The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 09/25/1989 (3) KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 25, 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7: 30 p.m. Monday, September 25, 1989 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Anne Biteman Tracy Faust Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Carol Stoner Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Leona Orr, absent Raymond Ward, absent Chair Martinez welcomed Tracy Faust as the newly appointed member. VALLEY FLOOR IMPLEMENTATION CPZ 89-4 (Verbatim Minutes) Chair Martinez: I will open the public hearing on the Valley Floor. And before it is opened I want to sort of set the stage as to what we are doing, what we are trying to do and what the rules for the hearing will be. First of all if you have not received the study, it's the orange book and it is at the front of the auditorium. On pages 9 and 10 are the specific items that we will be considering, and how they affect specific areas within that planning area are detailed further on in the study. We are acting on actually four different items. On the Subarea Plan, that's the Comprehensive Plan text amendment, on the Subarea Plan Map Amendment, including a single family designated area overlay, zoning code amendments creating Rl- 5 zoning district, and then finally zoning map amendments. We will be acting on all four of these items as we move through our decision making. We are acting, though this is not a judicial hearing, we are acting under the rule of the Appearance of Fairness. What that means basically is that we asking those of you who have concerns and input into this process to make them known in a public way at our hearings rather than lobbying each one of us individually. Those of you who are on the Commission if you Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 have dealings with people on this outside of these hearings, we would ask you to report them back so that there is an appearance of fairness and so that we are all getting the same information. You have all had opportunity, I hope, to sign up to speak this evening. If you haven't, you can continue to sign up. There is a large number of folks in the audience who will be speaking tonight, I would ask that each of you limit your remarks to about six minutes. If it looks as if we are not going to finish this hearing by 10: 00, it will be continued at a time and a place that you all will be alerted to. The way we conduct a public hearing is that we will ask the staff to make a presentation of what is going on so that you can all hear the background and the plan. That will take approximately 15 minutes. Then we will receive input from you until it is completed. Questions that you might have please direct them to me. They may very well not be answered until the end of this hearing, or they may even have to be carried on to the next meeting because we will have to get back to you, but we are taking a verbatim record of this meeting so that word for word we will be able to tell what you all said and we will get back to you with answers to the questions. In most cases I will not ask the staff to stop and answer those questions as we go along. Some of you have only signed up to be on our mailing list. I will call your name, however, in case you have changed your mind and would like to speak. So, if you don't want to speak, just say pass. Mr. Bourn. Frank Nowak. Okay. Mr. Huang. Please wave your hand if you can't hear me because I am getting no feedback at all. Mr. Crown. Pamela Newcomer. Please step to the microphone and repeat your name, address. . . Oh, I 'm sorry. The staff has not made their input. I was just racing right along. Will the staff please make the presentation. Dan. Dan Stroh: I think this is on now. Great. I am Dan Stroh with the Planning Department and I would like to take a few minutes to give the background of the process that we are in right now. This study was initiated by the Council when they passed Resolution 1172 in July of 188, just over a year ago. This resolution asked the Planning Department and the Planning Commission to do a series of things and they include the process we are in right now, which is an area-by-area analysis of multifamily densities. We are doing this throughout the city in a series of steps. Tonight we are looking at the Valley Floor Planning area. Previously through Resolution 1172 we have looked at the West Hill Planning Area, and also at the East Hill Planning Area. In looking at these areas the net result of what we are trying to achieve is a 20 percent reduction in multifamily densities throughout the city. This was one of the objectives of Resolution 1172, which Council told is to proceed with. They have also asked us to update the housing 2 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 element of the Comprehensive Plan. We did do this in the first phase of this work, and the Council passed an updated housing element in February of this year. The new policies in that have been used in part to direct the work that staff has done in the current study. Council also asked us to find ways to encourage single family development within this city, and there are certain recommendations within the report that were designed to do this to encourage additional development of single family within the City of Kent. So last year in July 1988 Resolution 1172 was passed. Since that time the housing element of the Comprehensive Plan has been updated. Staff has conducted a city-wide analysis of multifamily densities and strategies for encouraging single family. We have had a series of public meetings prior to the public hearing we are currently in in order to notify the public about these efforts. Council did ask us to do this process planning area by planning area. So as we initiated each planning area, first with the West Hill, we had a scoping meeting at the beginning, and later an open house where we actually had some alternatives devised and ready to take to the public. We did the same thing, of course, for the East Hill Planning Area and later for the Valley Floor Planning Area. Tonight is the beginning of the public hearings of the Valley Floor Planning Area. It is the last of the three areas we are bringing before the Planning Commission, so that in all we will have covered multifamily throughout the whole city. Of course the Planning Commission has completed the planning process for the West Hill area. In fact the City Council last Tuesday acted on those recommendations. Previously the Planning Commission has held hearings on the East Hill Planning Area, and, of course we are in the midst of deliberating in that area. This puts us into the process of beginning the West Hill hearings tonight. This has been a very long and difficult process reviewing multifamily densities throughout the entire city. For those in the audience we do appreciate your being here tonight and having a chance for us to hear and for the Planning Commission to hear your views on the issues and also your bearing with us as we make our way through this very lengthy proposal. Following me a member of staff, Janet Shull, is going to lay out the specifics of what is actually in the West Hill Planning Area proposal. Janet Shull: My name is Janet Shull and I am with the Kent Planning Department. Can you hear me. Okay. I'll try to speak louder. Is that better? Okay. Now that Dan has given you an overview of the project, I am going to cover the specifics of the Valley Floor. The topics that I will be talking about are the introduction of Phase II of the housing study, identifying the vacant and underdeveloped land areas, how we went about that process, the criteria we used to analyze the review areas, the alternatives that were devised that would each achieve the 20 percent reduction, the general impact for the Valley Floor area 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 specifically, and the staff-recommended actions which are included at the end of the report. Phase II of the Valley Floor portion of the study was kicked off with a public meeting held on March 1st at the City Hall Council" Chambers. An overview of Phase II of the study was presented, and that was followed by citizen questions and comments. There were about 20 citizens who attended this first meeting, and some of the concerns that were expressed particular to the Valley Floor included increased traffic. This is not necessarily associated with multifamily development, but it was an issue that there was increased traffic on the Valley Floor. Mobile home park opportunities was the second. Sidewalk improvement, both too many, too much or too little, were stated as issues. What I mean by this is that some people thought that sidewalk improvements or maybe too much was required. In some cases sidewalks were being developed where they weren't necessarily needed. But in other cases sidewalks were needed and weren't there. And then the other one. . .couple others were retention of existing neighborhoods for affordability. We have some older single family neighborhoods adjacent to downtown. There were some residents that came and were interested in seeing those areas maintained. And then residences in nonresidential zones. I don't know if you are aware that on the Valley Floor there are quite a few homes that remain in areas that are now rezoned for other uses. . .they are generally older homes but people still live in them. They were concerned with their living adjacent to businesses and some of the impacts that they receive. After the public meeting we moved on identifying the vacant and underdeveloped land areas for the Valley Floor. These vacant and underdeveloped land areas were generated first by our computer GIS system which stands for Geographic Information System. I think at this time I need to clarify what we mean by underdeveloped. Underdeveloped means simply that additional residential units could be placed on a site given zoning and other constraints. It doesn't mean that an owner of the property wishes to do that or that we feel it should happen necessarily, but just that the potential exists. After the different vacant underdeveloped parcels were identified, we next made field visits to those parcels. We did that to verify that the computer-generated information was correct. For instance, if something came up as vacant, we made sure that it was indeed vacant. While we were doing that, we also looked at potential development. . .development potential for those sites, we looked at things like environmental constraints, if there were steep slopes, or wetlands, things like that. And then from those field visits we determined net developable acreage for those areas. Then after we did the field visits, areas that were suitable for zoning changes, analysis were determined by grouping parcels that were contiguous or shared common characteristics. So when all these parcels were generated, we went out and looked at them, and then parcels that were in contiguous areas with the same zoning were then grouped to enable us to go through the process a little 4 - Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 easier and also we tend to look at things in zoning categories rather than parcel by parcel. Voices: Hold the microphone to your face sweetheart. Janet Shull: Okay. Let's try this. Other vacant and underdeveloped parcels were not targeted for zoning changes analysis due to their isolated nature, limited development potential, or awareness by staff of permit activities in process. For example, a lot of areas came up vacant in the computer analysis, but looking at permit applications that were on file we realized that some were very far into the permit process, so those were not analyzed for change. A total of 340 parcels were identified in the study. Of those 340, 308 were considered for zoning changes. These parcels were grouped into 14 multifamily and four option review areas. An additional 66 parcels