Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 07/24/1989 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Chair Martinez: Is there a second? Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I second. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion? All in favor Commissioners: Aye Chair Martinez: Opposed. For those of you in the audience, on August 14th at 7 :30 we will be meeting in this room. We will be continuing our deliberations, and you are certainly welcome, and we encourage you and your neighbors to attend. (Unclear voices) Chair Martinez: For clarification can if there is additional testimony, can we have. . .we have closed the hearing. . .can it be reopened. Okay, fine. If there is new input to be had from the community, we can reopen the hearings and listen to whatever you have to say, and we would be happy to receive written testimony as well. There will be a verbatim report available on what has gone on today, and I am hoping that some of the issues can be addressed from the staff when you come to make the presentation so that people are clear about any of the questions that they have raised here. Yes, Dan. Dan Stroh: Also, I 'd really appreciate getting the addresses of people who didn't receive notification who feel that they ought to have received it so we can figure out what went wrong with the notification process. . .help us on down the road as we do others of these meetings. I'd really appreciate if you could give that to me tonight. Thank you. Chair Martinez: We have two more areas, and if we have made a mistake, we don't want to repeat it. Okay. That' s it. (End of verbatim minutes) RECREATIONAL VEHICLE CABIN PROPOSAL ZCA-89-2 Scott Williams presented the KOA, Kampgrounds of America, proposal for one or two movable wooden camping cabins to be allowed in the KOA campground. He stated that the Kent Zoning Code allows permanent structures only for a residence for the manager and/or owner of the park, and for structures to house laundry and shower facilities. Staff recommends denial of this regulatory review for the following reasons: (1) the intent of the Recreational Vehicle Park Code is to provide areas for recreational vehicles and their 36 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 users and these cabins clearly do not fit the definition of a recreational vehicle; (2) This type of request has not been considered in the code. There is concern that there could be an increase in the number of cabins in the future, and that the cabins could encourage long-term stays. Chairman Martinez commented that we do not have a campground designation. She felt there should be either a new designation entitled Campground, or the Recreational Vehicle Park Code should be amended. Beth Garrett, applicant, 5801 South 212th, stated that the City of Kent allowed KOA, which has 700 campgrounds in the United States, to come into the City of Kent. At that time KOA had sites for trailers, motor homes, and a tenting area. After travelling in Australia, New Zealand and Europe, the applicants brought back to KOA in Billings, Montana the concept of camping for those who did not have the big car or big tents. People in those other countries can throw sleeping bags and cooking utensils into their cars and camp without the tent. KOA now has instigated this concept, and hundreds of its campgrounds now have the camping cabins. Last year KOA asked all of its campgrounds to include a cabin or two so that those who wished to camp in cabins could camp without a tent. The structures in question are one-room cabins with a double bed, two bunks, an electric light in the ceiling and a smoke alarm. Campers cook and eat outside like other tenters. The cabin is like a hard- sided tent. Tenting is open only during June, July, August, and September, depending on the weather. The camping area is roped off and unused during the winter months. The cabins would be in the tenting area and also would be closed all winter. They have a second building which houses the shower, laundry, etc. Since the buildings are closed all winter, she did not feel that anyone would want to live in a cabin in the winter that has no heat, no water or plumbing. She emphasized that the proposed cabins would not be permanent structures. The cabins would be put on blocks so that they could be moved. She stated that 40, 000 campers use the KOA campground in Kent during the year. These campers use the services of the City of Kent. She expressed disappointment that the planners did not realize that this was not a permanent structure. She pointed out that San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Antonio, and Salt Lake City have these structures in the KOA campgrounds. She requested that since this type of structure is part of the entire KOA system, KOA in Kent should be allowed to have these structures. When KOA was allowed to locate in Kent, they were told that the site would be in a recreational area. Now they are nearly surrounded by warehouses. 37 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet stated that he has known persons who had gone to Denmark and Norway and had utilized this type of camping structure as they travelled. He felt that this structure would fit better in North Bend or Green Water than in our urban area. Ms. Garrett added that they provide a Gray Line Tour bus tour for 65 passengers on a seven-hour tour of the Seattle area. The bus tour is filled with people from all over the world. Kent's KOA is the nearest campground to Seattle, and KOA refers campers to other locations able to accommodate them. Their campers usually stay at least three or four days to see this area. Commissioner Forner explained that under the present zoning there are regulations which include only people-maintained vehicles or tents. She asked how the facility would be kept clean. Ms. Garrett responded that the campground employs a professional cleaning crew on a daily basis. Commissioner Forner responded that current zoning does not regulate movable cabins. Ms. Garrett did not feel that this site should be classified under Recreational Vehicle Park. KOA parks are inspected frequently and must meet the KOA standards, and she felt that Kent should be able to provide the same services as other campgrounds in the KOA franchise. When foreigners come to the US, they buy or rent very small cars and carry the minimum of equipment because they sell everything when they leave. Chair Martinez responded that this type of activity may be appropriate, but if the code is changed for KOA, it would pertain to all facilities of this type. She has camped in KOA campgrounds in a tent and felt they were good places for families, but she was concerned about opening up the city to the unknown. Commissioner Forner asked how many other camping facilities are under this zoning at the present time. Mr. Satterstrom responded that currently there are no others. There is a permit out for one that may be built south of the Green River. Discussions followed regarding the effect a change of regulations might have on future campgrounds in Kent. Commissioner Forner had concern about making an exception to the code for this structure. She wondered how other jurisdictions had dealt with this type of situation. She was concerned that this be allowed, but not at the risk of future situations. Mr. Williams responded that there had been insufficient time to complete a study of other jurisdictions. 38 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner expressed concern about future recreational camping parks. Chair Martinez felt that even though there is only one campground in Kent at the present time, the exception should be clearly stated that it would be for KOA and regulated by KOA. Mr. Satterstrom added that if the Commission denied the regulatory review request to change the code which would affect all businesses of this nature, there are two other avenues of appeal. One would be to go to the City Council Planning Committee, and the other would be to apply for a variance. This would be site specific, would deal specifically with the KOA Campground, and would not change the code. Chair Martinez asked how long it would take to obtain a variance. Mr. Satterstrom responded that it would take approximately 45 to 100 days. Chair Martinez asked what kind of conditions would be considered for a variance. Mr. Satterstrom explained that strict criteria have been developed by the state dealing with hardship, reasonableness, unique circumstances, and any possible adverse effect to the public welfare. The Board of Adjustment would ascertain if this grant of special privilege would have any negative effects on adjacent property. Much of the evidence that had been supplied at this hearing in terms of the image, number of visitors and revenue generated for the city would not be part of the criteria that would be considered by the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Greenstreet MOVED to deny this request for a zoning code amendment which would allow cabins in this campground. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Forner MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i r � % (]J;ams P. Harris, Secretary 39 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 24 , 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7: 30 p.m. Monday, July 24, 1989 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner Anne Biteman, absent Carol Stoner, excused Raymond Ward, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Dan Stroh, Senior Planner Stephen Clifton, Planner Lauri Anderson, Planner Janet Shull, Planner Scott Williams, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 19 , 1989 Commissioner Forner MOVED that the minutes of the June 19, 1989 Planning Commission meeting be approved as printed. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Satterstrom announced that the City Council approved unanimously the public notice board amendment and that it should be in effect within six weeks. WEST HILL ZONING IMPLEMENTATION CPZ 89-2 (Verbatim Transcript) Chair Martinez: I would like to open the public hearing on the area housing study. I just want to make a couple of remarks so both the audience and the Commission are very clear about what we are doing tonight. Tonight we are hearing the first in a series of proposals to reduce the multifamily zoning in undeveloped and underdeveloped areas in the City of Kent. Tonight we are hearing testimony on the West Hill. When the deliberations are completed Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 on the West Hill, we will move to the East Hill, and then to the Valley Floor. We will do them in sequence. I want to mention to those of you in the audience the we are looking at large areas within each one of these individual planning areas, rather than looking plot by plot at what is going on there. You'd help us a lot if you would make your comments. . .I know many of you may be interested in plot by plot comments, but if you would also address yourselves to us on the larger areas. For those of you who do not have a study proposal, they are on the table over here. Please help yourself. If anyone thinks they might want to speak, please be sure you are on the sign-up list which is. . .thank you. . . in the back of the room. You don't have to speak, but if you think you might, please do sign. Tonight we are convened in a quasi- judicial body, and as such I have asked the Kent Legal Department to spend three to five minutes discussing with us and with those in the audience the rules that we must abide by. We have a lot of people here that I assume most of you will want to speak, so I ask that each of you keep your remarks as brief as possible while giving us as much of the information that you want to communicate to us. I will ask you at the end of ten minutes to stop talking so that everyone gets an opportunity. Those of us on the Commission will be considering the proposals in the following light. We will be looking very closely at the new housing element that has just been passed by the City Council and we will be looking at the fulfillment of the City Council objectives of a good housing mix for the City, adherence to the Comprehensive Plan and to the regional plans. Another thing we will be looking at is. . .does the proposal make good planning sense in the light of transportation, schools and other parts of the infrasystem. Also, we are looking at how does it affect the surrounding neighborhood and the transition from one use to another. If the speakers can address any or all of these considerations, it will assist the Commission in our deliberations. Finally, we will end for tonight at 9:30, and from 9:30 to 9:40 we will make sure that we have all the questions before us that we need to go back and get answers to. From 9:40 to 10:00 we do have a regulatory review. If people have not had the opportunity to speak by 9:30, if there are just a couple of people left we will go on. Otherwise there will be a continuation of this meeting, and we will discuss here tonight when that will be so that you all will know about it. Thank you. And with that I would like to ask Sandra Driscoll to advise us. Sandra Driscoll: Thank you. I am going to be extremely brief. You have had the opportunity to hear this before anyway, but talk very briefly about what the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is. Technically, the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, which is established by state law applies to just quasi-judicial proceedings. The Commission is actually considering area-wide plans, so technically it is not a quasi-judicial, it will be a 2 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 legislative proceeding; however, the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is such that it is advisable to follow the doctrine even though technically it applies to quasi-judicial proceedings, so that indeed the individuals involved in this not only feel that they know that they had a fair hearing, that every appearance of the hearing was fair, and that appearance is the conduct of the Commission members. Basically what it provides as I said is that not only fair proceeding takes place, that it appears to be fair, and it will apply to the Commission members. It specifically applies to land use quasi-judicial actions. What it specifically talks about what is called ex-party contacts. Contacts by individuals with the individual members of the Commission that are not in the hearing setting. The doctrine provides that those contacts should not occur, and that if they do occur, the Commission members must come back the Commission hearings, this would be assuming that it is quasi judicial, place on the record the fact that the comment occurred, who made it, the contents of the comment and ensure that happens at every single hearing on this matter, and give the opportunity then for anyone who wants to rebut the information that was brought out in that communication. That is reason alone for the contacts with regard to this to occur better at these hearings so that you don't spend your time rebutting comments that were made in other settings other than the hearing. That is basically what the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides. Again, since you are doing area-wide work, it is a legislative action. Technically the doctrine does not apply, but it is a real sound policy to follow it anyway. