it we have our retail operation which consists of many things, bark, dirt, nursery, fruit stand, truck shop. Everything that relates to farming operation. You know we are using both commercial and commercial manufacturing to what it is zoned for. Zoning us to an apartment zone just wouldn't fit our ultimate goals for the property whether . . . even for our own use as present Carpinito Brothers business. We would prefer just to keep that zoning while operating the business we have there. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Mike Carpinito: Anything else. Commissioner Stoner: What is the current use, though, in terms of. . .and I am thinking specifically of the . . . (unclear) . . .I know what is along Central, but I am thinking of 0-3 specifically that (unclear) . Mike Carpinito: Part of it is we are using it with the bark and the dirt. Part of it is being farmed. Chair Martinez: Are there any other questions. Thank you. Donald L. McDaniel. Don McDaniel: Don McDaniel and I have property at 615 and 609 South Bridges Avenue. I want to address a couple of things here. Again, maybe it is a little bit old hat now, but if you look at Option Area 1, again we see basically commercial on three sides. We see a railroad on the fourth side. We see a situation if you wanted to put duplexes in there, one, you would have the duplexes only one block from a major artery, Central, or one block from another major artery, Willis, probably not conducive to residential properties. Next thing you look at the size of lots 6600 square feet each, the average lot, although some of them have been split in half. I don't think it would be in your intent to put a duplex on a 6600 square foot lot, although I am not sure. You have heard testimony before that over 80 percent of the property owners, not 11 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 renters, but property owners prefer the present zoning, feel it is most appropriate, most of them bought the properties with investment purposes in mind and with the idea of developing the properties in the manner in which the property was zoned for when they acquired it. You heard not one objection to leaving it at the present zoning. You know what the owners of the property in the area feel. There was a comment close to the close of the last meeting to the effect that it wouldn't look good to have commercial property there. Well there is commercial property all along the area. There was another comment to the fact that there has been that mud heap out there which I assume we are talking about the area where the egg hatchery was and behind Andy's. Well, that's not even in the area that is being considered for rezoning at this time. Also, we see that there has been a tool rental company that is going in there with a brand new building, and we envision that there could be attractive, commercial buildings in that area, given the time to develop the property, which is probably five or ten years down the road. I don't think you are going to see any immediate change. You look at the area, the houses are old, none of them have any historical significance; however, the current property owners are maintaining these residential properties knowing and even wanting the commercial designation to remain. So we are a little bit confused as to why the city feels it necessary to change the zoning when the zoning appears to be appropriate. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Before you go are there any questions. Commissioner Forner: If you don't think we can put garden density or duplex on a 6600 square foot lot, what kind of a business could you put on that lot? Do you have any suggestions of what needs to be . . . Don McDaniel: I understand with the present zoning that you would have to have at least two adjacent lots to do any development at all. So, consequently nothing can be done by individual property owners unless they get together under present circumstances. Chair Martinez: Are there other questions. Thank you. I have two other people signed up. One for 0-2 and one for 0-4 . Do they wish to speak to any of the areas currently under consideration. Okay. Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak to the areas currently under consideration. If not, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Faust: So moved. Commissioner Forner: Second. 12 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Chair Martinez: Is there discussion. (silence) All in favor. Voices• Aye. Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) Thank you. Now we would like to take a 15-minute break. . .Oh no. I'm sorry. Now we have to make our decision first so that we can send you off with the numbers. Again, if we can reach consensus that would be good, but if we can't we' ll vote. Okay. Let's start with 01. That will be fine with me. Commissioner Faust: Think we ought to leave it the way it is. Voices• Agreed. Chair Martinez: I would like to say that at some time it would behoove us to go back and look at the zoning there. We might want to make it General Commercial or something actually more appropriate for that area. I think for now. . . Commissioner Forner: Right. It appears to me that neither of them are the ideal solution to that piece of property. But I don't have anything . . . I agree. Commissioner Stoner: And I am reluctant to pull the two-block area out of what is either Commercial Manufacturing or General Commercial and make it something else. Chair Martinez: Okay, so the consensus on 01 is to retain it CM. Commissioner Ward: CM Chair Martinez: Okay. We have left the three contiguous pieces of property. Commissioner Forner: Madam Chairman, I 'd like to propose that we change the zoning to area M-9A to RA. Chair Martinez: Something we haven't considered yet. Commissioner Forner: Yes. I think that would leave the options for the piece of property open to a variety of uses. Chair Martinez: Still making it residential. . . Commissioner Forner: Still within the residential, but I believe it would expand the options for that piece of property. 