were included with the original 308, that was after the first cut was made when we netted out those that were either isolated or had some action pending on them. An additional 66 were included in those we considered for zoning changes to even out proposed zoning boundaries and to provide for smooth density transition between land use areas. The recommended actions resulting from this study would potentially affect about 296 separate parcels on the Valley Floor. In other words, of the 308 plus 66 which totals 374 parcels that we looked at, some of those we are recommending no change. So the net potentially affected number of parcels is 296. That is how we came up with that number. I 'd like to take a minute to talk about option review areas because this is something different to the Valley Floor. We haven't seen option review areas yet. The inclusion of option review areas is specific to the Valley Floor. Option review areas are areas that are currently zoned for other than residential uses. These areas were examined for potential for multifamily uses. These review areas are included for your consideration under both the site specific and the 100 percent East Hill Reduction alternatives for the Valley Floor. The inclusion of these areas stems from Council direction established in Resolution 1172, which is the same resolution that this study came from. This resolution states that this analysis should consider potential new multifamily areas with an emphasis placed on areas in and surrounding the Central Business District, which places the emphasis on the Valley Floor. Now I am going to talk a little bit about the review criteria we used after we established these 18 different areas. The criteria used to determine zoning changes for the study areas included the citizen expressed concerns from the initial Valley Floor meeting, the goals, objectives and policies of the Updated Housing Element, the Valley Floor Subarea Plan and the Downtown Plan. In addition to these criteria, city staff also looked at environmental constraints, meaning steep slopes or wetlands, we have hazard areas designated in the City, surrounding 5 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 transportation system, the future potential for commuter rail to serve the Valley so that is sort of an additional thing we looked at for the Valley Floor, the proximity to commercial nodes and community facilities, the surrounding zoning and the existing land uses on the properties, the adequacy of infrastructure, roads, sidewalks, streets lighting, etc. , water and sewer availability, fire and police protection and schools. Now I am going to talk about the three alternatives along with the no-action change alternative. These are the four alternatives that you have before you to choose from when looking at the Valley Floor. There is a matrix included in your report, and it is located on page 18. You should be pretty familiar with this by now. It describes the potential multifamily unit changes under the three action scenarios compared to the no-action alternative which would be retaining existing zoning as it is now. It is important to point out when considering the Valley Floor area that it has the greatest multifamily potential of the three areas we have looked at. Their total buildout, approximately 2,900 additional multifamily units, could be realized. Now I am going to talk a little about four different alternatives and what they'd mean specifically to the Valley Floor. The site-specific alternative is the first one. This reduction alternative based on the analysis of the 18 Valley Floor areas using the criteria that I just outlined to you. Under this alternative the number of potential of multifamily units would decrease by 217 units from the no-action or no-change alternative. This is a 4 . 5 percent decrease city wide. . .over the city-wide potential for multifamily units. It is a 7.5 percent decrease for the Valley Floor Planning Area as a whole. Under this scenario there would also be an increase single family potential. This potential would be about 18 units over the no-action or the text- reduction alternatives. The text reduction alternative is the second alternative I will outline to you. This is the formalization of the interim 20 percent multifamiliy density reduction policy currently in effect. Under this alternative the number of potential multifamily units would decrease by 588 units. This is 12.4 percent of the city-wide potential, and 20.25 percent of the Valley Floor potential. There would be no increase in single family potential under the text-reduction alternative. The East Hill reduction does affect the Valley Floor in that there would be some changes over site specific. The East Hill reduction would remove almost 100 percent of the multifamily potential from the East Hill, which is more than 20 percent of the city-wide potential. So, therefore, to achieve a 20 percent city-wide reduction, a density shift is proposed to the Valley Floor area. In other words, some additional multifamily potential would have to be added to the Valley Floor to achieve the overall 20 percent reduction. This would result under our 100 percent East Hill reduction alternative, this would result in 432 units increased over the Valley Floor potential as it stands currently. This is 6 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 realized by a combination of site-specific recommendations and density increases to two of the option review areas. Increases to single family potential would be the same as under the site specific recommendation. The fourth and final alternative is the no-action alternative. Under the no-action alternative it means simply that we would leave things the way they are, and that way we would be potentially be able to realize the 2,900 multifamily units under current zoning. After we developed these alternatives, we held a second Valley Floor public meeting. This was an open house format and it took place on May 31st right here in the Council Chambers. We distributed questionnaires to those who attended. Based on the returned questionnaires we gathered that there was general support for a density reduction in the four multifamily areas that we presented. There was also general support for the site-specific recommendations for the four option review areas. The single family designated area overlay was also generally supported by those who showed up. Citizens expressed the opinion that in some cases it should in fact be expanded from what we proposed. As you probably know, the single family overlay was only proposed for those areas currently zoned single family, but in this case some people felt that it should be expanded. Now I am just going to close by outlining the staff recommendations. The staff recommended actions are presented in the Valley Floor report on pages VF-93 through VF-94. And altogether there are four actions to consider. Linda has already sort of outlined these so I will go quickly through these. The first one is amending the Valley Floor Subarea Plan text to bring it into consistency with the recently amended Comprehensive Plan Housing Element and Council Resolutions 1123 and 1172. The second recommended action is to create the single family designated area overlay to the Comprehensive Plan Map. This is not a zoning change but a Comprehensive Plan Map Overlay. The goals of the single family designated area are to conserve the existing single family character and use of these areas and to protect single family neighborhoods from incompatible uses that could be developed in the future. And also to promote new single family development. The proposed overlay contains only those areas now located within the city limits, which are contiguous single family zoned areas. In the future of this area if this adopted it could be expanded into the planning area since it is just a comprehensive plan overlay. The third action is to amend the Zoning Code text by creating a new zoning district, the R1-5 Single Family Residential Zoning District, 5, 000 square foot lot minimum size. The fourth recommended action is to amend Zoning Map from multifamily area and option review areas as outline on pages VF-94 through VF-102 of the same report. Those are the four recommended actions and I will take any questions at this time. 7 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Chair Martinez: Does the Commission have any questions at this time? Yes. Okay, thank you. Voices: (unclear) Chair Martinez: I don't think anyone can hear well tonight. Commissioner Forner: You mentioned early on in your presentation that you did not consider those parcels that were into their permit process. Can you tell me how far into the permit process those people were? Janet Stroh: I 'll try. I 'm not sure in every case exactly. . .we know that in some cases they. . .I can use one example being the Lakes, which is a very large development. At the time that we started the study they had already started constructing, they had a master plan permit for a phased development process, even though they hadn't broken ground on all their sites. They were well into the development and the permit process for their master planned development. So that is one example. Chair Martinez: Are there other questions from the Commission. Okay. Thank you. I shall now press ahead. . . Mr. Harris: Madam Chair. Before we press ahead we have to get letters into the record. Chair Martinez: All right. Fine. Mr. Harris: I have letters. . .I have four letters I would like to have the Commission enter into the record this evening. I am not going to read them. I am going to go over briefly who sent them and a little bit about what they say. The first one is from Donald G. Ryan, attorney. He has written a letter for Robert and Patricia Lorentson. Their property is located at the end of Fifth and Crow Street. You have these letters in your fine this evening. The second letter is from Charles Wesley Butt and Kristy E. Butt. They are located at the end of Fifth Avenue. The third letter is from Donald L. McDaniel and his property. . .he simply talks about the Planning Commission wanting to rezone 500 and 600 block of Bridges and Railroad Avenue from Commercial Manufacturing to Multifamily Duplex, and he gives five different points on that. The next letter is from Charles Wesley Butt and Kristy E. Butt. They have a general letter discussing what they thought was the philosophy of these hearings. We have a letter that was received this evening at 7:28 p.m. from Myles Drake who says he is the owner of two parcels of land in an area MF-2 shown on Map VF-5 in the Valley study area. You don't have a copy of that letter, and someone just threw a letter at me here, and people. . .anyone else want to submit 8 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 letters. . .I don't like them to be just thrown down here. They should be. . . Chair Martinez: I think I just saw a hand in the back. If there are letters, could we have them now. Mr. Harris: If you are going to have letter and you are not going to testify to the letter, then get it up here now so that we can officially accept it into the record. Otherwise it will go by the way. Chair Martinez: I thought I saw two hands. Was there just two hands for one letter. Okay. Mr. Harris: Let me receive this letter in here. Okay. Two letters just received. The first one is from Gwen Thompson of 535 South Bridges Street, Kent, Washington, reference Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan Zoning Code and Zoning Map. You, by the way, will get these letters officially the next time you come back to hear this case. The next letter is Barry and Marianne Cartwright, 21833 93rd Avenue South, Kent, Washington. They say my wife and I are homeowners residing at city address that I just gave. Our property is approximately 1.2 acres in size and is located directly east of study area 11. That's all I have, Madam Chair. Chair Martinez: Some folks have