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commission members do you have any questions? Thank you, Sandra. Appreciate it. Dan Stroh. Dan Stroh: Dan Stroh, Senior Planner. Just like to make a very brief remark. One thing is that we have a sign-up sheet that has been going around. It is an opportunity to sign up, get on the mailing list for this so that any information about this as it developed subsequent to this meeting you will have a chance to get mailings. If you haven't had a chance to get on the sign-up sheet, raise your hand and we will get that to you. Also, there is a place on there to check off your name as someone who would like to speak tonight so that the Chair can call on people and make sure that everybody has a chance to be heard. Two other comments very briefly here. There are two particularly important objectives of the study that we have been embarking on for the last several months. One is to try to correct some of the perceived imbalance in the multifamily and single family housing. The Council has asked us to take a look site by site at all areas within the city to do this. They have also asked us to achieve in this an average 20 percent reduction in multifamily housing. Another very important objective that we've looked at is how to encourage 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 additional single family development. So these are themes that really come across in the report and in the actions that we are looking at tonight. They come across a number of different ways. We are looking forward to the public input we will receive tonight to let us know just how well we've done that. That is the major purpose of the meeting here is to get the public's input. With that I ' ll pass the podium over to Stephen Clifton. He is the person who has done most of the work on this particular West Hill area. He will be keeping his remarks to about 15 to 20 minutes. We don't want to take too much of your time. We want to hear what the people have to say tonight. Thank you. Stephen Clifton: Hi my name is. . .can you hear me all right? Hi! My name is Stephen Clifton and I 'm a planner with the Kent Planning Department. I am here specifically tonight to address the issues of the West Hill planning area as part of a larger whole. East Hill and the Valley Floor will be coming later. The major reason we are here tonight is the result of Resolution 1123 and 1172 . Resolution 1123 was passed in 1986. It was passed with the intention of reducing multifamily density by 20 percent. In 1988 Resolution 1172 was directed to the Planning Department and we are to conduct a two-phase study. The first phase was conducted late last year and early this year and was passed earlier this year. What that is was an update of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. The second phase which Dan had mentioned is an area-by- area analysis of residential densities for the three planning areas. Now what I 'd like to do is show some objectives of the proposal itself. One is to retain existing residential areas as liveable and attractive neighborhoods, promotion of a community and neighborhood spirit, recognition of the relationships between housing density and circulation, public facilities and services, and emphasis on the importance of preserving the natural features of the land, and recognition of the need to provide housing opportunities for all persons in the community. Two additional objectives which came out of Resolution 1172 were that we were to explore ways to encourage new single family residential development and to maintain existing single family neighborhoods. Currently multifamily outnumbers single family in the number of units by two to one in the City of Kent. . .though the City Council directed us to reduce the total multifamily densities by 20 percent, find ways to encourage new single family development, and try to offset that perceived imbalance which exists. The second phase of the housing study was initiated with a public meeting held at Sunnycrest Elementary in January of this year. The Planning staff addressed issues such as land supply, transportation, existing housing, environmental suitability, both citywide and in the West Hill planning area. We also solicited concerns of the West Hill citizens. Their primary concerns were those dealing with transportation and pedestrian circulation, substandard roadways, 4 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 lack of sidewalks in high-density or high-pedestrian circulation areas, and also setbacks of new development from areas sensitive to development, such as the top of banks, wetlands or any kind of water body which may exist. The Planning Department next began an - analysis of residential densities for single family and multifamily zoned land. Using a geographic information system, what we did was have the computer generate all the parcels of land which existed both vacant and underdeveloped. What we did then was the visual survey to verify the map itself in case it did not locate any of the vacant or underdeveloped parcels, We visually looked at those and found any that may have existed. And then what we did was we followed that up with a personal site visit of all the vacant parcels within Kent. I myself specifically looked at all the parcels in the West HIll planning area. Parcels were assessed on the basis of citizen concerns from the first meeting and other criteria which included proximity to overburdened traffic, corridors and intersections, proximity to overcrowded schools, surrounding uses, existing development, availability of services, zoning history, and compliance with comprehensive plans, goals and policies, specifically those which were a result of the recent update of the housing element. Right now what I would like to do is show you some of the goals and objectives of the updated housing element to show you what we looked at when doing our analysis or what we based some of our recommendations off of. The ones highlighted I felt were some of the more important ones. Policy 2 was through development of area and functional of plans, assure the provision of adequate circulation and utility services for city neighborhoods, including street improvements, water, sanitary sewers, storm drainage, lighting and power. Another was to protect existing single-family neighborhoods from incompatible uses and other intrusions, through open space buffers, fencing, extensive landscaping, density gradations and other appropriate means. More objectives included permitting new residential development on the East and West Hills as the necessary facilities and services are available. One of the more important ones is to encourage development of new single family housing by creating neighborhood environments attractive to single family builders and homeowners, and to limit opportunities for multifamily development. The quantity, or how much we were to limit it is not specified in the goals, objectives or policies of the updated housing element. It just says to limit the opportunities. One of the objectives was also to guide new residential growth so that it occurs in responsible manner consistent with neighborhood objectives. Limit opportunities for high-density multifamily development where appropriate. Also provide opportunities for low and medium density multifamily development nodes near commercial centers. And to provide for increased single family residential densities as a transition between more intensive and less intensive residential areas. You will want to pay particular interest to that policy in 5 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 relationship to how we came about our proposed R1-5 zoning which I will explain later. our next procedure was to develop maps with analysis areas for each planning area. And for the West Hill we developed ten areas, three multifamily and seven single family. I should point that within all the three planning areas there are more parcels which exist than which are included in the areas for analysis. For instance, the option areas which exist for the West Hill planning area. . .the potential exists, I believe, for 186 to 190 multifamily units; however, the potential exists for 228 multifamily units within the area. What we did was look at parcels that had a substantial development potential or parcels that were contiguous to one another. For instance, four or five parcels, and so what we did was analyzed those as a whole and drew a boundary around those areas. You'll see that in some of the areas I describe. The three multifamily areas . . . one is along Military Road South, just north of 224th Street. To the South of Multifamily Area one exists and a park and zoning for R9600, that is King County zoning or 9, 600 square foot single family lots. Multifamily area Two is adjacent to the northwest area of the Kent Highland Landfill. It is south of the park and R9600 zoning. The third area is adjacent to I-5 just east of Military Road or 30th Avenue South. Chair Martinez: Excuse me. If you are going to address anyone, please address me and in your turn. Stephen Clifton: The single family areas, and there were five, the first one was a mobile home park which was adjacent to 30th Avenue South and between 30th Avenue South and that was Multifamily Area Three which I explained to you. The second one was along Kent Des Moines road which is just north of the King County island. Single Family Area Three was located just west of 42nd Avenue and east of 36th Avenue South, south of South 250th Street. Single Family Area Five is north of South 252nd Street and west of Pacific Highway South. Area Four, I don't have that colored in here right now, but it is at the intersection and there are three parcels surrounding the intersection of Reith Road and Military Road. And Single Family Area Six is north of 272nd Street just west of 46th Avenue South. And the Single Family Area. . .Seventh one is along Lake Fenwick Road and it is just north of 272nd Street. Chair Martinez: Is there a better description for the folks in the audience for where these areas are? Do we have a map so that they can look very closely at it? Stephen Clifton: There is a map in the overview Section. It is small. 