13 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Chair Martinez: And RA has always been a transitional zone. Commissioner Forner: Right. Commissioner Faust: How big is 9A. Mr. Harris: Does she have a second on that. She made a motion didn't she. Chair Martinez: Did you make a motion. I thought you were just making a suggestion. Commissioner Forner: I was just making a suggestion and open for discussion. I will make it as a motion. Chair Martinez: I don't think we need a motion yet, unless we. . . is there discussion. Commissioner Ward: What is 9A now. Voice• It is MRH. Chair Martinez: Yeah. High Density. Commissioner Forner: That is a wetlands sensitive area, very beautiful area. I think this would leave options open for future uses that we perhaps don't anticipate right now. Commissioner Faust: I 'd like to know how big the parcel is, because, of course, RA has a one-acre minimum on houses. Commissioner Orr: I have in my notes that it is five acres. I don't know if that is correct. Voices: Five acres. . .that is correct. Commissioner Faust: Most of which is unbuildable. So what you are basically talking about is the potential for putting one maybe two houses on that property because the rest of it is already designated as a sensitive area. Mr. Harris: This has been brought to my attention that we weren't recommending any change on that, but I assume that you are. Commissioner Faust: Yes. That is correct. Commissioner Stoner: I guess I would like staff to tell us what the implications are in putting RA on that property. 14 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Mr. Harris: My feeling is that you have. . .you are going all the way from a high density, 40 units per acre, down to one unit per acre, which is single family, with the idea that it is essentially agriculture with a possibility of a transition to some other residential in the future. RA is a holding zone. We had a lot of it in the valley many years ago. As you went from the agriculture to residential. . .so you would be taking it from an actual specific zoning designation down to kind of a holding zone. They would have to come back later if they wanted to and try to get a rezone to something else, or develop it out at one-acre lots. Commissioner Faust: I 'd like to speak against that. It is a nice idea, but I don't think it is appropriate for this parcel. First of all part of it isn't going to be built on anyway because of what it is, and there is no other RA around there, and it is really going to severely limit what the owner can do with it, and I just don't think it is appropriate for that piece. I really don't. Commissioner Orr: I have to agree with Tracy. From looking at this map and not knowing specifically how much may or may not be developable, it almost appears it has to be used in conjunction with another parcel to maybe even be developed at all. So. . . Commissioner Stoner: It is under one ownership. Commissioner Orr: The entire. . . Commissioner Stoner: At present the entire parcel is under one ownership. Commissioner Faust: I think it is too drastic. . . (unclear) . . . Commissioner Forner: My thinking is that they could possibly. . .I think it is a little over five acres. . . is that correct. . . is that what that one is. . .that there is such a thing as transfer of development rights that they could still get a higher density than one house per acre, and yet still leave that as a transition zone. Commissioner Faust: Transition to what, though. Commissioner Forner: As a wetlands or farmlands or a holding zone, whatever you want to call it. Your argument that they would not be able to get as many houses on in the RA zoning, I think there is going to be a minimal amount of houses that are allowable on that piece anyhow, and to further protect that piece of land, I would like to see it go RA. And in response to your opposition that disallows a certain number of houses, there is such a thing as development rights exchange, which means that if it is five acres and you could put five acres on that whole area, then perhaps 15 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 in the one acre you could put five houses leaving the other four vacant. Mr. Harris: Just a suggestion. . .we don't have a legal mechanism in Kent to do transfer of development rights. Some communities have that. It would have to be out of the kindness of their heart that. . .they do own 03, 8, and 9A in an overall development as you see there, as I see it they would be protecting 9A by moving back to the south. We couldn't come along and say let's do some trading of development rights, because we don't have a legal mechanism to do that. We would have to create that. We have never advocated that here in the Kent Planning Department because we don't have the very dense urban development that you have in downtown Seattle or Tacoma where they do trade development rights. They trade for air rights. They do all kinds of neat things there. We've just never done it. Commissioner Faust: In further argument. . . Commissioner Biteman: I would be inclined to leave it what it is, staff has recommended, MRH. Commissioner Faust: Part of it can't be built anyway. And there are state and local mechanisms already in place that will ensure that the parts of that that are sensitive are retained pristine. Commissioner Ward: You think there is enough restriction on it already. I think back in some records you will find that it possibly is a wetland there. I think that's going to be a restriction in itself. Why do anything with it. Why downzone it to a single family when the restriction is already built in. Leave it MRH and (unclear) . Commissioner Stoner: I think it would be appropriate at this point to ask staff to clarify what the sensitive ordinance regulations are that impact that property. What kind of setbacks are we going to have from them, because I think that influences what we do. What kind of protection does the City of Kent have in place for this. Ms. Anderson: This is Lauri Anderson, Kent Planning Department. I am going to speak to this one because I worked on the Overlook properties and I 'm probably more familiar with the property. When the owners of the Overlook property had a wetlands report done for the entire piece, there were two. . .three wetlands identified, two natural and one manmade wetland on 9A. There is a natural wetland at the bottom of the slope in this area, there is a sump, actually sort of a pond, and Mr. Carpinito might be better able to tell me. . . I don't know what it is, and then down in this area which 16 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 actually extends, I think, off this property to a certain extent is a very large wetland. At the same time the wetlands analysis was done, we had someone from the