come in since the hearing began. If you wish to testify, you do need to sign in. Is there anyone who needs to sign in for speaking this evening. Thank you. I remind you to please keep your remarks as briefly you can and indicate if you are speaking about a particular study area. It helps the Commission a great deal to know what area you are discussing. So that will be very helpful to us. Are you signed in sir. Voices• (unclear) Chair Martinez: Will you please step to the microphone, please, and identify yourself. This is a point of order. Charles Birks: My name is Charles Birks. I reside at 9220 South 218th Street in the city. Are the map areas that are represented in the presentations approximately what is considered, and were the areas as to size and/or volume part and parcel of the consideration of percentages. Chair Martinez: I am not exactly understanding your question, so see if I can restate it so that it can be answered. You want to know if as the maps are drawn in the study if those include just 9 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 the areas that are under consideration or do they include more or less. Charles Birks: Let me give you an example of what I am trying to get to. If there are 2, 000 acres being considered as indicated on the map, and 20 percent of that is going to be changed, is that an idea . . .concept. . .The reason I ask that is because the map is not accurate. Chair Martinez: I can't answer that. Charles Birks: Okay. As a case in point, the area up here on this map, and I can indicate it to you, this area up here is incorrectly indicated as a residential area. The city owns a lot of this. Chair Martinez: I still think that it may be zoned for residential. We'll address that as a question that we will get back to and answer it correctly because I don't think we can do that right now. Mr. Satterstrom: I 'd be happy to work with him on that out here in the lobby. Charles Birks: I 'll join you right now. Maybe we can. . . Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. The first person who has signed up to speak this evening is Pamela Newcomer. Please come to the mike and identify yourself. Pamela Newcomer: Pamela Newcomer and I live at 839 Third Avenue North. I am a homeowner. I have to apologize for not being at the first or second meeting, and I also have to apologize for not really knowing entirely what is going on, although it affects my neighborhood and my property. I live in multifamily 14, and the area that I am concerned with. . .which I want to change to multifamily 2 , and if I understand it correctly. . .the other thing I don't understand is what garden density whatever it was. . .garden density multifamily. Is that a duplex unit, a fourplex. . . Chair Martinez: It is 16-units per acre. Pamela Newcomer: Oh god. Chair Martinez: That is what its current zoning is. No changes have been suggested for that area at this time. Pamela Newcomer: For Number 2. Chair Martinez: I thought you said Multifamily 14. 10 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Pamela Newcomer: I live in 14. But Number 2 is at the end of my block. If they stick up 750 units, it is going to take away the neighborhood atmosphere that I now enjoy. Chair Martinez: Yes, it is currently zoned 23 units per acre. It is being suggested that. . .and its development potential is currently 737 multifamily units, it has been suggested that be decreased to 10 dwelling units per acre. Pamela Newcomer: So there was eight acres, so that mean 80 units. Chair Martinez: There are 320 multifamily housing units in that whole area being suggested. That is correct. Because there are 33.75 acres in the study area that is affected by this study. Pamela Newcomer: I thought it said over here that Number 2 was 8 . 5 acres, something like that. Again, my apologies. I have not had a chance to study this. Chair Martinez : Do you have a copy of the study? Pamela Newcomer: Orange. Chair Martinez: Yes. Pamela Newcomer: I got that tonight Chair Martinez: Multifamily 2 is on VF-28. Pamela Newcomer: That doesn't look like my map. Maybe I have the wrong one. Option 2, not Multifamily 2. Excuse me. Option reviews area, which there is only four of them. Number 2 rests right north Multifamily 14. Chair Martinez: 0-2. And its VF-79 to 81, and 81 is the text. Okay. Now we are with you. I apologize. It is currently Limited Industrial and is being suggested that it be converted to Garden Density Multifamily, which is 16 units per acre. And there are 8.5 acres in that study area. Pamela Newcomer: Sixteen per acre. Sixteen units per acre of houses, duplexes, apartments. Chair Martinez: Multifamily. . .Garden Density simply means the density and it can be a variety of multifamily units. So it could be. 11 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Pamela Newcomer: Without numbers this could mean considerable add on to that neighborhood. Chair Martinez: Yes, it would be 129. . .it could be up to 129 multifamily units. Pamela Newcomer: Okay, then how would a person find out if all this traffic is going to channel down First, Second and Third Avenues? Chair Martinez: Let's pose that question and get an answer from it. Pamela Newcomer: This is what I'm opposed to. . .ruining the quality of the neighborhood that is there. I realize that progress has to be made and whatever, but it is a very old neighborhood, established, protected neighborhood. Chair Martinez: Yes. Can we ask you some questions. Pamela Newcomer: Certainly. Commissioner Stoner: I am wondering if you are aware that the zoning on that parcel is M2, which means Limited Industrial. If you have a choice, do you want the current zoning that is Limited Industrial on that land, or do you want the proposed which is Multifamily Garden Density at 16 units an acre? Pamela Newcomer: If I had my choice, I'd have the whole end of the street barricaded and have it go off Central Avenue. It's a protected neighborhood and I don't know how to fight those things and I really couldn't answer at this time whether I would prefer the residential or the industrial. Industrial would be there in the daytime and they'd be gone at night. If there were a bunch of apartments, there'd be a bunch of transients, hotrodding cars, there'd be more kids, and in general transient type of people live in apartments. I think the downtown area is trying to make a revival. I think some people are moving in and trying to fix places up, I 'm trying to fix my place up. For East Hill and West Hill to not want to share in all this multifamily business, could practically turn us into a project being piggybacked on top of each other throughout the Valley Floor. Those are my feelings. Chair Martinez: Any other question. Thank you. Excuse me. Can we please hold that down. Put your emotion in what you are going to say to us. Thank you. Curtis Jensen. Curtis Jensen: My name is Curtis Jensen. I've got some property at 540 Railroad Avenue South, and I think I got myself into a can 12 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 of worms. I bought this property two weeks ago at commercial/industrial prices. Maybe you can explain to me if this is zoned duplex, how I am going to get reimbursed for what I lose on it. Chair Martinez: You won't. Curtis Jensen: It's in Option Area Number 1. This has been a business for over 13 years. That's all I really have to say. Chair Martinez: Tom Condit. Tom Condit: My name is Tom Condit and I have a piece of property at 610 Railroad. . .Option number 1. I've been there approximately 11 years and I bought this piece of property because it was commercial. I live there and I enjoy it the way it is. We want it to stay commercial. Most everybody I know in the neighborhood or in the area bought there because of the commercial value. We are all going to get hurt tremendously by the rezoning of this. And we are only talking a small two-block area, and we are trapped in. We are only talking four blocks that we would really like to remain commercial. On the other side of the tracks where it is more downtown, I could relate to more apartments or multiple living. But we are right on the through way. . .right off Central and trapped in by the railroad, and there is basically one way in and one way out. I 'd really like it to stay the way it is. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Questions. Thank you. Donald McDaniel. Donald McDaniel: I 'm Don McDaniel. I own property at 609 and 615 South Bridges. Again we are talking about option review area Number 1. I am going through the information on page VF-78 giving the pros and cons of the two options, one being converting from commercial manufacturing to duplex, the other leaving it as it is. As I go through option A here, it says will the purposes be to encourage preservation of existing affordable family homes. Well if you have seen the area, many of these family homes are very old and would require major renovation, some of them probably would eventually have to be torn down. Such proposed change recognizes the predominant single family character that exists. Single family isn't duplex, and duplex is what's being proposed here, plus there are already so many businesses in the area that it is not truly residential anyway. Helps preserve some of Kent's older homes. As before, some of these aren't suitable to stand too much longer. Further advances the housing element update (unclear) well, they are talking about housing that could be there if it were rezoned duplex. Well, they are already low income people living in that area. Factors not favoring. . .says area surrounded by commercial manufacturing zone designation on the south and the east. Well, 13 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 on the north it is either commercial manufacturing or its office, so we are completely surrounded on three sides by business and commercial and the other side by a set of railroad tracks. Areas adjacent to railroad right of way on the west isolating it from nearby residentially zoned land. This is true. And those trains going by with the whistles blowing and buildings shaking, again it doesn't seem to be suitable for development for new duplexes or any other multifamily housing as far as that goes. When they talk about Option B of not doing anything to it, it says that it would allow additional expansion of uses permitted in commercial manufacturing. Well, that's true and that would conform with everything else that is going on out there, like a new equipment rental building that has just gone up. There is land adjacent to it which has just been bought by outside investors, so that the area has been going toward commercial usage. It just doesn't seem that it is really conducive to being residential property, and the letter I submitted to Jim Harris outlined those things, like the trains, like the heavy traffic, like the taverns and all the drunks barrelling out there in the middle of the night. Not too pleasant. And the last thing I looked at was the map on VF-77 and I noted that there presently are total of about 28,066 square foot lots. Well, this proposal or option A would be for 40 duplexes spread over basically 28, 066 square feet lots. And think if you did that, all you'd have is duplexes and paved parking lots and you wouldn't have room for a tree or a blade of grass. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Are there questions from the Commission? Thank you. Mr. Shafer. Forest Reed. Robert Grate didn't sign up to speak. Gwen Thomson. You don't wish to speak to it. Ward Williams just on the mailing list. Correct? Jackie Whiteman just on the mailing list. Jackie Whiteman: I 'll go ahead and speak. My name is Jackie Whiteman. I live at 9427 South 213th Place, Kent 98031. We happen to own some property most readily recognized as the West Valley Food Grocery Store. At one time we owned the whole piece. This year we sold three quarters of the piece to the South King County Community Service for Emergency Housing. What we would like to do is. . .we were very generous on our behalf selling that property at a reasonable price for the community service hoping to get our financial assets out of the commercial building next door, which is all we have left to sell, and we have a buyer for it who does not want to buy it now because they are afraid that it is going to be rezoned. So, how are you going to sell a commercial building at commercial prices to someone when it is going to be zoned not commercial any more. So we'd like that addressed. Chair Martinez: And that's right across from. . . 