6 r Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Chair Martinez: It is very small. Do you have a large one so that folks can look at it. Stephen Clifton: There are larger maps back here if anyone wants to wander back and look at those maps. We lined those up against the wall so that they could see those more clearly. Then what we did was. . .using the goals of the study and goals of the policies and the housing element of the Comp Plan and West Hill Land Use Plan we traded options which were developed for each area. And some of those options actually exist and are placed on the maps which are located back there. And, these were then presented at a second public meeting at Sunnycrest Elementary and was held in a four-hour open house forum. Examples of the options for each area included no action, retaining existing zoning for each site. Another was . . . for example, on all three of the multifamily areas is that recommending change in density from Medium Density, which is 23 units per acre, to Garden Density, which is 16 units per acre or a difference of around eight units per acre. This was the sight specific recommendation. And another option for those areas was just a continuation of the current 20 percent interim zoning reduction on all multifamily-zoned land. So those were presented at the meeting. Chair Martinez: So that is what you are calling the text reduction. Is that correct? Stephen Clifton: That is correct. Text reduction in the overall matrix at the end of the Overview Section. The comments which we received at the open house paralled those of the first meeting. Concerns about traffic, circulation, substandard roads, etc. , and we also handed out questionnaires and the response both verbally and responses of the questionnaires were in favor of the multifamily reduction, but they were mixed. For the recommendations of the two sides, Single Family Area Four and Single Family Area Six. Some were in favor of them, some were indifferent, and some did not want them at all. The more favorable responses, or actually I should say an overwhelming response in favor of the single family designated area concept, which I 'll explain a little later. After all this was over, first what I would like to do, however, is just describe some examples of some of the rationale and how we came up with the recommendations which we did. This is Multifamily Area Two, as you can see, zoning to the north is 9600 square foot lots, zoning to the west is RA, or Residential Agricultural, one unit per acre. That is also known as Kent Highlands Landfill. And to the east it is zoned GC or General Commercial. And so if people want to turn to page West Hill-22, some of the factors favoring the proposed change include. . .and our change is recommended to go from MRM zoning to MRG zoning. It reduces potential city-wide total of 7 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 multifamily units by an estimated 20 units or . 37 percent. The percentage here is very insignificant in relationship to the over- all objectives of the entire study, but it is significant by West Hill standards. West Hill Land Use Plan currently designates this land as MF-22 or 12-24 units per acre, and MRG zoning falls within this category. Area Two is adjacent to RA, Residential Agricultural, zoning. Density gradations should occur along the east border of the site for transition between low density single family and MRM, Multifamily. Site has moderate slopes along the west and north edges which may limit MRM development. Decreased density in an area which lacks real availability of community facilities, services and infrastructure, no sidewalks, substandard roadways, inadequate street lighting and lack of crosswalks. Highlands Landfill may constrain higher density development. And it reduces potential vehicle trips by an estimated 122 per day in an area currently at or near capacity. Three intersections along Kent-Des Moines Road, Military Road, Kent-Des Moines Road, Pac Highway Kent-Des Moines Road. . .three of those intersections are at Level E or F. so any kind of additional development in that area is going to overburden those intersections. And so that kind of explains some of the reasons why we recommended a reduction to MRG zoning. What that does also. . . it would be more of a transition zone, or be a less intensive use, so it would be a more appropriate density gradation between General Commercial and RA than what is currently zoned now MRM. What I 'd like to do now is also show an example of Single Family Area Four. What we are recommending here. . . it's currently zoned R1-7.2, 7200 square foot lots. We are recommending that it be rezoned to R1-5 zoning, single family residential around eight units per acre versus five units per acre. Factors favoring this recommendation includes. . .encourages potential development of an additional 16 single family units versus no action at all, which would help to improve the balance of housing types city wide. I should note that the 16 units an acre, Areas Four and Five, have been corrected to show the actual number, and that revision can be found in the addendum at the beginning of the table, so if anyone wants to pick that up when they leave, it does show the true number. It is actually less than we have in the report. Chair Martinez: Excuse me, are you on two or four. Stephen Clifton: I 'm on Area Four. Also, what it does is it helps to create a potential buffer between roadways and housing areas, yet allowing the same or increased density. One of our goals and objectives was to create density gradation. In other words, from an intensive use, which is Reith Road and Military Road, to a less intensive use beyond the borders of this site, which is 7200 square feet. So those are some examples of some of the rational we used to come up with these recommendations. 8 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: Buffer. . .can you clarify what you mean by what a buffer will be doing. Stephen Clifton: Some of the goals and policies in the recommended housing element ask that we try to concentrate more intense land uses adjacent to nodes and transportation corridors for increased transportation efficiency. These are busy roads and what R1-5 would do would is allow the owners of this site here to potentially put a buffer along those roads and perhaps a ten-foot landscape strip and still achieve the same density which is existing under 7.2 . Whether that happens or not is unknown at this time, but that can be addressed when you go through short plat hearings which would have to take place if they were to develop these parcels as single family homes. Basically, what we did then is after we looked at all three areas. . . if you will turn to the matrix on the back of your Overview Section, we developed four alternatives for the three planning areas, and they were very similar to the ones we had created for each option area for each planning area for every meeting. These include no action, or retaining of existing zoning, sight specific recommendation, text reduction and East Hill reductions. I should note that the overall traffic impacts for the study would reduce vehicle trips per day on the West Hill area by 182 . Actually, what I 'd like to do next is discuss some. . . Chair Martinez: That's potential trips. Stephen Clifton: Potential, right. In other words if the land is never developed, then those trips will never occur. But if the zoning were developed or if the property were developed under existing zoning versus the proposed zoning, then we would have the difference of a reduction of 182 vehicle trips per day. What I 'd like to do now is show some slides of. . .because we are asking for recommendations to R1-5 zoning I 'd like to show some slides of some examples of how builders are building homes today on lots from anywhere from 4, 000 6, 000 square feet. The reason I took these slides is because we have received a lot of phone calls and many people think that this R1-5 zone is a new invention or is something that is just coming about, or we are just creating it to increase the density. But in reality R1-5 or even smaller lots have been in existence for about 100 years. These are just homes. . .which have been developed recently in Issaquah and they show. . . they are pretty representative of what is being built on small lots now, and it' s a shame we can't see them. I 'll try to fix it while people are giving comments I 'll try to fix this machine and show people, because the homes in the slides are much more pleasant than I am sure what a lot of people envision. But, I just wanted to explain that these homes have been around for a long time, these size of lots as well. And so, anyway. 9 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Chair Martinez: What. . .these are single family homes that. . .can you describe them a little to us. Stephen Clifton: Yes. What it is that I went up to Klahanie up in Issaquah, a recent 900-acre development, and the lot sizes up there range anywhere from 3500 square feet to lots as big as 9000 square feet. The lots or the houses we took pictures of are very representative of what R1-5 would end up like, because they are anywhere between 4500 and 6000 square feet. They are all new homes and I wanted to show people what new homes are going to look like on these lots. A lot of phone calls which I've received. . .people are afraid of these homes being low income. These homes in Issaquah are currently. . .they sold three years ago for $105, 000 to $110, 000. The are currently at an asking price of $140, 000. So, I would say in today's market it is very unlikely that these are going to be low-income homes. Anyway, I do have kind of a back- up. . .I brought two examples that I can pass around showing lots which are 4500 to 6000 square feet and the homes were actually done in California and they were landscaped quite nicely. It is important to understand that without substantial landscaping these homes would probably not look as well, so these are good examples of that. Commissioner Forner: I have a question. Do you have any of the lots that are being changed that have height restrictions? Stephen Clifton: Height Restrictions. Actually, with R1-5 zoning we are recommending the same height limits, same side-yard setbacks, and the only difference would be an increase from the site coverage which is currently around 30 to 35 percent to 40 percent, meaning you would have more of your lot covered by your home, but it is not a substantial increase. Commissioner Forner: I was referring more to view lots. A view lot that would have a height restriction. Stephen Clifton: Well, actually, the sites that I am recommending are not on any steep slopes, and their views would not be impeded as far as being like on the West Hill embankment. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: In your proposal for the new R1-5 zone you said that the standards would meet the requirements of other single family residential zoning with the exception with solar access setback regulations. Stephen Clifton: That's right. 10 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Commissioner Unlar-Heffner: Can that be remediated in any way so that solar access can be taken into account as far as the clustering of the houses. Stephen Clifton: Yes. Actually it depends on how the developer lays the site out or what kind of home he puts in. Currently we have a committee happening. . .going on right now which is discussing single family opportunities. It depends on how the roof lines are constructed with the homes and things like that as to how much solar radiation is going to hit the adjacent homes. But with this kind of housing it will be more difficult to administer something like that. Okay. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioners do you have any questions before we go on? May I have the sign-up sheet, please. Fred Satterstrom: Did everyone get on the sign-up sheet that has been circulating around. Chair Martinez: There are some people on the list that did not sign up to speak, but I am going to call your name anyway and you can just turn me down, okay, just in case you have heard something you want to speak to. For those of you who are speakers, please step to the mike, please identify yourself, give your name and address for the record. Jacob Beltz. Pass. Claude Asquith. Pass. Mike Larson. Mike Larson. My name is Mike Larson. I represent the owners of MF2 and are privileged enough to be next to the Kent Highlands Landfill. My address is 18th Floor Pacific Building, 720 Third Avenue. My first comment on this hearing tonight is it appears from a review of the Kent City Code that this analysis of this particular plan should be before a Hearing Examiner rather than the Planning Commission, and we would like the opportunity to present evidence in that forum and just don't believe this is the right forum to hear this particular plan. We have a second concern. I 'm going to hand you up a letter and I 'm not going to go through all the details of it. This is an original and nine copies so each of the members of the Commission can have a copy. our second concern we have is just on the timing of this. We've had very little notice of this particular hearing and the materials handed out tonight are very lengthy. We haven't had a chance to go through them and take a look at them, give you comments. I know you want to make the most informed decision with a much input as possible as you can, and we would appreciate the opportunity to look through these materials and present comments later. Will we be able to present comments at a later time? 11 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Fred Satterstrom: Depends whether or not the Planning Commission gets through it, really. The public notice went out as required by law, and so it really depends on whether the Planning Commission is poised to act this evening. It's up to you. Mike Larson: If the Planning Commission decides to act tonight, there are lots of materials here, you will have a chance to look at them, of course we haven't. We'd like to have a chance to go through it and give informed opinion on the plan. Our third concern is loss of the opportunity to build affordable housing for many of the people in this area by reducing the housing opportunities for many of the disadvantaged in this area, that is a significant concern. It's housing concerns and housing pressures because of the inflation in this area and the increase in housing costs that are severely impacting a large portion of our community. We would like the opportunity to serve those people. There is a need for it, and we would certainly like the opportunity to serve those people. There was a comment about landfill being adjacent to MF2 . It would be nice to build a large enough development in the area to mitigate some of the landfill effects, otherwise, it's likely that some of the parcels near the landfill will not be developed. There will not be the incentive to stop some of the problems with the landfill, such as migration of landfill gas. . .that type of thing. You'll have a tendency to go to other parcels if that is not developed, and by having opportunity to develop enough units in that area, you can enough capital to address those types of concerns. Those are all the statements I have now. Of course I haven't had a chance to go through your materials completely, and I thank you all for your comments. Commissioner Forner: One question before you go about the landfill. Can you hear me? Did you say that the absence of housing would allow more gasses to go into a residential area? Mike Larson: In absence of housing and people to be concerned about in those areas will allow the current conditions to continue to exist as the migration of landfill gas through these areas. There is no incentive for the City of Seattle to put gas curtains to prevent that migration, and if we are going to develop in that area, you need to have enough units to spread those costs across so you can stop the gas from migrating across those properties. Otherwise the property will stay undeveloped, and it is likely that the underground gravel ravines and those type of problems will allow these problems to spread out farther in the neighborhood. The opportunity to develop those areas, of course any development permit, those types of things, are going to have to be mitigated and it will help be an incentive to combine those problems. 