Department of Ecology come out and walk the site to give us their input on it. At that time they indicated that all of the property to the south of a fence line which runs along here could be identified as a significant wildlife habitat. It is very heavily forested, and there are steep slopes. In terms of the mechanism that we have in place that would control that, the first part would be the State Environmental Policy Act Review. And as Mr. Carpinito's attorney mentioned, the Section 404 permits from the Army Corps of Engineers which regulate development in a wetland area. We also have the Hazard Regulations of the Zoning Code prohibit development in wetlands and on slopes of a certain steepness. We have a tree protection ordinance in place that governs which trees can be cut on a site. In terms of significant wildlife habitat, that would be a concern that would have to be addressed through the SEPA review. We don't have any specific zoning ordinance that refers to that, although I think that part of the hazard area regulations mention that the Planning Director has the authority to deem certain areas of significance for a variety of reasons, and then the hazard area regulations come into play. And then Stephen wanted to make. . .did that answer your questions. Mr. Clifton: This is to further clarify what Jim is talking about. Stephen Clifton, Kent Planning Department, with transfer of development rights. We do not have a procedure for doing that; however, what I would like to do is just point out one thing here. What you have is a single ownership property right here. In Kent what we do is take the whole parcel and calculate the density on that parcel. So if this lot line were ever to be removed, these 40 units calculated as such could be transferred to this property down here provided that this lot line is removed. So it is possible to take those units and put them on the other piece of property. If they chose not to develop on this property here by removing this lot line here. . . if that is absolutely contiguous piece under one ownership. . . Commissioner Orr: I just have one more comment against the RA zoning, and I agree it is a nice idea and I would like to see some way to preserve that type of property, but, logically speaking, I can't imagine a person building a home or buying a home there surrounded by multifamily on all sides. Even if you could build one home per acre or even if you could only build two homes, it just doesn't make sense to me. It makes more sense to me that at a time it was developed a lot line could be removed, the area could be preserved and it could be developed with the rest of the property. 17 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Commissioner Faust: I 'd like to see it perhaps downzoned to MRM rather than MRH, which is such a high density. I might as well sail right into 8 because that is my recommendation for that parcel as well, MRM. Commissioner Forner: I have another question. Is it possible that the entire piece could be undevelopable, that the entire piece would be declared wetlands. Ms. Anderson: I can address that. The piece itself has several wetlands on it. If a person owns a piece of property without just compensation, we would not take the property and claim that it was undevelopable. There are constraints on the property, certainly, but some sort of development, if an individual owner owned that property, would be permissible. Of course we would prefer to see the development rights transferred to another piece of property because of the nature of that area. Chair Martinez: Okay. We have two suggestions now on the table. For 9A we have RA, MRM and MRH. For 8 we have MRM. Commissioner Ward: You have two. Eight should be MRH also, because to transfer those ownership rights and not develop the greater portion of 9A they would have to go to 8 since it is a single property owner. Chair Martinez: I don't understand what you just said. Commissioner Ward: Shall I say it again. Chair Martinez: Yeah. Commissioner Ward: A pointed discussion with 9A. I feel that 9A should remain as MRH. I think there are enough restrictions of 9A presently that will prohibit the development. Now to be fair to the owner who is speaking against a downzoning and I see no particular reason to downzone 9A for that basic reason, because we are talking about wetlands which make it impossible to develop a greater portion thereof. Then if we are going to throw 8 in the same bailiwick, then we are still talking about 8 remaining as MRH in order to be able to transfer. The developmental rights have a higher density on 8 and therefore not develop any portion of 9A which gives us a green belt, scenic wetlands zone, what have you. . .we're talking about beautification. I see no reason to downzone. Chair Martinez: Okay. So now we have two suggestions for 8 and three for 9A. 18 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Commissioner Ward: I think somebody needs to withdraw their. . . Chair Martinez: There was no motion. We are still talking. Commissioner Orr: I have one question of staff if someone can answer it. I know we are talking about achieving a 20 percent overall reduction. We've also been considering a potential of higher densities on the Valley Floor with the ultimate potential for mass transit. Is there any idea of what impact changing this from MRH to MRM would have given that. . . Mr. Harris: I think that's the calculations Stephen. . . Commissioner Orr: Once we decide. Mr. Harris: Is going to go upstairs and do or may have some idea now. I am not sure. Voice: (Unclear) Mr. Harris: No, he would have to run that through on a machine. Chair Martinez: What would happen if we make all these properties MRG or MRM, either one. Just make the whole. . . Commissioner Ward: Then we'd have a fourth suggestion. Chair Martinez: Okay. Stephen, do you have something for us. Voices: (Unclear) Mr. Clifton: Stephen Clifton with the Kent Planning Department. On Option Area 8 under MRH zoning you have approximately 544 units which could be developed. With MRG zoning you are looking at approximately 217 units, and under MRM you would just kind of average those two. We have not calculated MRM. Somewhere around 400. Chair Martinez: Okay. Mr. Clifton: Nine A being five acres, let's say it is all developable . . . five acres at 40 units per acre would be 200; 23 units for MRM would be 115; and then MRG would be 16 units per