14 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Jackie Whiteman: Caveman, right next to the big, old house there. Chair Martinez: Commissioner Stoner do you know which area is multifamily? Jackie Whiteman: Zero four--04A. You can see just the little. . .up front there is a big building and a little building, that's the house. And then there's two rentals. We sold off three quarters of that, and the big building next to the mobile home park is all that we still own. And that is zoned commercial and I would like to be able to sell it commercial. I 've already been generous. Chair Martinez: Are there any other questions? Thank you. Glen Crawford just signed up for mailing. Okay. Virginia Skene the same. Tom Gray the same. Patricia Crawford. Erik Pfaff. Erik Pfaff: Hello. My name is Erik Pfaff. My home address is 292904 124th SE Auburn. And the piece that I 'm interested in is called MF-4 . It's on VF-35 here in your book. I just have two lots there and you are proposing to downzone them into single family type of situation. Their width is 85 feet, so if you give me this single family zoning with a 50 lot width, what I 'm going to end up with is just single family lots instead two duplex lots. You have taken away half of my value, half of what I wanted to build there, so I would like to see them stay the same or even upzoned, but I know you are not going to go for that right now with what you are trying to do. But I would like them to stay the same in a duplex zone. One other suggestion I had. . .the people are going to come in here anyways. And they are going to be moving in. You are going to have to figure a place to put them regardless of what happens, the City of Kent is going to grow. So why not leave some of those areas that you already have zoned for this like that and you could slow your permitting process if you wanted to slow the growth for a while. Maybe someone has some acreage and you want to let out. . . (unclear) . . . so they can build on 25 percent of the land. . .50 percent of the land, and then maybe they could build on the rest of it in some years to come. Some sort of schedule would have to be set up and worked out. Just a thought. Something to think about. Once again I am not really in favor of those 5,000 square foot lots. I just wanted to make that pretty clear. You could build a nice looking building, but it is hard to control them once they are built. Even if you have a duplex or something like that, it is a rental situation and you have landlord/tenant acts to follow there, of meeting minimum things, keeping the buildings up and landscaping and that sort of thing. You get a little private residence 5, 000 square foot and you have a pretty tough time working with the little homeowner in there that is letting his place go to waste. It may turn out nice, with your standards right after they are built, but then further down the road, too, 15 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 it might not be maintained properly in a small situation like that with those tiny lots you are suggesting. My lots that I 'm talking about too, they also do have heavy apartments up on the hill on the east side already, quite heavy. They are stacked up there three floors high or so, I think. Chair Martinez: In which direction. Erik Pfaff: East. They are uphill on Summit. Mine are lot A and B in the Oliver Short Plat, what it still is called, I guess. I guess that's all. Chair Martinez: Are there questions? Thank you. Erik Pfaff: Okay. Thanks. Chair Martinez: Rhonda Frederick. Rhonda Frederick: Hi. My name is Rhonda Frederick and I reside at 532 South Railroad. Option 1, I believe. There has already been a couple of people speak of that and I feel the same way. I wouldn't like to see my property value decrease. My husband and I purchased just for that purpose with that in mind. I live right next door to an electrical company that was just purchased and he sits right in the center of our block. I live right across the street from the tracks. I can't see the way we are sitting that there would want to be apartments in there or anything as such, because we are surrounded by other businesses. People along Central and such. That it doesn't seem appropriate in that area anyway. Option Number 1. Chair Martinez: Are there questions? A mailing Crystal Tudor. Robert Nevins. Robert Nevins: My name is Robert Nevins and I live at 642 Railroad Avenue South, and this Area 01 is the one I want to talk about. The little lady that gave her presentation went to great lengths to find out about areas. However, this area. . .she should have lived there for awhile. The trains go by. . .have such an effect on houses that you cannot play a record. I haven't been able to use my record player. I had to buy a CD. Not only that, but right across the street from me there is a place that makes roofing tar, and the smell is really overpowering at times. And the trucks that come by there are huge, big oil tankers. This two blocks are completely surrounded. When I got that thing I almost died laughing, because I thought this was the most ridiculous thing that could happen is to try to make this multifamily. It is impossible to think that somebody could actually live there in the density that they propose. Okay. That is all that I have to say. 16 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Donald Bazemore. Donald Bazemore: Madam Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Don Bazemore. My firm is DB Associates, Architects. We're at 401 Second Avenue South, Seattle, 98104. My telephone number of 447-9688. I 'm here representing the Valley Floor Study Area Option Review Area Number 2 and I'm your new neighbor. It is Map VF-6, page VF23 and it has the Number 2 on it. It is immediately north of the downtown duplex area. It is up against the highway. It is also up against the railroad. And it is zoned industrial. Voices: Option Area 2 . Donald Bazemore: Please correct me if I am wrong. Chair Martinez: I think it is Option 2. Donald Bazemore: No. It is the option area. . .one of the industrial areas that is optioned for multifamily. Voice: That' s VF-80. Donald Bazemore: Representing a developer I am sure that my credentials are already in difficult posture with some of you, and I beg you . . . Chair Martinez: Could you address us. We are having a little difficulty. Donald Bazemore: There is a serious piece of information in the document, and I believe in the room. It is a very, long story but I would like to make it as short as possible and I will say it as quickly as I know how. The southwest of the United States has run out of water. We have not. This particular cycle of immigration has very little to do with our fortunate Boeing Company and the charm of the northwest, it has to do with water. Los Angeles doesn't have any more. The water table in the Great Plains states has dropped so many feet that there are actually towns in Texas that are sinking. They made the desert bloom, and now they are paying so dearly for it that they are coming up here because they can get for their house in San Mateo last week. . .a two-bedroom fixerupper $425, 000, and when they sell that house they have $425, 000 in their pocket, and if they don't buy another house with it, the only thing they can do is pay taxes on it. So they come to King County, Washington, paradise if you will, and they buy a palace. And you've seen many, many pictures of these palaces all over East King County. Some of them don't have any furniture in 17 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 them, because they can't afford the furniture, but they have to spend the money for the houses. This is an incredible apocalyptic immigration. King County lost one of its county commissioners to the people who resisted the growth in East King County, and when he voted for a project, and I do not speak for or against the project, but when he voted for it he actually lost his job as a King County Commissioner. And the person who beat him did not bring an answer to what do you do with a half a million new people in five to ten years. The question isn't what we don't want to happen. When every one of those people vies and begs for our houses, they are going to run the price up to the extent that my major recommendation to you tonight is to work very hard for a cap on residential property taxes or we are going to be thrown out of our homes in the next ten years. If you can look at your tax bill and have it multiplied by four in the next five years, then you can tolerate living here. The other thing to do. . .in whatever way we can. . .meet the demand of housing. If we don't meet it, we are in a disaster position. And it isn't that we have a choice of growth or no growth. I'm sorry. I wish we did. I came here in 1965 and I 've loved it, and I don't even care for the growth. But it's here now, and if we don't do something in this emergency. . . first off, we don't have any comprehensive plan in all of King County. We have neighborhood plans. You're working on a comp plan for Kent, Washington when King County itself has none. We don't have any agency in King County that can plan transportation and land use in the same agency with the power to implement it. We don't have a regional government, folks, and we are going to lose our county commissioners because they fail. We've already lost one and we're going to lose a couple more. Paul Bardon told me that if he ran again today he would lose because King County cannot serve these people. Okay, what does it have to do with this piece. Duplex in an existing single family admits that that single family area has failed. And I don't think that the people who live there are ready to admit that. In fact I think they are here to tell you that it hasn't failed. They are our neighbor to the south. Chair Martinez: Excuse me, before you go on, the area that I'm looking at is currently zoned for industrial. . . Don Bazemore: I know, and the property immediately to the south is duplex. . .existing zoning. . .and it should not be, because duplex is a failure zone. It is a single family that has rotted. And that is not true of the neighborhood. voice: (unclear) . . .understand your terms. Chair Martinez: Excuse me. You are out of order. 