12 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Commissioner Forner: I guess the question that I asked is that the residents' or King County's responsibility to vent the gasses on the landfill? I know in others it is King County' s responsibility to vent the gasses in the landfill. Mike Larson: Whose responsibility is it to take care of that problem? Commissioner Forner: Right. Mike Larson: Well, it's going to be whoever has control of that property. This is in the City of Kent, and right now the person who is responsible for that problem is responsible to take care of it. Whether they do or not in the future is a question that no one can resolve. Until someone takes a look at that problem and the particular parcels in that area through a development process, it is likely that some of those problems may never be identified and the problem may continue to exist for neighbors farther away. Chairman Martinez: Before you go, Fred would you like to address why we are hearing this instead of the Hearing Examiner. Fred Satterstrom: The reason why the Planning Commission is hearing it and not the Hearing Examiner is because the City Council by resolution or ordinance, I forget which, designated the Planning Commission to in fact hold the hearings. They have done that in the past with other studies dealing with zoning and comprehensive planning, chose that method this time so that we could approach it from an overall, more generalized approach. Chairman Martinez: Thank you. Dion and Rachel Baldus. Pass. Jim Flewelling. Jim Flewelling: I 'm Jim Flewelling. I live at 26724 51st Place South in Kent, actually outside Kent. I 'll make my comments very brief. I fully agree with the goals of the Planning Department and of this study to reduce the ratios of multifamily to single family housing. Whether it is possible or not it would be nice to also see the rate of growth come to a slower level. What we are seeing on the West Hill right now is a very adverse effect on the schools. The classrooms are getting overcrowded. They have run out of busses. Elementary schools are going to be running an hour late this year, and it is to the point that I have made a personal decision that I am pulling my boy out of the public school for a couple of years. And I just moved here five years ago because I liked the ratio I was seeing in terms of single family houses to multifamily houses, and I think that it is getting out of line and I am really glad that you are doing something about it. Thank you. 13 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Chairman Martinez: Kathlene Hensley. William Sharick. Leona Orr. Pass. Is there any other comment from the audience? Yes, would you please step to the microphone and identify yourself, please. Frank Lee: My name is Frank Lee and I own approximately 80 acres, on the West Valley, excuse me, up on West Hill and I think that the little bit I 've read and seen, I think you guys are on the right track. I'm a real witness to the traffic congestion up there. For my people to get out of my operation sometimes it takes them 10 to 15 minutes because of the traffic. I think that until we get that traffic handled up there, we should stop all growth. Chair Martinez: I saw another hand. Okay. Voices: There is a number of us that you haven't called. There are crosses in front of some of the names. Mine is one and mine wasn't called. Chair Martinez: Is there another page? I apologize. I did not see this. . . I was thinking that you were awfully quiet. Walter Griffin. Pass. Donald Knapp. Donald Knapp: My name is Don Knapp. I live at 25046 38th South, and we will accept your apology. My first comment is the fact that one of my neighbors called me today who has been up there on the West Hill not far from me for over 30 years and she had no notice of this at all. I can't understand why she was passed over. Chair Martinez: May we have her name and address please. Donald Knapp: Her name. . .Sunstead. I don't know her address. Chair Martinez: Stead. Voice: Sundstedt. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Voice: Do you want an address? Chair Martinez: I think we can get that. Thank you. Donald Knapp: I received this on July 14th, a notice to inform you about upcoming public hearing at which the Kent Planning Commission will discuss comprehensive plan and zoning changes in your neighborhood. My question is this. . .while your property is not among those under consideration for rezoning, you are situated within a 200-foot radius of one or more properties included in the proposal. I don't know where that would be. . . within a 200-foot 14 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 radius. And I can't locate that. . .I don't know where that would be. Fred Satterstrom: Can I take a shot at answering that. By law and by city ordinance and by state law we are required to notify people of pending rezone actions that have property that lie within 200 feet. And generally we draw a circle around that property. It may be a little bit more than 200 feet, but never under that, and then we send a notice to the property owners. The only thing I can think of in this case, perhaps if you attended any meetings on the West Hill or any open houses, you would have been on our mailing list and you would have gotten, and perhaps you got a generic notice such as that. But we sent two kinds of different notices out. One to people that did not own property but were generally within a certain distance of the property that was being proposed for rezone, and then we sent a notice to the property owners themselves with a little bit different information, excuse me, the same information but a different introduction. Donald Knapp: I 've attended practically all these meetings and I have had no notice about this radius. That' s what bothers me . . . up there on the West Hill, that' s on 38th. I don't know what you can do about it. Maybe somebody can inform me what it is about, because I have some neighbors across the street from me who are also concerned about it, and we don't know what is going on. I do know that we own some property on the. . .close to 38th on the west part of our property that is zoned for three lots. They were condemned through the methane. . .and the City of Seattle had to buy them. Now they have a sold sign on there and a man who was building next to me put an offer up and the City of Seattle turned it down, and then he found that they took a lower offer. I was trying to find out. . .This is why I am concerned about it. I want to know what is going on in that radius, because it is short platted for three houses. We had it short platted a number of years ago, and I want to know what this 200-foot radius is. Fred Satterstrom: Again, if you got a notice that you were within a 20-foot radius, it means that you must own property approximately. . .either adjacent to or within. . . Donald Knapp: No I don't. Seattle does. Fred Satterstrom: Okay. You no longer own this land. Is that a recent sale? Donald Knapp: Approximately, not for Seattle but for somebody else it has been. 15 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Fred Satterstrom: We work with tax records that could be up to a year old. In order to find property owners we rely on the county's tax rolls. Would they have still had you as an owner within the last year? Donald Knapp: No, because we got the money from Seattle. Fred Satterstrom: I guess that at this point there is no more need for me to answer, because I don't know why you got a notice. Chair Martinez: But I think it is obvious in that the 200-foot radius is simply a radius for allowing people to be alerted to actions that they might care about. But if you got that notice as opposed to one that says that your property is affected, that would be a different notice. This is just something that you might be interested in because something might be happening. . . Donald Knapp: That's right. That's what I'm concerned about. Chair Martinez: You might want to check the maps in the back and come back and talk to us after you have looked at them to see if indeed your property is affected by any of these actions. And you might want to. . . Donald Knapp: You know, I get concerned about this because of the garbage dumps, and we have fought that. The wife and I have been down here and fought that garbage dump for many years and it went through anyway. And this underhanded stuff gets me. Stephen Clifton: Could you have him repeat his address. Chair Martinez: Would you repeat your address, please. Donald Knapp: 25406 38th South. I believe that's all. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Chester Spurgeon. Donald Boross. Pass. Barbara Boross. Pass. Floyd Bacon. Floyd Bacon: Chairman, Lady Chairman. This is Floyd Bacon. I'm at 24311 35th Avenue South, Kent resident 25 years. I want to say that from the first meeting that I attended with these good people here that gave the dissertation, that they did real fine on their work. The only thing is that, all due respects to him, I didn't quite get one portion of it here, so this may answer a question for right now. It is under the multiple family housing. . .let me find my map here. I'd like to know where 1, 2, and 3 . . .my glasses are very poor or the print is quite small. . .I 'd like to hear that again, because I 'm in the area of 24311 35th Avenue South and I don't see 240th on there or 248th so. . .that was what I was 16 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 concerned about. While he is looking for that, I want to say this was well-prepared information. A lot of work was put out on this. I 'm glad to see that we've got a lot of things in study and going to do for the single residents of the West Hill that have been here for quite a few years. While we are here and when he finds it I want to thank the Planning Commission for at least looking around. We've got a lot of new pavement that we can get the cars with their greasy things off the streets and some of the places. . .we can get the place built up now. Chair Martinez: Thank you. I think we probably don't deserve the credit, but we'll take whatever we can get. Have you finished your remarks or would you like to come back in a moment? Floyd Bacon: On the next phase, on the recreation vehicles. . . Chair Martinez: Okay, fine. Joanne Sundstedt. Pass. Patricia Roemich. Pass. Sharon Gehring. Pass. Cindy McReynolds. Cindy McReynolds: I 'm Cindy McReynolds, 4334 South 272nd, Kent. We've been residents for two years and our children go to the Federal Way School District. My question is. . .the area we live in they want to reduce the lot sizes and put more homes, and I want to know if the Kent School District is planning to build a school there for our children. Chair Martinez: Don't we have that on one of our maps. . .where the proposed school is going to be. Commissioner Greenstreet: That is going to be a different school district, I believe. Chair Martinez: Yeah. Fred Satterstrom: Most of that area up there is indeed Federal Way School District. And I 'm not aware of what their plans are. Cindy McReynolds: Adding more homes and more people and you don't have any awareness of . . . that Federal Way is already overloaded. Chair Martinez: No Fred Satterstrom: No. In the City of Kent we have obviously the same problems as Federal Way area has with the expanding population base and also expanding school base. Try our best to keep up. This study here on the one hand, the two objectives of trying to reduce multifamily density on the one hand, and then trying to do what we can in terms of incentives for single family. I don't think we've looked at it in terms of what the net effect would be 17 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 in terms of children. But in terms of population we've looked at it in terms of the net effect on population. Cindy McReynolds: . . . (unclear) and there are a lot of them and the schools are overloaded. And I think if you plan to do this, you should have