acre, five acres, 80 units. I think those are right. Those are off the top of my head. Okay. Are those the only two areas you wanted. Chair Martinez: We might as well hear 0-3, too. 19 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Mr. Clifton: 0-3. Under CM zoning, obviously then what you have is zero units; MRG is 340 units; let's see, MRM is 489 units. Chair Martinez: And MRH. Mr. Clifton: We didn't calculate MRH. That was previously CM and we never recommended it as MRH. Commissioner Ward: You also have a suggestion on 0-3 also. Commissioner Forner: If we changed Number 8 to MRM and 9A to MRM, and we consider that as one parcel, and the development rights for 9A were transferred to 8, does that give then an increase of another 200 units so that it would go from 400 to 600, which is seven a higher density than MRH. Mr. Clifton: If the applicants take Area 9A and 8, remove the lot line between the two parcels, then they could calculate all that acreage for their density, meaning that you could actually add around 200 units to Area 8. That is correct. Commissioner Ward: How many could they add if it stayed MRH. Mr. Clifton: That was MRH. That was MRH. . .200 units at five acres, 40 units an acre. Commissioner Ward: Oh, I thought it was MRM. Chair Martinez: So that is 700 all together. Commissioner Forner: Seven hundred that they could put on that. . . Voices: For MRH. Commissioner Forner: MRM would be two thirds of that. Voices: Umhmm . .between five and six. Mr. Clifton: But no one knows if that would really occur. I mean, the possibility exists. Commissioner Ward: But the typical build out is not anywhere nearly the maximum level typically in Kent, right. Mr. Clifton: That depends upon how the parking is handled. Commissioner Ward: Except next door. 20 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Mr. Clifton: If parking is put under structures, if parking is put under the buildings, then you can achieve maximum density. Typically it is usually around 90 percent. Commissioner Ward: Of course on the Valley Floor they can't dig down under the building there, can they? Mr. Clifton: You'd only be able to put parking mostly half way down, usually around three or four feet, or sink it directly under the building. Commissioner Forner: I have strong feeling for going MRH with the possibility of that increasing into almost 900 units. Commissioner Stoner: I think the only argument in favor of it is that if you look at the area to the south, the high density areas to the south, they are not visible. They do not impact you as being high density areas. Because of the topography and because of the separation from the major arterials, visually you don't see that. I think the question is. . .they are also not adjacent to where we think our mass transit lines may fall. And that, I think, is the argument against. You want to look at both of them. Central and 167 are going to be the routes that those people use. And I don't know even if you put that. . .and it was developed at MRH or MRM, if you are going to have enough density in that strip against the hillside to be served by mass transit effectively Commissioner Forner: (Unclear) . . .build for mass transit and. . . (unclear) Commissioner Stoner: There is always that issue, isn't there. Commissioner Forner: (Unclear) . . .traffic jams. Commissioner Ward: Maybe the MRH is 20 years off, too, and everything else says MRH. . .north and south of it. Commissioner Faust: I still think that we shouldn't zone it at a higher density than MRM, 9A and 8. Commissioner Stoner: I would move that we take Option Area 3 , Area 8 and Area 9A and zone them at MRM. Commissioner Ward: A point of order. I think we had a motion on the floor. Voices: No, we don't. We've had discussion. Commissioner Ward: You're RA thing wasn't a motion. 21 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Chair Martinez: Is there a second. Commissioner Biteman: I 'll second it. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion. Commissioner Faust: Yes. I really think we ought to leave 3 the way it is. Voice: I do, too. Commissioner Faust: Leave it the way it is. Commissioner Ward: Same here. I think it should be CM. Commissioner Faust: Well, I guess if you ask why, I guess in part it has to do with what we just did with 01. Our purpose here is to rezone to single family as well as to try to reduce densities. And I just don't think that changing the designation of 3 to put it into multifamily at any level is really going to help. I really don't see. If we leave 8 and 9A at a fairly high density, I am even willing to give a little on that, but the owner does not want it changed, the owners of 1 does not want it chanted, and I think those are two instances where we ought to pay attention to the owners of the property. I really do. Commissioner Forner: To further support that, I think we need commercial to support the high density. I just think it does support the density. Commissioner Stoner: We have Gateway Commercial to the north, we've got General Commercial all along 84th on both sides, and we've got a significant amount of acreage there, and I am wondering how much more we need in terms of commercial or commercial manufacturing uses. Commissioner Faust: I 'll tell you what concerns me the most about. . .rezoning that to multifamily at any level is the increased traffic. It is just going to be horrendous. We know that we want to increase the density if we are going to increase it anywhere on the Valley Floor, but I think that leaving 8 and 9 at a fairly high density is sufficient for that area. You have two exists from that. And I don't know what it is like during rush hour now with all those little apartments in there, but it is going to be just terrible if we rezone all of that to multifamily and it is built out. 22 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Commissioner Stoner: Janet, could we move this one down and see if the larger. . . (unclear) . Ms. Shull: Did you want the zoning or the. . . Commissioner Stoner: That'll be. . . Ms. Shull: The general area here. Commissioner Greenstreet: I agree with Carol. Before coming down here. . .previous testimony, I didn't think that area was commercial. There's plenty of commercial already to support. Another argument for it, I was hoping that a nicer project could be built, that more projects, the more money that could be made because of the density of nicer, green