18 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Mr. Harris: He's got the floor and she's the chair. We don't want people in the audience to chirp in. Don Bazemore: When you try to put a pencil to it as a developer, you can't buy a house, tear it down and build a duplex. It won't work. It is economically unfeasible, so the only thing you can do to a duplex is to actually add some more rooms to your house. Turn your own home into a duplex, or wipe the whole thing completely with a bulldozer and start over. None of those make any sense. But if I build a buffer on my south border, even a berm if you will, and I enter than triangular-shaped piece of property from Fourth Avenue, not through the residential streets running north and south, not through Mr. Newcumber's yard, I buffer from her and enter from Fourth, and maybe when they put that passenger train up from Auburn, I ' ll get a train station to stop there and pick up 172 or 185 or 250 residents on a high-density multifamily land which will absorb almost the high density that you seem to need, because that piece of land can absorb it when the others cannot, or don't want to, or shouldn't be forced to. So if I turn around to them, madam chair, it's because I know they are the people who have to agree with me before you make your decision. If they don't agree, it won't do much good to make the decision. I think we can take more than MR-16, happily, gladly. We could take MR-30 on those eight acres just fine. It would be a beautiful place to live. And when somebody earlier said nobody wants to live in an apartment, they are transitory people, they don't vote, they don't come to these meetings. How many of you live in apartments? Not very many. Only four in the whole group. Most apartment dwellers don't, because we've always treated an apartment as if no one wanted to live in it. The rest of the world doesn't treat apartments that way. Vancouver, British Columbia, treats them with great dignity and respect, and they go up in towers made up of concrete and steel and they are beautiful communities. There is no reason to suspect that we are going to build an inferior product. We want daycare, we want children, we want perfect access into a major arterial, we want a good community and we expect to live in Kent, and stay in Kent and own in Kent, and pay taxes in Kent. And we would very happily accept all the density you want to pile on us. And that's my speech on behalf of Option 1, I think it is, which is MR-16. No where in the world is that considered high density. Chair Martinez: Questions. Thank you. Richard Tonelli. Richard Tonelli: I 'll try to keep this brief. Madam Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. I own the property. . . Chair Martinez: Can you identify yourself for the record. 19 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Richard Tonelli: Richard Tonelli, 22440 88th South, I own the property that is listed as MF-10. It is on page VF-60 and 61. This is the property on the map you can see right here. I want to say that I concur with your assessment and recommending that it stay as it is. The property immediately adjacent to the south is being developed now as high density, MRH. They haven't been able to put the maximum number of units because of the contour and the topography. The property to the left is some that own as well, it is actually to the west. It is Commercial Manufacturing zoning, and the future, I believe, are to put an east-west road on the north boundary, and there has been setbacks and property across the freeway for an east-west road, so that property, I believe, would make an ideal boundary for MRG, or multifamily housing. Under the current zoning MRG. . .you allow 16 units per acre and, theoretically, you could get 340 units on it. But due to the topography you say there is only approximately five and one-half acres, but back in 1982 I put through a planned unit development which I show and it was approved by the City, and I showed that we could use approximately nine acres, eight of which would be part of the planned unit development, and also one acre would be zoned as a fourplex, for a total nine acres of utilization. So what I want to say is that it is well below the density that you are talking about. You are talking approximately seven units per acre which is well below the 16 units or the 20 percent reduction that you are seeking. Voice• (Unclear) Richard Tonelli: What I was saying. . .the property currently allows for 16 units per acre under MRG zoning. Under the PUD that I submitted and had been approved by the City in approximately 1982 we are utilizing eight acres, approximately, for development of that PUD which showed about 76 units on it. And also there was an additional acre that was zoned MRG for a fourplex. What I am saying is that by going to 86 units, you are reducing the buildable. . .or the number of units that are possible to put on that land well in excess of 20 percent already, and that is all that I have to say. Chair Martinez: Are there any questions? Dennis Beckwith. Okay. Will you please turn it in to be received by the. . . Barry Anderson: My name is Barry Anderson, Barry Anderson Associates. Chair Martinez: Are you Mr. Beckwith? Barry Anderson: I am speaking for Mr. Beckwith. 20 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Mr. Harris: Excuse me. You said there is one (unclear) seven here, I 'll keep out here and I'll pass the rest out. Barry Anderson: You could ask the Commission to share. Chair Martinez: Do we have your address in the record now. Barry Anderson: It is 600 South Central. I'll merely state for Mr. Beckwith, he would request that his MF-11 be deleted from the listing in according with the submitted packet. The packet is somewhat lengthy, so I won't take the Commission's time to go through it. Chair Martinez: So is this one plot within a parcel, or the whole MF-11. Barry Anderson: No this is one parcel within MF-11. There are five parcels; however, this is the largest parcel. Commissioner Greenstreet: (unclear) Barry Anderson: I 'm sorry, I 'm representing him. He is requesting withdrawal from the listing the planned unit development portion of MF-11. There are four residential lots and one multifamily- zoned garden density piece, and we are requesting no action or deletion from the list pursuant the listing of mitigating factors that we . . . closing Mr. Harris: We need an identification. Chair Martinez: Do you have his address, Lois? Speaking for Mr. Beckwith. Voice: (unclear) Chair Martinez: Yes, to the best of my ability he has submitted a packet of material asking for one parcel, the largest identified parcel according to Mr. Anderson in Area MF-11 be withdrawn from consideration in all these proceedings. I have no other information. . . I can't represent that in any other way because I haven't read the material. voice: (unclear) Mr. Harris: If you need to talk, you must come to the floor and be recognized by the chair. . .just a minute, we can't get you into the record. This is a record on tape. It is up to the chair whether she is going to recognize you or not. 21 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Chair Martinez: For the information of the audience, this will be entered into the record and will be a part of the record that you can read. The Commissioners have not seen it. You have heard exactly what we know, and I an sorry that there is no further information at this time. It will be available for public review. Okay. Peg Percival has just signed up to receive mailings. Is that right? Gary White May. Okay, pass. Ken Astrein. Ken Astrein: Hi. My name is Ken Astrein. I live at 1455 East Harrison, Seattle, Washington. Madam Chair and members of the Commission, I have spoken to you in other capacities, and tonight I want to speak on behalf of myself. I'd like to give you as well as some of the members of the audience some thoughts to think about while you are looking through the housing study and rather than pointing specifically to some parcels. . .and I'd like you to keep these thoughts in mind while you are answering these questions and looking at these issues which need to be addressed. Getting back to Mr. Bazemore's comment, I am one of the few people in the audience who is an apartment dweller here. I 'm not a hotrodder, nor am I a drug addict, nor am I a transient. For many of you, and I know there is a large proportion of elderly in the crowd, I am like your children. I am young, starting out in life, and I'd like you to think about them as well as me for a moment. I 'd like you to think about the average person starting off today, either getting out of high school or getting out of college and thinking of some of the economic obstacles that have to be faced while we move through life. I 'd like you to think about some of the debt we've taken on for those of us who have gone on for further schooling while we get out and get started. I understand the concerns that people have about the growth and I share those concerns, but what I'd like people to think about is opposition to things as the R1-5000 zone which is recommended for many of the multifamily zones for downzoning to single family. There seems to be some hesitation, there seems to be desires of some people to look at 7200 square feet, the current minimum zoning size. By discouraging the R1-5000, you are encouraging exactly what many people perceive to not want. You are encouraging less homeownership because of increased costs, or you can conversely look at that and you are having an increase in renters. I am a professional, like many people in the room, and I have a relatively decent and steady job, yet the opportunity for homeownership for me today is not what it was like when many people in the audience were my age, my parents, or people who are in between generations. It just simply isn't there. The economics don't pencil out. To look at something like a 5, 000 square foot lot and say that this would lower property values, may I remind you that in Seattle in many neighborhoods the average lot size is approximately 5,000 square feet and in some cases even smaller. Just to boil my comments down I 'd like you to think about. . . if you think this lot 22 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 size is detrimental to property values, I'd like you to ask someone who lives in Seattle in a single family home on a 5, 000 square foot lot in a comparable neighborhood what the current value is on their house. I 'm sure you will be astounded to find out what 5, 000 square feet can be worth. Nor do I think in these neighborhoods where these homes are selling in excess of $200, 000 that they are transient, that they are poor in design. I 'd like people to think about that, and I 'd also like you to think that as people do move into the region, we can turn our backs to some alternative, very innovative concept like a 5, 000 square foot zone which are incorporated in many current cities, and in that case you may be pushing people away from Kent. That's true, you won't have your density, but you will have your traffic, because if is not Kent, it will be Cle Elum, Black Diamond and further out. It's got to be some place where the economics work. Unfortunately it is not working in Seattle, and its barely working in Kent. So I 'd just like people to keep in the back of their minds some thoughts for those who have and those who are enjoying, you may be enjoying, I don't know whether your children will be enjoying such fruits of life or whether they, like may others and like many people who live in Vancouver, will be permanent renters for their existence in the Washington area. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Are there any questions? Thank you. Vern Gibson has just signed up to receive mailings. Okay. Arnie Reischl. Arnie Reischl: My name is Arnie Reischl. I live at 21825 92nd Avenue South, and I will be speaking about MF-11, which is found on VF-63 , 64, and 65. I would like to speak in favor of Option A with the following amendment. I would like you to take a look at page VF-62 and look at the area around that. I would like to have it amended to R1-20 which would (unclear) affect the community around that. There is a residential area there. I 'm one of four homeowners in that particular area. I have children I have effectively tried to put into O'Brien as well as Patterson and have found most to be very over populated as well as O'Brien being in an industrial area. I 'd like you to take a look at the area and understand that a residential area would serve that much more than a high-density multifamily area. What we are looking at is an area that is bounded by 167 and a residential area which is not well served by the road system there. And it has a high amount of noise coming from the road. I personally have moved up from California, have seen the density there and know what it is like to live in an area where people have taken and put apartment complexes next to highways and had to come back in a short amount of time and build 16 or 20-foot walls because the noise density was there as well as trying to keep the people healthy, because of the exhaust and other leaded compounds that come over those walls. So I 'd like you to consider that there is a residential area there. 