plans for a school. I don't see why the Kent Schools shouldn't take care of the Kent children. Commissioner Forner: If you give me your phone number, I can give you a call and find that information out for you. I do work for the State also, and I could find that out very easily for you and give you a call tomorrow. Cindy McReynolds: 859-9348 Commissioner Forner: And you want to know if there is any proposed building of houses. . .or schools in the 4334 South 272nd area. Cindy McReynolds: Yeah. We got to have schools for those kids. You keep adding people, you've got to have schools period. Chair Martinez: Stephen McReynolds. Stephen McReynolds: I 'm Steve McReynolds, 4334 South 272nd Street. We have a lot of overcrowding the schools up there already, as you have heard. Also, I 've dealt with the school district here in the past and discussed this with the principal of the school and he was not happy with the housing already going in in the area because he has difficulty serving the number of students that are already there. In addition the water system is not really up to serving any more there now. You are currently buying water from Water District 75 and boosting it through an expensive booster station to serve the West Hill area already. The SF6 area that I am concerned with and, by the way, we did not get a notice. . .the property is adjoining mine. . .the sewer lines are not at an elevation that can serve the property without installing pumps. We have a statement here saying that they can put in nice houses on these 5000 square foot lots and not have any kind of an impact as far as aesthetics. When I built my house two years ago, I had to have a 43-foot setback. Okay. I live right next door to this property that we are talking about. I don't see how you are going to get a 43-foot setback on a 50-foot lot. It's not going to be easy. The streets for these areas that we are talking about I 'm concerned with, South 272nd is an extremely busy road. You don't have any access for some of the property on that street to begin with. It has to go through residential neighborhoods that are already trying to maintain a nice area with some open area without the houses being packed closely together. Our lots are all 15 and 16, 000 square foot up in the area we are talking about. 18 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Approximately 10 acres to the east of this area that we are speaking about and all Cambridge is 7200 and up. The areas in this area. . .Cambridge as well as ours have ordinances. . .not ordinances but covenants to prevent parking on the streets and control where things are done. You can't do that on a 4000 square foot lot, especially increasing the house size to put on the lot. I haven't heard anything where anybody has been talking about how they are going to service this area with utilities. I talked to the police who patrol the street on South 272nd. They can't even pull out and patrol that with a car on a week day. They have to have motor cycles that can accelerate enough to get into the traffic. And I don't see how making more of a traffic load on this area is going to improve things for us at all. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: One question, which area are you adjacent to. Stephen Reynolds: SF6. Chairman Martinez : Any questions. Thank you. Kurt Lay. Kurt Lay: My name is Kurt Lay and I am a next-door neighbor of Steve's 4330 272nd SF6. I look into the adjacent lot that they want to switch to 5000 square feet, and since he showed you pictures of a nice looking house, I want to show you a picture of the house that I am building on my lot that is a 14 , 000 square foot lot. Putting these types of houses next to mine is. . .you know he said that he is making the whole area look nice. So I just wanted to show you a house that is typical around that area. That's a standard home around that area. And with 5000 square foot lots there is no way that they could put a house like that on that lot. Reading the plan that he has it says that they are switching the back yards to eight feet, and if this is going to be for family housing, I don't see how kids can play in a eight-foot area. There is no way. Commissioner Greenstreet: It looks like a nice home. Kurt Lay: I 've put all my money in this home and I'd hate to devaluate it. Thank you very much. Commissioner Greenstreet: I have one question. Have you ever heard of the owner of this property in the area or rumors of development previous to this. . .like building four or six houses. Kurt Lay: I know that the one that is adjacent to us is being sold at this time. And Puget Power owns the lot next to that. That's a five-acre tract and there are supposed to put a substation on that, but if you switch that to 5000, they will probably want to 19 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 sell that and put 5000 square foot lots on that too. Traffic is horrendous on 272nd. I don't see how you are going to change the traffic flow by switching 7200 square foot lots down to 5000 square foot lots. That is just going to add more traffic. I have a deaf child in my neighborhood. Luckily I have a private road, but if 272nd gets any busier. . .you know she can't hear any cars. And you are just going to add more people there and cause more trouble. Thank you. Stephen Clifton: Would you repeat your name again? Kurt Lay: Kurt Lay. Chair Martinez: Thank you Mr. Lay. Donald Hinderliter. Donald Hinderliter: My name is Don Hinderliter and I live at 4224 South 272nd. I have a five-acre parcel there that is underdeveloped if you may. I have approximately three acres of that which is being sold to a developer right now. We received tentative planning approval for 7200 square foot lots. There were 12 lots put in that two and three-quarters acres. My question is what would any rezoning do to that. My belief is that you have already decided to make those R7 lots and that you should continue on with that. Now I suppose that I could make more money with an R5 zone, I could withdraw from this sale for cause and I could subdivide and sell more lots, but I live there and I 'm keeping the front two acres for myself and it will be my home for the rest of my life and I don't really want to change the flavor of the neighborhood that has been established. It's a beautiful neighborhood. Cambridge, Star Lake Elementary School is nearby. The high school is nearby, and I do not feel that I am willing to take on the risk of someone coming in and building beautiful homes on 5000 square foot lots. My personal experience with 5000 square foot lots is that they do not make neighborhoods like the neighborhood that is there now. I would like to see the flavor of neighborhood preserved. Now this gentlemen also made a comment that it might be necessary to put a ten-foot buffer strip along 272nd Avenue to properly landscape this area being changed to Rl- 5 zoning. Well, I happen to own that land along 272nd Street and I intend to keep it and I don't see how a ten-foot-wide buffer strip of trees and bushes there on my property because I don't plan to sell it. I am extremely pleased with your efforts to subdue the multifamily housing. I think it is a great idea. Any person who tries to get anywhere on the West Hill and Federal Way on Saturday morning can attest to. It's really jam packed. And we don't need to end run this multifamily housing restriction by rezoning the lots from R7 to R5. I think what we need to do is preserve the beauty of the neighborhood, preserve the general architectural 20 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 flavor that is there now. I 'm dead set against rezoning SF6 to R5. I 'd like it to be kept R7. Thank you. Chairman Martinez: Thank you. Barbara Beltz. Pass. Lorraine Asquith. Now is there anyone that I have missed this time around. Leona. Leona Orr: My name is Leona Orr. I live at 24909 114th Avenue South SE. I happen to live on the East Hill, but I came down tonight and the reason I didn't speak earlier was because I thought there were so few comments that I thought there wasn't going to be any. I am currently serving on a committee that the mayor put together to find ways to attract single family development to our community. I wish more people had spoken tonight so that I 'd have a better feel for even more of the persons that are here from the West Hill. But I would urge anyone who is here that would like to contact me later. I would like to get their ideas to take back to the committee, because we are under a lot of pressure for smaller lots and attached single-family type development, and I really would like to know from the community what their feeling is so that our committee can make a sound recommendation. And I would like to say to the Planning staff that I think they've done a great job on the efforts they've put in and the information that they have provided us. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Did I see someone else that has not spoken before? Yes sir. Yes please. This is a verbatim report so we have to have it on the mike. Donald Knapp: My name is Don Knapp. I live at 25046 38th Avenue South. I only have two comments to make. One is on the zoning you want. . .the 5000 square feet. Our three lots, as I explained earlier that we have there, are 7200 square feet. I would like to have the Planning Commission come up if they don't know what 7200 square lots look like. Come up and take a look at them and see how small they are. They are not very big. The other comment I want to make is on the map you have that you sent out. You can't tell anything by looking at it. Even with a magnifying glass you can't tell where the streets are or anything. It is the poorest excuse for a map I ever saw. Thank you. Commissioner Greenstreet: Excuse me. We do have blow ups of each area, like SF4 , you know. So we do have blow ups. I know you have a very general map there, but when you are speaking about 38th, it shows 38th real big there. So we really have a pretty good idea of where you are speaking. Voice: What page. 21 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: 40 Chair Martinez: Yes sir. Claude Asquith: I turned you down a little while ago. Chair Martinez: Claude Asquith. Claude Asquith: Claude Asquith and I live at 3813 South 250th. It is a cul-de-sac street. If you take a 200 foot radius from my place and a 200-foot radius from Mr. Knapp's shack, we ain't going to make it. So I 'm interested in what this 200-foot radius is. Where are you picking the point that you are telling people that is a 200-foot radius? There is no 200-foot radius that you can get both of us at the same time. Again, I live on a street that is a cul-de-sac. There are 12 houses on it. As far as I know, three people on the street have received letters. I 've talked to two other people that don't even know what I 'm talking about. You mentioned that. . . if I 'm within a 200-foot radius of wherever, I 'm sure the rest of these people will be. Another thing I like about the City of Kent is that when we moved in, my lot was nice and flat. It would drain right into the street. City of Kent came along and put in a sidewalk which is very nice. Because it starts over here, goes up, goes around the cul-de-sac, comes back. . . it doesn't hook to anything. It's there. I mean, we have nice sidewalk. One ends up one lot short of 38th Street. The one end that is there is two and one-half feet in the air. I don't know what you would hook it to if you did connect it to a sidewalk somewhere. I now have the bottom of a swimming pool, because in order to put in the sidewalk they have to raise it three inches or four inches for every foot back from the street. So now I have a six-inch drop from the sidewalk into my front yard. And a lot of these little things like Mr. Knapp says they push them through somehow. I never heard about the sidewalk when it went in. If I had, I 'd of been here. But we are interested. . .I 'd like to know. . .I can look at your map in here and I finally figured out where 250th was. I go back to your big map back here and there is nothing on there that shows the shaded area that you have here. There's nothing outlining it like a little piece of red tape or something like that where you could see. The only area that would fit into the vacant lot theory or whatever it is. . . is right behind me is Herb Brevick. He's got one of these long lots. His house is up on the end. Mr. Knapp has got one. There are two in between there and there are three south of there. From there on it is already built. So I don't know where you are coming up with the theory that you are going to put in a bunch of single family dwellings in there. And like Mr. Knapp says, I don't have 5000 feet in my lot, I don't believe. Like I say, you have 12 houses 22 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 on one street. . .so they got to be kind of small up in that area. 3813 South 250th. Commissioner Forner: I have a question. Are you concerned that you got a notice inadvertently and you shouldn't be here, or are you concerned that there are other people out there that should have gotten a notice that didn't. Claude Asquith: I 'm glad I got the notice. Commissioner Forner: I 'm trying to qualify your concern. Claude Asquith: I enjoy these little social functions. This way I can find out what is going on. If I got one and Mr. Belz got one, he lives right next door to me. The people up at the corner I 'd say probably within 200 feet didn't get one. Commissioner Forner: But have you been attending