belts, trails and that could be put in. That a better plan could be made. I don't know if that area needs to look at more commercial as you drive down through there. The only argument that I really see possibly is the multifamily traffic generation. We all look at a gateway. . . (unclear) see what a commercial district can raise the traffic, so I don't think you are really solving anything if you put commercial there. . . I mean it is really going to be bad. . .commercial. . .multifamily, I think it is going to be bad. That gateway center would be supported very well, very nice strip through the (unclear) we initiated six months ago. That hillside, sensitive area and all that, I really think a plan could be made (unclear) to support the commercial there. If it happens, I don't know. That is up to the owner. We can't tell them what to build. All we can hopefully do is to set some guidelines to do it. Chair Martinez: I 'd like to speak in support of that. It seems to me that because we do happen to have this property that is three contiguous areas that are very large, and we do have a PUD plan that is available to people where you can come in and ask for a mixed use PUD even if the underlying zoning is multifamily, that putting multifamily there on Option Area 3 makes a certain kind of sense in that we are trying to get the density on the Floor. Of course the flip side of that is the traffic. . .traffic. . .traffic. But it does give. . . it perhaps conveys a sense that we would like to have something happen down there that is really positive and for the whole community. commissioner Stoner: It' a place. . . Commissioner Forner: (Unclear) . . .Community Commercial is supposed to be a community commercial area supported by a high density population that uses that so that they don't have to drive ten miles down the road or five miles down the road for their services. 23 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 And I guess one of my concerns is that Kent does not become a bedroom community. It's nice to have high density, but we still have to create our own services and community commercial within that density. And, whether we have enough on that strip, I don't know. Commissioner Stoner: And I don't think we will know until it starts developing to support the multifamily that exists there now and may exist later. Commissioner Greenstreet: . . .Have the opportunity. The market will decide. But if you get enough people there that want to buy, they are going to develop that commercial. . .there is commercial land there could utilize (unclear) . . . Commissioner Stoner: And this is a place that multifamily can go with reasonable densities, and it is not going to impact single family neighborhoods. Commissioner Faust: Well, I sound like a broken record, but I still think that we ought to leave 3 the way it is. If we are going to go ahead and rezone the others so that they stay multifamily, I think we ought to leave this as the CG the way it is. I think that there is. . .I 'm sorry. . . Voice: CM Commissioner Faust: CM. I think there is a need for it. I just hate to foreclose the owners' options this way. I know we've only got one owner here talking about this as opposed to all those landowners in 01, but we've talked so long here about buffers, and this is a buffer that could go either way. This is a buffer that could stay commercial between that and the multifamily, or could go multifamily. I just think it ought to stay the way it is as a buffer between the multifamily. I think there is a need in that area of Kent to keep that designation. The owner testified that he is presently using it. And I know, Greg, that you and I have talked before about wouldn't it be nice if we ran the zoo and could tell owners what to do with their property, but right now those are lettuce fields. I rather like them the way they are. There is no guarantee that they are going to stay lettuce fields forever, but my major concern is that one, we just agreed to do 01, to leave it commercial because it was right there on a commercial strip and it fit very well in with that, and there was a lot of support for it, and for the same reasons the fact that it is right next to a commercial strip and the owner feels very strongly about it, and because there is an awfully lot of multifamily there, I 'd still like to leave 3 the way it is. And we have to up the amount of multifamily that we do in the other two areas. So be it. I think 24 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 we are looking at serious traffic problems if we rezone 03 to multifamily at any level. Commissioner Stoner: I got out my zoning code, and Commercial Manufacturing. . .the purpose of this district is to provide locations for those types of developments which combine some characteristics of both retail establishments and industrial operations, heavy commercial and wholesale uses, and then it goes on to say principally permitted uses. . .heavy commercial uses, which often include outdoor storage such as lumber yards, trailer and truck rentals, etc. contractor shops where most of the work is done on call, semi-manufacturing work, such carpentry, heating, electrical, glass shops, which are the kinds of uses that are there up against 228th. Specialty manufacturing. . .that isn't a community commercial designation, and whether that is the long-term intent of the owner is one thing, but that's not a neighborhood commercial or community commercial, or even a general commercial use. It's a commercial manufacturing designation now. I guess I 'd like to see that as an MRM zone if there is a need. . .there is always the rezone process to get a specific kind of development in there. We are talking very general land use issues now, and I guess I don't see commercial manufacturing as being appropriate up against that kind of multifamily. Commissioner Greenstreet: (Unclear) . . .Commercial Manufacturing does not fit that area (unclear) . . .I 'd like to see it developed. . . lettuce fields or if it is a grocery store, if they need a support grocery, or laundry mat, that can happen later, and I know Gateway Commercial will start building out. CM just doesn't fit. Commissioner Faust: How about if we rezone it to some other commercial use. Chair Martinez: We might want to do that, but not now. We are dealing with the housing study now and to start dealing with commercial zoning. . . first of all we have