23 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 There is a buffer zone that is wooded with. . .a lot of different areas. . .there are animals in there, wildlife, that could all stay there effectively if it were R1-20 instead of R5000 area. That is all that I have to say. Chair Martinez: Would you prefer, however, R5000 to other kinds of multifamily zoning. It is currently zoned MRG. Arnie Reischl: Yes it is. I would like you to take a look around the area. . .you'll see the R1-7 which is 7200, the 20,000 which directly abuts that, and then there is an RA which is RA agricultural. What you are doing by putting a 5000 in that area. . .and it should be considered because it is a piece of land that has been used as fill from the steel plant down in the valley there, they have been dumping residue in there. They have been pealing the hills back essentially trying to cover that up, but the wooded area that I have really fits well with those lots that are already there today which are about 19 to 20, 000 square feet. So that density. . .the roads are not going to take it, schools obviously aren't going to take it, so. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Questions. Thank you. You had a question. Carol Stoner: Does that mean that you would prefer not to have it zoned R1-5. Arnie Reischl: I would like it. . . if the very minimum R1-5, because that reduces it from the multifamily area. But I would really like you to consider what is around there and what you are impacting. It is a small parcel of land. There is only four acres of land there, and today if you were to travel that area, you would see that there are high banks in the area. It is going to be difficult to put those 5000 square foot lots in there. I mean, realistically, the contractor is going to have some problems with that type of thing. Chair Martinez: Other questions. Thank you. Hugh Leiper. Hugh Leiper: Good evening. My name is Hugh Leiper. I am a real estate consultant in the commercial field. I 'd like to address a few comments before we get into some specific things. First of all the study that has been made is a fantastic-looking study. I believe that the City Council gave you people a totally impossible job to accomplish simply because you are not having the opportunity to really address the problem you will be faced with in years to come. Let's take for instance. . .I'd like to try a little experiment if I can. I 'd like to have everyone in this room participate in this. All those who were 24 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Chair Martinez: Excuse me. I 'd prefer that you just address us, please. Hugh Leiper: All those who were born here, please raise their right hand. In the Puget Sound Area. I'll ask my number 1 son to take a tally, please. All right. Those who have been here 30 years or more, please raise your right hand. All right, that's fine. Are you taking the tally, my number 1 son. Thank you. At least 20 years, would somebody please raise your right hand. Thank you. Those who have been here at least 10 years, and actually I 'd like to see the Council members here raise the right hands whatever they are. All right now, the very last one. The ones who have been here at least five years, will they please raise their right hand. All right now, the interesting thing about this experiment, if I can eventually get the tally, most of the people who are in this room came here roughly 30 years ago or were born here. Now let's take a little bit of history if we can, because you've really got to understand where you are at. During the World's Fair in 1962 this particular area in the Puget Sound Area hit the magic mark of one million people. All right, now 28 years later we have approximately two and one-half million within the area. Now how did that happen. During the World's Fair people came up here and fell in love with the place. Just like I did when I came up here in 158 . I couldn't find a better place to live. But I can tell you this, there is no way in which you can put fences and you can put walls on the borders of our state so that the people won't come because they are. They have already found the vaccination of the Pacific Northwest. Now next year we are going to have the Goodwill Games. And those Goodwill Games are going to attract a multiple of people across the world and across this nation. You haven't seen the growth yet. Now I 'd like to give you a little demographics and get this thing into perspective if I can. Let' s start up on old 99 if we can, and let's use the Kent-Des Moines Highway as a center point. Now let's go from the north of that center line one mile. Let's go south one mile. Now that is going to be considered our boundary. All right. Now let's come down into the Valley let' s stretch that line and from the center line another one-half mile making three miles from north to south. Now let's take this thing up on the East Hill of Kent. As you take it up on the East Hill of Kent we are going to increase that distance (unclear) half miles from the center point and now let's continue this configuration clear to Highway 18. Now, do you realize that within the configuration you have 130,000 people all who say they belong to Kent in some fashion or another. They go to the Kent Schools, they have an address that is Kent. Now I would like to get to something specific. We are speaking of areas, I believe you have in your map. . . Chair Martinez: You have about a minute left. 25 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Hugh Leiper: All right. That's fine. Label 2. Chair Martinez: MF2 or Option Area 2. Hugh Leiper: That's VF-5 Number 2 and Number 1. Now this is an area in your downtown area south of Willis Street. currently it is zoned MRM. If you are successful in converting it to duplex zoning, which is simply done, you have voted for failure, simply because that area is not feasible to take down an old house and put a duplex on it. It won't work. So what you simply have done is actually for a failure and you should be planning for success in this whole area. I challenge you to really plan for a change and plan for the people who are coming because you are going to have another 40 or 50, 000 people in this general area in the next ten years. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Any questions? It's page 29. Commissioner Faust: Sir, are you saying, sir, that you would prefer to have the density even higher than recommended. Hugh Leiper: What I am simply saying, you have to really get to the problem. You cannot run scared like you are now. FDR in the 30's said that fear was the only thing you had to fear. Frankly that is exactly what is happening now. You are running away from the real problem. The real problem is that people are coming, just like I pointed out a little bit ago, the people are here right now. Would you like to say if you are coming, I can't handle you, I can't hold you. There is nothing really we can do to handle your problems here, because there's no place to put you. Chair Martinez: Are there questions? Steve Abercrombie just signed up for mailing. Dale Lengenfelder. Would you come to the microphone, please. Dale Lengenfelder: My name is Dale Lengenfelder. I think you can hear me. I reside at 641 South Second Avenue, Area MF-2, page VF- 28, the area that was just referred to by my predecessor. And I am right across the railroad tracks from the gentleman who had to buy the CD because of the vibration. I am blue collar, as opposed to apparently a high number of people here who are professionals, and I would like to speak about quality of life. Those who are talking in rhetorical terms such as voting for failure and espousing the virtues of high density, I am sure don't live in the high density, they're not apartment dwellers. I'd bet a week's pay, which might insult them, that they don't live even near it. Our area is not much in their terms, I would suppose, but they have financial investments, and what we people have is the investment 26 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 in our lives. We live there. We purchased our homes there. We are every bit as proud of what we have as what they are of what they have. They propose to bulldoze our shacks down, I guess they consider them shacks, and replace them with high density units because you can't afford to replace them with duplexes. You know, all I see all my neighbors fixing up their places up and living very comfortably and very happily with the exception of some of the high speed traffic that comes from some apartment units. I think I 've said enough. Chair Martinez: Excuse me, so I want to be. . .you are speaking in favor of the MRD zoning for MF-02 which would be 10 dwelling units per acre as opposed to 23 per acre as it is currently zoned. Dale Lengenfelder: The specifics I am not aware of. I am asking that they do not allow the high density units that they would maintain probably duplexes. I mean, people have a right to develop their land, but I don't think they have a right to inordinate profits at the cost of the quality of life of people who have lived and purchased and contributed to the area for years and years. Chair Martinez: Other questions. Greg. Commissioner Greenstreet: I heard you refer to living across the street from the guy that bought the CD. I was under the impression that that gentleman lived in Option Area 1. Is that correct. Dale Lengenfelder: Yes. He said he lived next door to the tracks, and I live on the other side of the tracks. Commissioner Greenstreet: Okay, so it is near Option Area 1, though, that is all I 'm clarifying. Dale Lengenfelder: I don't know what Option Area 1 is, but according to the map MF-2, which is shown on VF-28. I am at the eastern edge of that, which is close to the tracks. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Dale Lengenfelder: Thank you. Are there any more questions. Thank you very much. Chair Martinez: Walter Flue. Walter Flue: My name is Walter Flue. I live at 1105 Seattle Street. The property that I am speaking about is another one of my pieces of property at 533 Third Avenue South in Area MF-2 , also. That particular piece of property. . .that particular house on that particular piece of property, I 'd like to add, is approximately 60 27 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 years old, was moved on that piece of property by another owner before my parents took it over. The majority of the houses in this area, I 'd say approximately 90 percent of them, are 50 years or older or better, and I 'd like to go along with* Option Number 8 and retain the quality of life in that area and also maintain those homes for our historic value. Commissioner Greenstreet: On those old homes, like your folks home and that, repairing them, they've probably settled, the windows and doors, are a little out of square, but you have found that the overall structure can be maintained, painted and fixed. Walter Flue: I go through that area about every day to check on the house, check on my mother. I see the other homes in the area, and the other homes are good-looking homes. There are not that many run down. Commissioner Greenstreet: So, actually that area is real good for senior housing because it is affordable and things like that. All right. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Questions. Jim Flick. Jim Flick: My name is Jim Flick, and I live at 9408 South 218th Street. I 'd like to speak to the MF-11 designated area. Now that is. . .MF-11 is on page VF-62 and 63 . You were handed a packet by the gentleman who was representing Mr. Beckwith that said he'd like a large piece of that withdrawn from consideration. Now I 'd like to step to another map and show you in a little more detail what we are really talking about. Chair Martinez: Is it possible for him to take a mike with him. Mr. Harris: Yes, just pull that out. . . Chair Martinez: Can you take the mike because this is a verbatim. . . Thank you. Jim Flick: Can I move the map. . . Chair Martinez: But we can't see it. Jim Flick: This MF-11 is this little postage stamp in the middle of this yellow area. And at the present time that is zoned MRG, 16-units per acre. The proposal is to zone it R1-5.0. Now the property to the south of it, just below that, is zoned R1-7.2. I think that the R1-5 is not an adequate zoning. I agree with one of the earlier gentlemen who suggested that it be R1-20. Now what I 'd like to point out to you is this. For one thing if you zone 28 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 that R1-5, you are busting the block, so to speak, because then this is going to go R1-5. If it is R1-7.2 this is proposed R1-5. This from here to the Garrison Creek Park, the tennis courts and the reservoir, that is all 20,000 square foot zoned. And the people that have property bordering this piece of property. . .they have lot sizes of one acre, about the smallest lot there is one third of an acre. So, in effect you've got one third of an acre, you have 20, 000 square feet zoned clear up to and including the reservoir at the top of the hill, and then this area up here is zoned R1-12. So R1-5 is totally out of character with the neighborhood, and I think that I would object to withdrawing a large piece of that and letting it remain MRG. I think it all ought to go into an R1 designation. And I think the designation ought to be R1-20 consistent with the character of this entire yellow coded area with the exception of this 7.2 . But again I think that if you zone it RI-5, the 7 .2 is going to go down the tube, because they are going to come to you and say hey look, you got R1-5 right next to me, and I 'd like to zone mine R1-5 too, and I don't see how you can deny it. Chair Martinez: Are there any questions? Thank you. Excuse me, there is a question. Commissioner Faust: How would you feel about rezoning that to R1- 7.2. Jim Flick: Well, 1 tell you. I think we ought to. . .I would prefer to see it be zoned R1-20 because the contiguous property is up the hill above it, described as a hilly piece. It is right on the corner where the South 218th Street was cut off when they put the freeway through. So you can't go straight across the valley. You got to meander down and come out by Denny's restaurant. The property on the hill above it are these contemporary homes that are in the $150, 000 category. I 'm sure there are people here who could give you a better, more specifics on the value. And they are on lots of an acre and there is one that is a half acre. This is not consistent with 5, 000 square feet, and I don't think it is consistent with 7. 2 . I think you really ought to think about considering R1-20. This is the only R1-20 area in the City of Kent, by the way. Chair Martinez: Are there other questions? Commissioner Forner: You don't feel that specific design standards for the 5000 square foot lot could maintain their value. Jim Flick: I think that what you are going to get is cracker boxes. You don't put a big, expensive house on a 5, 000 square foot lot. So there is going to be cheaper houses, and I think you are 29 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 going to see a lot of turnover as people come and go and hopefully move up to something more in keeping of where they ultimately would like to go in terms of house size. I'm real concerned about 5, 000 square foot lots in the City of Kent for that very reason. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Jim Stieg. Jim Stieg: I am Jim Stieg. I live at 528 South Railroad Avenue. I just wanted to speak about Option Review Area 01. Seems all my neighbors have said it already. We like it the way it is. Bought commercial and would like to have it stay commercial. Haven't spoken to anyone in the neighborhood in that area who owns who wants it to change. Commissioner Greenstreet: You said you like it to stay commercial. Jim Stieg: Yes, I don't want it to change. We all pretty much feel the same, I think. Commissioner Greenstreet: But you live in a single family home there right now. Jim Steia: At this time, yes. Commissioner Greenstreet: Do you own the property. Jim Stieg: Yes. Commissioner Greenstreet: Okay. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Other questions. Commissioner Forner: Could you be more specific on what you think the impacts are on the upgrade versus maintaining it as a commercial piece of property. Jim Stiea: Upgrading the houses that are there? Upgrading the area. You're talking about putting in mutifamily apartments. Myself personally, if I was going to rent, I wouldn't want to rent next to a railroad. My house is right across the street and it does shake quite a bit as they go by and the whistles blow and it is loud because it is right by the street. So they blow their whistle right in front of the house, and it is very loud. If you close all the doors and windows, it is not so bad, but it is loud, and that is kind of annoying. I didn't buy there to live there the rest of my life. I bought commercial. There is a few houses, then there is a 7-11 across the street on one side, and there is a factory, and there is commercial units all in there already. We'd like to have the zoning stay as it is. 30 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Steven Rea. Richard Hill Richard Hill: Members of the Commission, good evening. My name is Richard Hill. I am an attorney for the Carpinito family. My address is 1111 Third Avenue in Seattle. The Carpinito family owns property at the intersection of 167 and Central Avenue. In two of the areas of concern this evening, one is Option Area 3, which is discussed at page VF-82 and the other is Multifamily Area 8 which is discussed at page VF-49. I will keep my remarks tonight brief because we did only obtain a copy of report tonight. I would ask that the record be kept open for a written response to the discussion in the report if at all possible. The portion of the Carpinito property located in Option Area 3 is currently zoned CM. The proposal is to downzone that property to MRG. The CarpinitooIs request that the property remain in the CM zone. The property, as I address in a moment, is appropriate for the CM classification and is much less appropriate for the MRG classification. Another portion of the Carpinito property in Multifamily Area 8 is currently zoned MPH. The proposal is to downzone the property to MRG, which is a very drastic downzone that does not really make sense again considering the surrounding development and the topography and location of the property. As to the area that is currently zoned Commercial, a Garden Density zoning classification clearly does not make sense. The property is in an ideal situation for commercial development with good freeway and street access, within walking distance of the proposed rail line and station, and it is appropriate here at this location to allow multiple use, commercial and retail development. In particular the property is a wealth-defined independently-situated site for commercial development. The owners of the property, the Carpinito family, have paid over the years for LIDS which have created the infrastructure to support the type of commercial development which the zoning has always anticipated. In this context and as we will present in further detail a written response, the proposal to substantially downzone the site to Garden Density Multifamily development really does not make sense. As to the mutlfamily zoned property currently MRH and the Commercial, as to both of those properties it is important to consider the topography of the area, which is flat. It is an area that is appropriate for relatively high density multifamily as to the multifamily properties, and for commercial development for the commercial property. The traffic patterns and the access will not result in adverse impacts on the key east-west routes, and there is available capacity in light of the other traffic improvements that are planned for the area. In addition it would be considered that the property is currently surrounded by existing high-density multifamily development and commercial uses, uses that are compatible with the existing property zoning. The Carpinitos will 31 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 appreciate the Planning Commission's consideration of these concerns and look forward to looking forward with the Planning Commission and staff as the proposal develops. As I indicated at the beginning, it would be appreciated if the record could be kept open for a brief period of time to allow a written response. Chair Martinez: Are there questions. If not, I have one. In Option Area Number 3, one of the factors favoring the reduction is that it provides potential for increasing residential density close to sources of employment, transportation, all the reasons that you have detailed that it should be kept commercial. Would you like to balance those two. Richard Hill: It's really ironic that that is one of the justifications for changing that zoning to multifamily, because the downzone of the multifamily zone property that the Carpinito's currently own is basically cutting in half, and you will be gaining that back by zoning the commercial property to multifamily. So the result is basically no net increase in multifamily development on the two properties together. The Carpinios really believe that with the existing infrastructure, the multifamily for the two properties together is most properly located on the existing multifamily zoned property. Again, it is close to the infrastructure, it is close to the downtown area, and the commercial property is appropriately located right on the main thoroughfare and access which is more appropriate for commercial development. Chair Martinez: Other questions. Yes. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: One of the reasons given here in this report for supporting the sites specific alternative, the downzone from MRH to MRG for that site, is that allowable density under the proposed zoning recognizes the designated quote severe hazard area of eastern parcels within the area. Is that part of the Carpinito property. Richard Hill: There may be a small portion of the Carpinito property which is included in that area, but again, in any development of the property the environmentally sensitive areas would obviously be considered and would obviously result, to the extent it is included, result in a lower density development in those portions of the sites. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: Because you had described the two parcels you are concerned with as being relatively flat. 32 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Richard Hill: By far the majority of the Carpinito property is flat. I believe that towards the east there is a small portion of the property that does go up the hill. Chair Martinez: Other questions. Thank you. A number of people have just signed in to get the mailings. I will run through them and if you want to speak, just put your hand up. Bud Hart. Roland Mason. Bud Hart. Please come up and speak. Bud Hart: My name is Bud Hart. I live at 21813 93rd Avenue South. The only comment I want to make was about what is known as MF-11. I wanted to piggyback on the comments of Mr. Reischl and Mr. Flick, I believe it was, that had to do with that specific piece of property. I, too, would also like to have it shown that I would like to have that rezoned as residential property but in the size 20, 20, 000 square foot area lots. Chair Martinez: Questions. Okay. Thank you. Roland Mason. Ike Svensson. Okay. I guess I 'm a little nearsighted, I guess. Roland Mason: I 'm farsighted. My name is Roland Mason, and I live at 21813 92nd Avenue South across the street from my neighbor Bud Hart who just talked a second ago. I, too, am in favor of the same things they are, as far as this zoning is concerned. I don't want it R1-51 I want it R1-20. My property is 25, 000 square feet, just above the piece that they are talking about. I have to look down at that every day. I think R1-20 would be consistent with the whole general area that we are looking at. That is all that I have to say. Commissioner Forner: You do not live within the designated area, you live adjacent to it. Roland Mason: I live right up from it. I abut that property. Commissioner Forner: Thank you. Chair Martinez : Question. Commissioner Faust: How about any of the other designations R1- 7.2 or even R1-9 . 