meetings also and had your name on a list for some reason or other. Claude Asquith: No m'am. I 've never gotten anything that says come down and join us and have fun. Commissioner Forner: Have you owned property in other places. Claude Asquith: Ma'am I 've owned the lot I 'm on for thirty years. Dan Stroh: Mr. Asquith is within the radius of SF3 . So he got his notice because he's within the 200-foot radius of Single Family 3. Claude Asquith: How about the man across the street. This is the thing. I got one, my neighbors. . .I go talk to them and when I said are you going to the meeting they said what meeting. Mrs. Sunstedt lives, well, they got to be within 200 feet. Dan Stroh: Would you like me to address that? Chair Martinez : I think we really need to, because I 'm strongly confused at this moment. Claude Asquith: Welcome. We are happy to have you with us. We are all confused as to why some people get them and some people don't. Dan Stroh: I 'm Dan Stroh and I was partially responsible for the mailing so let me explain how it was done. In the West Hill planning area we looked at ten option areas, and within those ten option areas there are approximately 50 parcels that are actually effective parcels, and that the shaded area is actually divided up 23 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 into fifty different property segments. So those people all received the legal notice about the action. Because we notified the 200-foot radius properties as well from whatever the boundaries of the properties happen to be within the shaded area as we go out 200 feet and pick up all the other parcels that any portion of them might touch within a 200-foot circle. . .because the property boundaries are real irregular, it is hard to say exactly if you live on 250th. . .the gentlemen here is talking about this area approximately in here, this is 250th. . .and it is hard to say for any given parcel on 250th just looking at the map like this whether or not that would fall within a 200-foot radius of one of these parcels. I do have a map in the file upstairs where we actually have a computer printout of all the parcels that were within the 200-foot radius. It shows . . . (unclear) regular parcel boundaries. For example there might be a parcel here that might be a long, irregularly-shaped parcel and it goes 1200 feet down south. But if a little piece of it touches within that 200-foot radius, that whole parcel will be picked up. Then that owner would receive notice. Of course, again, his property is not one of the affected properties but it is within the 200-foot radius and that is considered to be reasonable for notifying people who might be within the area of the affected parcel. This is the same procedure we follow for Hearing Examiner rezones, and rezones that are done through site specific, site-by-site process through permit processing. And having looked at the map that resulted from this and seeing the properties actually printed out and if anyone wants to come by and see that map and see where the parcels are, I 'd be happy to show it to you. But I am convinced that the people within the 200-foot radius were notified. We may have picked up a few extra because, if anything, we like to err on the conservative side and pick up extra people to notify rather than miss people who are within the 200-foot radius. Now there was one other thing. We send one to the property owner, but in some cases we don't have the correct name of the property owner. We do the best we can. It comes off, as Mr. Satterstrom mentioned, the King County tax rolls and they get updated right off the county computer tapes several times a year. But sometimes the county computer tapes are wrong and all we have is the name of the taxpayer. This is the standard procedure and is the best we can do as far as an owner goes without doing a title search on each property. We notified in excess of 400 properties for this particular action, plus the people who were on the mailing list for coming to the open houses or public meetings we have had earlier. So, that may help to clear up what the 200-foot radius is. Some people may in fact have received notice that our irregularly-shaped parcels where just a pinch of the property happens to touch within that 200-foot circle. Chair Martinez: At the mike. Yes you do sir. One at a time please. You need to say your name again. 24 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 Claude Asquith: My name is still Claude Asquith and I still live at 3813 South 250th. Assuming that you are going from the northern boundary of your shaded-in area, I don't know exactly where it is. I know where 250th is. I can see the dot where the cul-de-sac is, but all those lots have back yards or the back property lines are all in a straight line. There are no irregularities until you get up to the cul-de-sac where it bulges out slightly. So you would pick up each and every one of those. Now my other question is suppose I was Mr. Knapp. He bought a piece of property that goes from 38th Street to 42nd. Am I correct in that? Okay. It goes on out here. Now 42nd being down over the bluff. If he cannot utilize the property that drops down into nothingness, so his house as it shows back there is situated back from the eastern property line. He has property here that is vacant. Now this is what you are saying is not. . .or what you would like to take and make single family dwellings out of. So do you go in and take. . .say that this is my property, would you come in and condemn that property and then tell me that you are going to take it and rezone it so that people can build on it? Dan Stroh: For the SF3 area we are proposing no change. So what you can do today, in terms of the current zoning, is what you would be able to do if this proposal goes through. We've looked at the area, recognized that it had development potential, but we are not recommending any changes for the area. So the action tonight would not affect what you can do if you walked into the counter today and applied for a development permit. Claude Asquith: Your eastern boundary up there is about where the bluff is. Then most of those people have their houses right up on the bluff. So that is where I am wondering where you are coming up with that this is an area that is available to you, because it is all privately owned as it is at the present time. Commissioner Forner: I have a question for you. I understand that you are upset about the process of notification and perhaps it is the best we can do. It's not perfect. But do you have concerns about what we are trying to determine. . .and that is the rezoning. Does that affect you personally. Do you have some comments on that. I would like to hear your comments on that now that you are here. If it does affect you, what are your comments on our proposal. Claude Asquith: There is nothing you can do to my property. It is small enough as it is, so you can't make it any smaller. What I am concerned about is that all of a sudden I get a notice that I am within a property that is going to be transformed into single family dwellings. . . is the way I interpret your letter. 25 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Commissioner Forner: And what is your reaction to that. I guess that is what I 'd want to hear. Claude Asquith: I don't want any more single family dwellings up here. We came down to the City of Kent and asked them to slow down people on 38th and they put in a couple of little bumps which you guys come up and get on them and they dig out a rip them all to pieces. Berne Biteman lived right behind us. We asked Berne about it and he said give their numbers, give me the car type and I 'll do things about it. We did and he didn't. I 'm concerned as the people are on 272nd because I drove all the way down to whatever it is that goes down to Auburn for years and years and years, and they put in 272nd and I got a ticket on it going down the hill. And I know what is going on on 272nd. And it does not get any better any day of the week. Chair Martinez: Excuse me. I 'd like to interrupt. We have some more people that are willing to talk. Thank you. Claude Asquith: Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Stephen McReynolds: Steve McReynolds again. The notification on this. . . I 'm sure somebody did make an effort to send out notification. The only reason that I heard about it was that one of the other houses near me did get a letter and came over and told me. I am within the area that is marked here. Not in a 200-foot area. The shaded-in area. You've got my house on the map. The other neighbors. . .a lot of them are on vacation today and didn't make it. Some of them did not get notified as well. One of them that got notified got notified the day before he was leaving, which was last Thursday. Maybe they made an effort but they weren't very efficient about it. I go down to the county and look up the tax records on my own as part of my job occasionally. I 've been on the tax records of King County for several years now as owning my property, as has Kurt Lay. I 've looked them all up. They are all there. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Mr. Lay. . .you have closing remarks. Kurt Lay: John McLoughlin lives about 200 feet from me, and I live about 150 from the adjacent property change that you have on SF6. I didn't get a notice change of this thing. He did and he is 350 feet away. I didn't get one. I 've owned my property for two and one-half years and I have been paying the taxes. I can bring you the receipts if you want them. I didn't get any notification. So this thing about. . .they sent notifications out 200 feet from any 26 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 change is not true, because I live 150 feet away from the change and I didn't get one. My next-door neighbor lives 10 feet away and he didn't get one. I think maybe you should adjourn this meeting and start all over. Commissioner Greenstreet: Excuse me. I live on the West Hill. I 've been there since 163 . I went to Star Lake, Totem. I 've seen the changes. I lived in Cambridge, sold, I lived by Lake Fenwick. I worked to stop the shopping development there where the fire station is going in. Good neighborhood. Good PTA and all that. The City of Kent has been very responsive to the West Hill needs. A lot of the people here I 'm seeing for the first time. I would not blame the City of Kent. This has been an ongoing process for a couple of years. These hearings have been going on, these studies. . .this is a review of what has been going on. It is getting right down to crunch time and there are some people panicking. Don't lash out on people that have worked very hard, thought it out, and looked at it as an alternative to some other problems. Town meetings and that. They are trying to change the ratio of multifamily to single family. You might not agree with the solution, and that's why we want you here. Heck I wish there were 50 more of you saying the same thing. I want to hear that, but the procedure and the solutions. . .people are coming out and saying they are tired of the density multifamily. We want more single family homes to buy. There aren't enough around. The builders should be building more. There are all kinds of people saying. . .a different solution than you have. You have your specific problems and you are saying what you would like. We have been for two years hearing a lot of people speak just like Leona was saying. They have committees. We've been going to different committees. . .so what I am saying is that I 'm hearing a lot of people here and they are kind of saying sarcastic remarks about the city. I think you are missing the point, people. We are doing our best. We are just volunteers up here, but we have listened to a lot. We are concerned about your goals, your kids. They are my goals and my kids, too. You same people should be out addressing this 272nd expansion to East Hill. If you think that traffic is bad now, wait until they link up with Highway 18. But are you guys at those meetings? I don't see your faces there. Kurt Lay: May I speak to that, sir. Commissioner Greenstreet: Just a minute. I 'm not done. I ' ll give you your turn. What I am saying is that before your anger gets there, get involved with the community, protect your home, your kids well being. . .by all that traffic on 272nd and this housing plan. We are glad to listen. But when you guys are making fun, you are making fun of me, and you are really making fun or your own community. We are all a part of it. Thank you. 27 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Kurt Lay: I know your concerns and I am not trying to be sarcastic up here, but one of my next-door neighbors. . . (unclear) sign that had the development and subplotted the property. He called in the City of Kent and asked them. . .said -we never heard anything about these hearings about how you were going to change. And they told him that by law they had to put it in the local newspaper. That was Kent Valley. Now most people. . . if you are concerned about getting people's participation, maybe you should put it in the Seattle Times or the PI that most people take. This is the first time I 've ever heard about Planning change. Read the Seattle Times every day. I work for them. I read the hearing notices all the time and I 've never seen anything in the Seattle Times stating that there is notification that we are having a hearing of the changes. Maybe something can be done about notifying the people that live