not been given the authority to do that, and that's a new ball game. Commissioner Stoner: I would like more information before we do that. Chair Martinez: Let's not do that. Commissioner Forner: I would also like to reiterate that I think in the present traffic configuration that we have on North Central, to zone all three of those properties as high density is going to create a traffic nightmare, and we have in our Comprehensive Plan the options for reviewing this plan. In fact that is one of the 25 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 dictates of this plan. . .is to be reviewed, and when they have aligned the light rail and said it is going to come there, then I would suggest that they review this plan and take a second look at it. But all I have heard about light rail and where the alignment is going to be, I don't believe we will see it in the valley at all, and if we do it certainly will be 20 years down the road. Commissioner Greenstreet: So, are you suggesting that we zone it MRG, and if light rail is built, turn to MRH. Commissioner Forner: I would suggest that you relook at the plan. If we have a definite rail coming down in the valley, we are going to relook at this whole Valley Floor Plan at that time. But we can't zone something now in anticipation of light rail taking care of the traffic impacts. Chair Martinez: Okay, we have a motion on the floor to zone all three parcels MRM. Is there any further discussion. Commissioner Ward: You mean against. Chair Martinez: Is there any further discussion. Commissioner Ward: Yes. I would agree with an MRM for 8 and 9A. I could not agree with changing 03 from commercial to multifamily. Some other commercial, fine. Commercial Manufacturing does not fit, but it is presently Commercial Manufacturing. Someone with some kind of wisdom decided upon on CM for that zoning designation and it is surrounded by it, and I see no reason to change it. Voice: The question. Chair Martinez: There is a call for the question. The motion on the floor is to make all three properties. . .O3 , MF8 and MF9A into MRM. All in favor. Voices: Aye. . .Aye. Chair Martinez: Opposed. Voices• Nay. . .Nay. Chair Martinez: So that has been defeated. Commissioner Ward: I will make a motion. . .you make a motion. Commissioner Faust: I move that we rezone 9A and Multifamily 8 to MRM and leave 03 the way it is. 26 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Commissioner Forner: Second. Commissioner Ward: Question. Chair Martinez: Okay, the question has been called. The motion is 9A and 8 MRM, and 03 CM. All in favor. Voices: Aye. Chair Martinez: Opposed. Voices: Aye. . .Opposed Chair Martinez: So it carried. So we now have consensus. Commissioner Ward: Are you going to identify those who voted against it. Chair Martinez: Okay, so 8 is MRM, 9A is MRM, and 03 retains the CM. We will take a 15-minutes break and we'll be back here at ten minutes to ten. BREAK Chair Martinez: Okay, I would like to have the new numbers presented if you would, please. Mr. Clifton: Stephen Clifton with the Kent Planning Department. I would like to address one area prior to finishing with the numbers. Nine A was under separate ownership when this study began. And we just realized that because of that we never calculated in 9A numbers for that because there was no development potential for it at the time. And now since it is under another ownership, it is possible to. . .you know, if that lot line were removed, to transfer that density down to Area 8. So basically what we did then was to just add for the development potential of the study. . .we had 47. . .4, 750 for total units citywide. Now with 9A added onto that, we have a development potential of 4,944, because it is now under another ownership. And so that development potential is a lot different now than it was at the time we began the study. And so basically what we did was to add that number to the final figure, 4,944, and use that to calculate our percentages. Had we not done that, it would have been 28 percent reduction. With that it is a 31 percent reduction in multifamily density citywide. Thirty-one percent was the figure you had going into last week. It dropped down to 24 percent prior to this meeting, and now it is back up to 31 percent. Chair Martinez: Okay. 27 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Mr. Clifton: Just under a rough calculation, if the area CM, Area 3 CM went to MRM, it would have gone down to around 24 percent reduction. We just kind of calculated that for your information. Chair Martinez: Okay, thank you. I would like to now move into the East Hill. Do you have any comments you would like to make, please. EAST HILL HOUSING STUDY (CPZ 89-3) (Continued) Ms. Anderson: Before we get started on this. . .this is Lauri Anderson with the Kent Planning Department, I have a memo similar to the one that Janet handed out for the Valley Floor discussing what actions needed to remain before you tonight. I also have a letter that we received today from Donna Sampson. It is regarding an area that you had already made a decision on, I believe, Area MF14. She had written previously and I just want to enter this into the record and hand it to you. Mr. Harris: Madam Chair, may I get a point of order. On the memo that Janet gave you we had number 1 thing had to be done, and you just did that. You reached a consensus on four areas. Chair Martinez: That is correct. Mr. Harris: Then there were two, amend the Valley Floor Plan Map and Comprehensive Plan Map as necessary for implementation of the Planning Commission's recommendations. Chair Martinez: Yes. Mr. Harris: Then number 4 and 5, were you going to do that later tonight. Chair Martinez: Yes Mr. Harris: You weren't going to do that now. Chair Martinez: No, we are just going to try to keep moving along. Voice: Before we go on I have a question about your figures. They seem to be backwards, actually increase the density, the reduction went higher, and when you decrease the density, it went lower. You said if we changed CM to MRM, the reduction would go down 24 percent, when actually. . . 