in the area. There might be some changes. But. . .that's why you have people up here that are scared as they are because this is the first time we ever heard anything about changes. Because most people don't read the Kent Valley General. They read Seattle Times, the Post Intelligencer and maybe that can be changed so more people are notified. . .that we can take part in what's going on. Commissioner Greenstreet: Like the Wednesday edition, South Times edition. Kurt Lay• Right. Commissioner Greenstreet: That's a good point. Chair Martinez: Thank you. There's a woman standing in line. Would you like to speak? Okay. Would you come to the mike please. Patricia Munson: My name is Patricia Munson. I live at 4326 South 272nd. It sounds kind of like a tape recording here, whatever. . .I didn't receive any notice and I live in the same area. I just returned from vacation today. We bought our lot hoping that all of the other lots next door, because we are right on the line there. . . Chairman Martinez: Are you talking about Single Family 6? Patricia Munson: Yes, SR6. We are right on that land. . .right next door. All the land there was zoned 7200 when we bought and we were hoping that. . .we were considering that that was how it was going to be. We built a larger house and we stuck to the covenants within that area, and now if we have smaller houses, it will lower the value of our house and what not. Plus, since I moved there. . .I 've always lived in Seattle or whatever, and then I moved out this way about four years ago. It was in the landfill area. I sold my house there, moved down to 272nd because I still didn't 28 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 want to move out any farther. I buy this land and now this happens. Anyway, the traffic in the last four years has really changed. It used to take me ten minutes to get to work and now it is a half an hour. And it is just going down Military to Kent- Des Moines Road, going over to Pacific Highway. And the traffic is terrible. And now that we have that new apartment building down there on 272nd by Lake Fenwick that is opening, there is going to be more traffic there. That's all I have to say. I don't usually get up and talk, but I just wanted you to know. Usually I am very involved. We just moved in here and I haven't got as involved as I have always been. Thank you. Commissioner Forner: I would just like to make a comment. I have sat on Sea-Tac, which is a citizen advisory group to METRO, I have also worked with a subcommittee on transportation for the Puget Sound Council of Governments, and I am presently a legislative aid for a state legislator, and I do understand about the problems. And although it is down to some specifics, I don't think that any of us can deny. . . in fact I was doing some research today on the growth in this area, and King County, South King County in particular, is the fastest growing area in the nation and the fastest in Washington State. I think you have probably seen those statistics around. They have been in economic development reports, they've been in Chamber of Commerce reports. . .everywhere you go you can see. . .Boeing is building up. We are starting to use a Pacific Rim. . .using import export. . .Everything's saying it. . .we get it at the state level, county level, local level. And the reason we are doing this is to try to alleviate some of the exact problems that you are concerned about. . . the traffic, the housing, where are we going to put people, and I know when it hits you personally, it takes on a whole different slant. But we have to look at the big picture. I want you to know that we are not sitting up here totally ignorant of what is going on and how it affects you. Our mission and our job is to look at the big picture and try and do something about the big area. I just wanted to pass that comment on to you. Chair Martinez: I think you are in line. Your name please. Dale Dodrill: Dale Dodrill, and I live at 25019 38th which is a border to the SF3 , and I appreciate the fact that you have not changed the zoning and that it is still R1-7 .2 and because. . .as it was alluded to by several other people that the 38th Avenue South that runs north and south, it does have a lot of traffic and people want to speed through there. The bumps have been put in to try to help that problem, so I appreciate the fact that you have not proposed to increase the number of people that will be living on 38th. Also I 'd like to say along with the other comments, like on Military Road there is a lot of traffic that we have talked about. 29 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Also, you alluded to the fact that you were tied in with the school district or the state, and. . .this is an extra kind of question that has to do with why isn't this West Hill area part of the Kent School .District. I think that if we live in the City of Kent, we ought to be a part of the Kent School District and not part of Federal Way. Commissioner Forner: If you give me your phone number, I 'll try to find that out for you tomorrow. Dale Dodrill: Yeah. I'd sure appreciate that. 839-7474. Also like the other gentlemen mentioned, it does seem like they should have received a notice along the 250th Avenue there. But the bottom line is that there is no change in the zoning proposed here. I think we should try to cooperate with you people just a little bit. Chair Martinez: Is there anybody else? Chester Spurgeon: My name is Chester Spurgeon. I live at 23624 41st Avenue South on the West Hill. Just for you, Greg, and the rest of you who are pretty young to know it, but about 25 years ago I went through a series of meetings similar to this and watched people just like you tell me . . . patting me on the shoulder and telling me how good the Kent Highlands Sanitary Landfill was going to be. And I watched a massive garbage dump develop and suffered with it for 25 years. So don't feel offended if people like me and these people get a little irate when this kind of proceeding goes on. Be that as it may, for those of you who would like to see a 5000 square foot residential lot develop in a large application, you should take a trip down to San Francisco and take a look at some of the residential developments they have down there that are built on 4 or 5000 square feet. I assure you that if you take a trip like that, you will not be proposing 5000 square foot lots in this area. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Sir. Tell me what you mean by that. Chester Spurgeon: What I mean is that the 5000 square foot lot is not a lot. It is a postage stamp with a house on it and no lot. There is nothing there. Five thousand square feet. . .what have you got in here. . .a thousand. It's not there. Commissioner Forner: I guess I ask you then if we don't do that, how do we look after the masses of people that are coming by the year. . . Chester Spurgeon: Let the masses go on out. 30 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Commissioner Forner: They won't go out. They will be here. Chester Spurgeon: Not if you don't rezone it for multifamily housing, they wont. Commissioner Forner: Then we aren't doing our job of providing housing for the people. They will be living. . . Chester Spurgeon: Let it be somebody else's job. Why should we put up with it under our elbows. If I wanted to live in San Francisco, I 'd go to San Francisco to live. Commissioner Forner: But we cannot stop people from coming here. Chester Spurgeon: If they don't have a place to live, they won't come here. I mean. . .you can be all things to all people, but you. . . or the other way around. You can't provide something for everybody. It is just not possible. No matter how hard you try, you're trying hard, but no matter how hard you try, you're not going to be able to provide for everybody. It just cannot be done. Chair Martinez: Thank you. There are two people in the queue. Okay. The person standing up has not spoken yet. So let him go first. Dion Baldus: My name is Dion Baldus and I live at 26520 Lake Fenwick Road. My area of interest is S7. I 'm a little confused here tonight, so I guess I 'd just like to ask some questions. It is currently zoned R1-7 . 2, I 'm wondering if that is a ball park number or is that absolute minimum number that the lot can be. Chair Martinez: Yes Dion Baldus: Then I see Option A which is a site-specific alternative, and then I see Option B is the same thing, so you aren't doing anything with the property. Chair Martinez: That is correct. Dion Baldus: Okay, but under the site-specific alternative you have two objectives you are trying to accomplish by leaving it alone. Can you define to me what you mean by preserving the low density character of the Lake Fenwick area. Because in my mind 7200 square feet is not low density. I currently have a 20, 000 plus square foot lot. To me that is low density. Chair Martinez: Very low density. 31 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Dion Baldus: Well, in the Mid West anything under an acre is low density. Just depends on your point of reference. I am trying to understand what your point of reference is. Chair Martinez: I think. . .the Planning Department should correct me but I think that as long as it is single family residence, we have defined that as relatively low density as opposed to multifamily housing which is high density. . .from duplex on up. Dion Baldus: It is an environmentally sensitive area. When I built my house in that area I had to. . .there is no water or sewer in the region, I had to add an additional 100 feet to my drain field. That drain field darn near takes up the entire half acre of lot with the exception of the house. As I see it, I don't see how one could put a well point and a septic tank on a 7200 square foot lot. Unless the plans are in the future to provide water and sewer to that area, I'm not aware of any plans in that arena. The other question I had was that 50-foot minimum. . .is that in fact a minimum. Chair Martinez: Yes. Dion Baldus: It is a minimum. Chair Martinez: Yes. Dion Baldus: Because some of those lots in that region are only 40 foot in width. Chair Martinez: That's from the front. It is 50 feet now. It would be 50 feet. Right. Dion Baldus: So that would then require that whoever owns that property purchase two lots side by side. Stephen Clifton: (unclear) Single Family Area 7 because that is recommended for no change. They need a (unclear) R1-7.2 . Dion Baldus: I guess I 'm still confused, but based on your objectives here for Option A. I'd like to propose that you consider changing the zoning to R1-12. That in my mind would require a minimum of two lots, sufficient room for a well point and septic system if necessary, plus it is more attuned to the rest of the houses in the area. Floyd Bacon: I 'm Floyd Bacon again, 24311 35th Avenue South, Kent. My first question is back again. I was mistaken on 3. We were on the other side. This is multiple housing. Three shows low density housing. I was misinformed by my colleague here. We are talking 32 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 about Map Number WH-4. Okay, that's low density housing he explained to me when I had a question which is fine. That was WH- 4, page 11. Sorry about that. We show low density housing. Now turn it over to page 12 and we show single family dwelling. Is that just so close together. . .the map. . . it doesn't show. Are they that close together? Both of them together. Stephen Clifton: They are touching. One is mobile home park. Floyd Bacon: That's the one I could not hear about. Fine. I have something to say tonight. I have been here for 25 years myself. I am speaking to the gentlemen, Mr. Greenstreet. Commissioner Greenstreet: Yes. Floyd Bacon: And I 've raised a daughter. Went through grade school, through junior high and high school. I 've been here a long time. . .resident of Kent. Some of the old timers around here. We participated. . .we say the City of Kent. Well, I 've found that I 've got a lot of support from the employees of this City. And these employees of this City, they are only doing what they are told. I think that a lot of times we fail to put responsibility of who are representatives are, and that is the City Council. I think this is where these types of things should be brought to the City Council, not to these people here. They are only doing what they are told. They are employees of the City of Kent. I say in all sincerity that you people are doing a fine job, but I think that things are not just right, and I think this why we are here. But I would like to see a lot of people address this problem that we have to the Council of this city. That is all that I have to say. Chair Martinez: Thank you, and you will have the opportunity. You have more. Can I respond just one more minute. The process is that the Planning Commission receives the study of the Planning Department. We make a recommendation to accept whatever we choose and we send a recommendation to the City Council with our reasons for choosing those recommendations. And then they do in fact enact the final judgment on what is to take place. However, the better the input at this point, the better the recommendations that go the Council. We appreciate your being here. Stephen Clifton: I received a call on July 20, 1989 from a John Olaughlin, 4408 South 272nd. He mentioned to me that he is opposed to the R1-5 designation for the following reasons: the area is almost suburban-rural; large lots surround this area; and he wants to see