28 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Mr. Clifton: Right, it would go down to 24 percent. In our calculations Area 3 under MRG zoning was around 340 units. Because that went back down to CM, you are removing 340 units from the final calculations; therefore, the percentage would increase, and that is what happened. You add units and the reduction will. . . Commissioner Forner: You were (unclear) MRG rather than CM. Mr. Clifton: That is what we had up to this date, because that was our recommendation. And so now that you did not go along with the recommendation, you went to CM, then that increases the percentage. Commissioner Forner: That makes sense. Ms. Anderson: Okay, this is Lauri Anderson again. Back to the East Hill. Last week you reached consensus on the remaining six sites on East Hill and you were holding action on those sites until you had decided looking at the percentage reduction how you wished to proceed. On page 2 of the memo that I just handed out is a list of major actions that are before you tonight. The first one would be formal approval of those zoning map designations for the six consensus sites. You have already in one of your earlier meetings listed the sites for the record and approved and moved for that action. The second action would be decision on amending the subarea and Comprehensive Plan Maps, and there is an attachment which outlines, based on the consensus that you have achieved for all the East Hill sites, the proposed amendments both to the Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Plan maps. Chair Martinez: Do we need to make any adjustments to that particular area. Ms. Anderson: Not unless you were to go back at this point and change your mind on any of the East Hill sites. Okay. And then the last action before you would be the decision on amending the already approved single family designated area. You had approved the map that you see attached as the last page at an earlier meeting. As a result of some of the zoning changes you have made, staff is recommending you add four small areas to the single family designated overlay, and those are highlighted in yellow. There is one down on 256th, two that are more easily observable near the top of the map, and then one over to the left in the area of Farrington Court Apartments, sort of in the curve of the East Hill. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Are there any questions of anyone before we begin this process. Okay. So the first thing we need to do is to have a motion to approve the consensus areas that we arrived at last week. 29 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Commissioner Faust: So moved. Chair Martinez: And do you need those listed. They're all here. Okay. Is there a second. Okay, Greg seconded it. Mr. Harris: So I assume the motion said that all those consensus items under number 4. . . (unclear) Chair Martinez: And number 5, actually number 4 has been approved. Voice: On the first case. . . Chair Martinez: Okay, this is number 5. Okay, this is consensus on the areas listed under number 5 in the November 27th memo from Lauri Anderson. Ms. Anderson: Okay, that's all right. You could also refer to number 1 in the actions on the next page. . Chair Martinez: Okay, we have. . . is there any further discussion. Voice: Question. Chair Martinez: All in favor. Voices: Aye. Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Motion carried. Tracy made it and Greg seconded it. Now we need approval of the zoning map designations on the sixth consensus site as listed on the next page. No we didn't. Ms. Anderson: That was the action that you just took. Chair Martinez: Okay, excuse me. Now I need a decision on amending the Subarea and Comprehensive Plan. The list is attached. Commissioner Stoner: I move that we amend the Subarea and Comprehensive Plan Maps to bring them into conformance with the Commission's approved zoning map designations as per the list which would be page 3 of the memo. Chair Martinez: Is there a second. Commissioner Faust: Second. Chair Martinez: Discussion. All in favor. 30 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Voices: Aye Chair Martinez: Opposed (silence) . Motion carried. We have approved the single family designation overlay. Would you like to amend that to include the four areas which we have in our deliberations changed, or added to single family, all of which are contiguous to other single family areas. Commissioner Stoner: I move we amend the already approved single family designated area overlay to bring it into conformance with Commission's approved zoning map designations per the map in our memo. Chair Martinez: Is there a second to that. Commissioner Forner: Second. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion. Commissioner Ward: These were amended today. Chair Martinez: No, last time. These are all a part of what we have already discussed. It is simply adding it to the single family designated overlay. Is there further discussion. Voice: Question. Chair Martinez: The question has been called. Those in favor. Voices: Aye. Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Okay. We will do the facts . . . findings and conclusions in a moment. We need to move now to the actions that we need to take on the Valley Floor. VALLEY FLOOR HOUSING STUDY (CPZ 89-4) Ms. Shull: Janet Shull, Planning Department. Would you like me to go over those for you. There are some differences between the Valley Floor and the East Hill and I would like to point those out. The first difference is on the Valley Floor at this time you have only reached preliminary consensus on all these sites. None of them have been officially recommended for a change. So you need to take action on all of them by making those official recommendations. So I wanted to point that out. You also have attached to the final pages of your memo a similar map to the one 31 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 that Lauri showed you on the single family designated area overlay, and there are no additions that need to be made to this map based on any recommendations you have made tonight. For instance, you made no recommendations for single family, so there would be no further amendments that would need to be made. But essentially there are three areas highlighted in yellow, and they represent essentially area MF11, which is the area to the north surrounded by the dotted area. That was an area you recommended single family zoning for. The large area in the center of the map is essentially MF6 that you recommended R1-5 for that area. And then the area in the lower right, area MF4 that you recommended R1-7.2. So we are suggesting that you would want to include those in the single family designated area