existing character maintained. So I signed my name on the bottom and I 'd like to submit that for him. He's on vacation right now. 33 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Chair Martinez: Fine. Thank you very much. Yes sir. Mike Larson: Mike Larson. I spoke earlier. I would like that letter I submitted included as part of the record. Thank you. . Chair Martinez: Yes, it will be. Are there any other speakers? I would entertain a motion to close the hearing. Commissioner Forner: So moved. Commissioner Greenstreet: Second. Chair Martinez: Is there any discussion. Commissioner Forner: I move that we. . . Chair Martinez: Will you speak into the mike clearly. Commissioner Greenstreet: I just want to say thank you for every one that spoke. I wish there were more people that came. Like I said, it has been an ongoing process for quite a while and I appreciate all your input. Commissioner Forner: I also want to thank you for coming. I wonder if there is anybody here who would require more background as to why we are dealing with this 20 percent reduction in the City of Kent. Have you had background. . .like two and three years ago we had hearings on traffic counts and population and what we were going to do with it. The percentage of multifamily housing to single family housing and how Kent could not keep up with the services to serve those types of people. I think if you look at the background of why we are doing what you're doing, it may not make your individual piece of property any more palatable, the fact that you are going to have to live with that, but it may make you understand why we are doing what we are doing. I am sure if you let the city staff know, that they can come up some of the background on why this study is before you today. It is not just something that come out of the blue. They've been working on it for a long, long time. It was the citizens input. We have done several surveys on whether they wanted to have a reduction in the growth in the City of Kent. And the citizens said yes. And this is a result of those citizens asking for a reduction in the growth in the City of Kent. Thank you. Chair Martinez: There is a motion on the floor to close the public hearing. All in favor. Aye. Opposed. Thank you. I would entertain a motion for action on the result of the hearing. 34 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: I move that we go through item by item. I feel we've studied. We've taken the input. I 'm comfortable with working on each piece of property and deciding. . . Chair Martinez: Are we going to have time to do that this evening? Commissioner Greenstreet: Well, I could. . .I don't think it will take that long. Depends how comfortable the rest of the Commission is. Chair Martinez: Have you had the opportunity. . .we could take a five-minute break while people take the opportunity to read that we have (unclear) received. Commissioner Forner: I 'm not ready to make a deliberation. Fred Satterstrom: I think that if I can offer some kind of advice here, you may wish a written record of what has gone on here this evening. In a couple of weeks we could have the verbatim transcript ready for you. You could review that, and as well you might wish to be a little bit more refreshed when you tackle all of these sites and some additional time to consider the testimony may be in order. I guess what I am suggesting is that you reconvene possibly on August 14th in regular session again to go over the results of this hearing. Chair Martinez: What is the (unclear) of the Commission. Commissioner Forner: I certainly have some questions that I wrote down that I would like some answers to before I made a deliberation on. . .and I don't think that is possible to do that this evening. If we have time to do that at a later date, I 'd prefer to postpone the deliberations on the hearings. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I would second that. I think I would prefer to postpone it until the 14th and take it up again at that time. Chair Martinez: I would entertain a motion then to continue the. . . Fred Satterstrom: To continue the meeting of the Planning Commission on this. Chair Martinez: I would entertain a motion to continue the meeting of the Planning Commission on the West Hill Area Housing Study. Commissioner Forner: I move we continue this meeting on August 14th. 35 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Chair Martinez: Is there a second? Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I second. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion? All in favor Commissioners: Aye Chair Martinez: Opposed. For those of you in the audience, on August 14th at 7:30 we will be meeting in this room. We will be continuing our deliberations, and you are certainly welcome, and we encourage you and your neighbors to attend. (Unclear voices) Chair Martinez: For clarification can if there is additional testimony, can we have. . .we have closed the hearing. . .can it be reopened. Okay, fine. If there is new input to be had from the community, we can reopen the hearings and listen to whatever you have to say, and we would be happy to receive written testimony as well. There will be a verbatim report available on what has gone on today, and I am hoping that some of the issues can be addressed from the staff when you come to make the presentation so that people are clear about any of the questions that they have raised here. Yes, Dan. Dan Stroh: Also, I 'd really appreciate getting the addresses of people who didn't receive notification who feel that they ought to have received it so we can figure out what went wrong with the notification process. . .help us on down the road as we do others of these meetings. I 'd really appreciate if you could give that to me tonight. Thank you. Chair Martinez: We have two more areas, and if we have made a mistake, we don't want to repeat it. Okay. That's it. (End of verbatim minutes) RECREATIONAL VEHICLE CABIN PROPOSAL ZCA-89-2 Scott Williams presented the KOA, Kampgrounds of America, proposal for one or two movable wooden camping cabins to be allowed in the KOA campground. He stated that the Kent Zoning Code allows permanent structures only for a residence for the manager and/or owner of the park, and for structures to house laundry and shower facilities. Staff recommends denial of this regulatory review for the following reasons: (1) the intent of the Recreational Vehicle Park Code is to provide areas for recreational vehicles and their 36 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24 , 1989 users and these cabins clearly do not fit the definition of a recreational vehicle; (2) This type of request has not been considered in the code. There is concern that there could be an increase in the number of cabins in the future, and that the cabins could encourage long-term stays. Chairman Martinez commented that we do not have a campground designation. She felt there should be either a new designation entitled Campground, or the Recreational Vehicle Park Code should be amended. Beth Garrett, applicant, 5801 South 212th, stated that the City of Kent allowed KOA, which has 700 campgrounds in the United States, to come into the City of Kent. At that time KOA had sites for trailers, motor homes, and a tenting area. After travelling in Australia, New Zealand and Europe, the applicants brought back to KOA in Billings, Montana the concept of camping for those who did not have the big car or big tents. People in those other countries can throw sleeping bags and cooking utensils into their cars and camp without the tent. KOA now has instigated this concept, and hundreds of its campgrounds now have the camping cabins. Last year KOA asked all of its campgrounds to include a cabin or two so that those who wished to camp in cabins could camp without a tent. The structures in question are one-room cabins with a double bed, two bunks, an electric light in the ceiling and a smoke alarm. Campers cook and eat outside like other tenters. The cabin is like a hard- sided tent. Tenting is open only during June, July, August, and September, depending on the weather. The camping area is roped off and unused during the winter months. The cabins would be in the tenting area and also would be closed all winter. They have a second building which houses the shower, laundry, etc. Since the buildings are closed all winter, she did not feel that anyone would want to live in a cabin in the winter that has no heat, no water or plumbing. She emphasized that the proposed cabins would not be permanent structures. The cabins would be put on blocks so that they could be moved. She stated that 40, 000 campers use the KOA campground in Kent during the year. These campers use the services of the City of Kent. She expressed disappointment that the planners did not realize that this was not a permanent structure. She pointed out that San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Antonio, and Salt Lake City have these structures in the KOA campgrounds. She requested that since this type of structure is part of the entire KOA system, KOA in Kent should be allowed to have these structures. When KOA was allowed to locate in Kent, they were told that the site would be in a recreational area. Now they are nearly surrounded by warehouses. 37 Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet stated that he has known persons who had gone to Denmark and Norway and had utilized this type of camping structure as they travelled. He felt that this structure would fit better in North Bend or Green Water than in our urban area. Ms. Garrett added that they provide a Gray Line Tour bus tour for 65 passengers on a seven-hour tour of the Seattle area. The bus tour is filled with people from all over the world. Kent Is KOA is the nearest campground to Seattle, and KOA refers campers to other locations able to accommodate them. Their campers usually stay at least three or four days to see this area. Commissioner Forner explained that under the present zoning there are regulations which include only people-maintained vehicles or tents. She asked how the facility would be kept clean. Ms. Garrett responded that the campground employs a professional cleaning crew on a daily basis. Commissioner Forner responded that current zoning does not regulate movable cabins. Ms. Garrett did not feel that this site should be classified under Recreational Vehicle Park. KOA parks are inspected frequently and must meet the KOA standards, and she felt that Kent should be able to provide the same services as other campgrounds in the KOA franchise. When foreigners come to the US, they buy or rent very small cars and carry the minimum of equipment because they sell everything when they leave. Chair Martinez responded that this type of activity may be appropriate, but if the code is changed for KOA, it would pertain to all facilities of this type. She has camped in KOA campgrounds in a tent and felt they were good places for families, but she was concerned about opening up the city to the unknown. Commissioner Forner asked how many other camping facilities are under this zoning at the present time. Mr. Satterstrom responded that currently there are no others. There is a permit out for one that may be built south of the Green River. Discussions followed regarding the effect a change of regulations might have on future campgrounds in Kent. Commissioner Forner had concern about making an exception to the code for this structure. She wondered how other jurisdictions had dealt with this type of situation. She was concerned that this be allowed, but not at the risk of future situations. Mr. Williams responded that there had been insufficient time to complete a study of other jurisdictions. 38 Y Kent Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1989 Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner expressed concern about future recreational camping parks. Chair Martinez felt that even though there is only one campground in Kent at the present time, the exception should be clearly stated that it would be for KOA and regulated by KOA. Mr. Satterstrom added that if the Commission denied the regulatory review request to change the code which would affect all businesses of this nature, there are two other avenues of appeal. One would be to go to the City Council Planning Committee, and the other would be to apply for a variance. This would be site specific, would deal specifically with the KOA Campground, and would not change the code. Chair Martinez asked how long it would take to obtain a variance. Mr. Satterstrom responded that it would take approximately 45 to 100 days. Chair Martinez asked what kind of conditions would be considered for a variance. Mr. Satterstrom explained that strict criteria have been developed by the state dealing with hardship, reasonableness, unique circumstances, and any possible adverse effect to the public welfare. The Board of Adjustment would ascertain if this grant of special privilege would have any negative effects on adjacent property. Much of the evidence that had been supplied at this hearing in terms of the image, number of visitors and revenue generated for the city would not be part of the criteria that would be considered by the Board of Adjustment. Commissioner Greenstreet MOVED to deny this request for a zoning code amendment which would allow cabins in this campground. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Forner MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 4Jam . Harris, Secretary 39