overlay. There is one other point I wanted to bring out on this map, if you will remember area MF12, and I can point it out on the large map. . .located here. You recommended R1- 7.2 for that site. And that is not included in this proposed overlay because it is such a small site; however, that area up to the north of that is currently zoned RA, and it was never included in the single family overlay because we didn't include any RA- zoned areas, only those designated R1 single family. But as we looked at the Comprehensive Plan and the Subarea Plan, they both designate that area as single family. So we would like to bring that your attention, if you would see fit to include that area as well. So it is essentially all this area that is shown in yellow. And I guess staff recommendation would be that you either not include it at all, or include the entire area. But it wouldn't be appropriate to just include Area MF12, because it is a singular parcel and it doesn't meet the criteria of the single family designated overlay being a large contiguous single family area. So I wanted to bring that to your attention. Essentially you have the same set of actions to take with those two differences, that being that you have to officially adopt all the recommendations you've made to this point. So I suppose by doing that you could refer to those listed in the memo under action 2 which is on page 1 and action 3 which is on page 2. Then you would have to go area by area to indicate for the record the recommendations you have made tonight. Commissioner Greenstreet: I make a motion that we accept point number 2 and point number 3, point 2 on page 1 and point 3 on page 2 , as written. Chair Martinez: And how about what we have done tonight. Commissioner Greenstreet: I thought I 'd stop at that motion, because I wasn't sure what I had missed. 32 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Chair Martinez: Second. Commissioner Orr: Second. Chair Martinez: Further discussion. Leona. Commissioner Orr: I did. Chair Martinez: Is there further discussion. All in favor. Voices• Aye. Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Okay. I need a motion about the areas that we decided on tonight. Commissioner Faust: Madam Chair, I recommend that this body approve the decision it made earlier tonight regarding parcels 9A and MF8 to MRM, the parcel 03, the area 03 be left as is, that area 01 be left as is. Commissioner Forner: I second it. Chair Martinez: Is there further discussion. Commissioner Ward: Call for the question. Chair Martinez: All in favor. Voices• Aye. Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence--motion carried) Okay. We now need to amend the Valley Floor to create the single family designated areas. Commissioner Stoner: I move that we apply the single family designated area overlay to those dotted areas on the map in the memo plus the yellow areas that are designated on the memo. Commissioner Biteman: I 'll second it. Chair Martinez: I want to clarify. . .you did not include. . . Commissioner Stoner: I 'm not addressing the area to the north. Chair Martinez: Okay. Is there any discussion. Commissioner Ward: She is not addressing MF 12 and the adjacent area to the north. 33 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Commissioner Stoner: No, I am not. Commissioner Ward: Why. Are you going to do that separately or what. Commissioner Stoner: I think that needs to be discussed because we haven't really talked about applying that. We can make that motion and discuss that area, but I think the ones that are here are the ones that we are pretty sure that we know what we want to do. . .that we have discussed. Commissioner Ward: MF12 . Commissioner Stoner: No, we would not include MF12. It includes just what is shown on the map in the memo in your packet and the yellow additions that are on the map in the packet. Chair Martinez: Okay. Is there further discussion. Commissioner Stoner: Question. Chair Martinez: All in favor. Voices: Aye. Commissioner Stoner: Opposed. (silence) Motion carried. The official zoning map. Ms. Shull: Janet Shull, Kent Planning, you've actually done number 5, which is to amend the zoning map by making those recommendations on each area. What you need to do is address item 2, which is amending the Valley Floor Plan Map and the Comprehensive Plan Map, and I 'd like to point out, there is a note at the bottom that says that you might need to make additional amendments as might be necessary because of the recommendations you have made tonight on those four areas. But there are no other changes you need to make. Just those that are listed in the memo. Chair Martinez: Okay, fine. So we need to have this whole thing under item number 2 be a motion, please. Commissioner Forner: So moved. Chair Martinez: Is there a second. Commissioner Greenstreet: Second. 34 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 Commissioner Stoner: Do we need to refer specifically to the actions we took tonight on MF8, MF9A, 01 and 03 . Mr. Harris: You just did those (unclear) . . . Commissioner Stoner: So we don't have to speak specifically to those in our motion. Commissioner Forner: Do I have to restate that motion or is that plain. Chair Martinez: No, no. I think we got that down. Is there further discussion. Voice: Question. Chair Martinez: All in favor. Voices: Aye. Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Motion carried. By law we need to have our findings and conclusions back within 14 days which would be December 11, 1989. So I need a motion to continue, not the hearing, but this meeting on the housing elements until December 11, 1989, in these chambers. And I understand two of us are going to be away, but there will be a quorum here for that meeting that evening. . .unless somebody else is going to be gone. So I do need that motion. Commissioner Ward: I just moved. Chair Martinez: Is there a second. Commissioner Forner: Second. Chair Martinez: In favor. Voices: Aye. Chair Martinez: So we will meet on December 11 for our findings and conclusions. (End of Verbatim Minutes) ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner Martinez was elected Chair and Commissioner Faust was elected as Vice Chair for 1990. 35 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 27, 1989 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10: 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �'. Ja s P. lgariis, Secretary 36