6. Would those be more acceptable to you than the R1-5. Roland Mason: I think not. I think they are incompatible with the area that we are talking about. I think R1-20 would be the one that would be consistent with all the properties in that general area. R1-5 is unreasonable. I really do. 33 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: What if the option is R5000 and multifamily. Roland Mason: The area there is not multifamily anyway. There is not any multifamily unit in that whole general area to my knowledge. To have it that way is worse than the R1-5. I don't know if any of you people have seen that particular piece of property or that general area, but I think if you go up there and take a look around, I 'm sure you will agree with me that most of that property is acre lots, half-acre lots. It is not down to any 5,000 square foot lots. It is completely inconsistent with what is there. Chair Martinez: Other questions. Thank you. Don Johnson. Patrice Ackerman. Richard King. Richard King: I 'd like to speak. Chair Martinez: Certainly. Richard King: I 'm Richard King. I live at 9138 South 208th. I own the three-acre property MF-12 on VF-66. Commissioner Greenstreet: MF-12. Richard King: MF-12 . I 've been living and raising my family in Kent area for twenty years now. I have invested quite a bit into this property and there is a money angle that when the bottom falls out in rezoning, I go bankrupt. It is as simple as that. I think a few other people are looking at the same thing. Also, my area is quite a bit further north than a lot of places that have been spoken of already. I am bordered by apartment buildings on my south, office complexes are being built in, freeway, and industry. I am two blocks from a lot of places that people work. It's a good place for it, also it is close. . .within a couple blocks. . . few blocks of the fire department, few blocks from freeway access. I work for a company only a few blocks from me, too, that employs over 200 people. Most of those have to drive 45 minutes to an hour to get to a place where they can rest when they get off work. There are people coming. Industry is already here. You've got to have places for them to live. It is so much more convenient for people who can live in those kind of places to have the access to do it. I am requesting to leave it as Option C. . .no action and leave it as the dense population or the multifamily that it presently has. By changing it would limit its development for the future, and there is a lot of growth that can go on in that area yet. The office buildings and stuff are just coming in. It is a pretty good-sized tract. To the north of me is restrictive agriculture, and there is nothing going on there but wheat field. 34 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 And one of my main complaints here is that's part of the reason why you made the judgments or one of your main conclusions here is the traffic problem there. There are three places right_ here on this page that says that this road has already reached its capacity. Eventually that road will have to be enlarged anyway. I am not developing right now. I don't plan to for quite a while, but I want that option there so that when I do, I can get my investment back to do what I see fit with my property that I have earned. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Are there questions. Commissioner Forner: What is your feeling is about the 5, 000 square foot lots. Richard King: I'm not real sure about it. I'd like to be able to put more in there than what (unclear) myself. Chair Martinez: Other questions. Thank you, sir. Gail Williams. Gail Williams: I 'm Gail Williams. I live at 21817 93rd Avenue South. I have 1. 2 acres and I 'm adjacent to the property on MF- 11. I 'm concerned about the small lot size. I am for the downzoning to single family, but I also want to agree with the other people in the neighborhood that have said that they want the R 20, 000 lot size. I think it should be more consistent with the neighborhood property sizes. We want to protect our environment, also. There are. . .I took some pictures but unfortunately they did not turn out so I could bring them to show you how the lay of the property is. It is a difficult site to do anything with. If they were to develop it into that small of a lot size, you would have to take down a lot of the hillside. You start changing some of the vegetation and some of the natural lay of the land, there is going to be more water problems, because the water runoff runs below me and there is a big hill and there is a swamp area that they have filled in. That water' s got to go somewhere. So I think that is going to be a problem in the future no matter what you do. Also, there are some environmental problems that I am concerned with. That's kind of a. . .I 'd almost say a bird sanctuary that's in there. There' s lots of squirrels, there' s lots of natural habitation in there now that will leave as that is gradually being diminished with the trees and that taken down. If you go to the smaller lot sizes, you will probably be getting younger families in there, and I think that with 167 so close, that might be a problem with kids and the freeway and that, and also the trees that are there right now kind of act as a buffer for some of the freeway noise. As you develop that and take those trees down, you are going to get more noise. 35 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Chair Martinez: Questions. How do you feel about the compromise of perhaps 96 or 72 . Gail Williams: Well, my preference would be the 20,000, but I definitely would rather have something other than the multifamily. The houses in there are mostly between $150,000 and $200, 000 houses, and we want to protect our environment for our families, too. Now I understand that development has to be allowed to happen, but I think that if you go and see this particular piece of ground, you'll see that it is a real problem. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Earle and Genevieve Partain. Genevieve Partain: Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and members here. I would like to say that I come from an area where. . . Chair Martinez: Would you please identify yourself for the record. Genevieve Partain: I live at. . . Chair Martinez: Your name and address. Genevieve Partain: Genevieve Partain, 21819 93rd Avenue South, Kent. Where I come from. . .I am a brand new resident here. I moved here in July of this year. I come from Miami Florida. Due to the, I guess the wisdom of the city fathers who didn't listen to the voters, I moved out of Miami, because when you start to put in an area where there is high density with single family homes, you have increased stress, you have increased hostility, and you also have an increase in crime and whatever else comes along with it. And what we are looking at is that we came up here for the quality of life and for the peace of mind. If the area designated as MF-11 is changed to anything less than 20, 000, we are going to be in trouble. You are putting us in jeopardy. You are putting our families in jeopardy. You are increasing the traffic area. You are increasing the amount of people in an area where all the things I said about will happen. We are also concerned about the environmental area. The area that I just came from, when you look out of your yard and the only trees that are there are the ones that you planted, and now I look out into my backyard and I see trees that God put there, you are dammed right I want to save them. I do not want somebody coming in here and taking away what I feel is mine, what I paid for. And I hope that the Council has the enough wisdom to listen to the people and understand that the quality of life is worth more than somebody's dollar in their pocket. Thank you. 36 T Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Chair Martinez: Are there any questions. Thank you. Rudolph and Patsy Barber. And last is Charles Butt and/or Kristy Butt. Charles Butt: My name is Charles Butt and I live at 29455 232nd Avenue SE. I am in MF-2, map VF-10. It is a small parcel that I bought. It is a narrow piece of property and it would drastically affect my property if downzoned to MRD. Because the way I understand MRD, you have individual lots and the property is only 105 feet wide. There is no way that I could divide the property and lots because I can front only 105 feet on Fifth Avenue. The other thing I wanted to say was. . .I 'll read this letter to you. When I read this whole packet here, from the very start I understood that the reason behind all this was to downzone multifamily. And the way I read it here you are going to downzone people's property from multifamily. . .downzone across the board 20 percent. But in other words you are taking commercial property and turning it into multifamily, which commercial property was not even talked about. Okay. So what you are really doing is you are taking the total of all the property that is strictly multifamily in the site specific plan, and downgrade it by 39 percent if you count across the board, and then you are adding back in this other. . .commercial into multifamily and it brings it back to 20 percent. I don't think that is fair across the board to everybody. I 'm willing to put in my 20 percent, give up 20 percent of my property and downzone my property from 19 units per acre, which I just bought an acre of property, down to my percentage, but I don't think it is fair that I have to turn my property in and cut it into worthless pieces of property. I don't think it is really fair to a lot of people that have small properties. Plus, in the fact that if you read in the plan about traffic, and that was another big issue that they had was traffic, the least amount of traffic would be generated by a 20 percent across the board. I don't understand why the sites specific plan was one of the highest traffic counts. And I don't understand why. . .and the traffic was another big issue in this plan. I got it down to where no action was 17, 000 more cars. The text plan was 14,000 more cars, and the site-specific plan was 17,274 more cars. Now in the 20 percent across the board, it 's fair for everybody. I don't understand how anybody can get anything else out of this study than that. The other issue I had is. . .Okay. I would like. . . I don't know what the outcome of this deal is going to come out to be, but I would like to either. . .I am willing to give my 20 percent or whatever (unclear) with my 20 percent, either that or I would like my property to be excluded from the comprehensive plan or whatever you guys call it. I got my parcel number here if you guys want to write it down. I am already in right now. I'm in for a review right now. My property is zoned for 19 units. I have nice units. I have garages on them, everything on them. Nice units. They all have garages. And I 'm in right now for review for 12 units. So I have already, 37 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 personally myself, because I like nicer units and nicer stuff, and I am already personally downzoned my property because I can build nicer units. They are all about nice three-bedroom units, 1,300 square feet. They all have garages on them. I personally did that myself because I know that you can get more rent and they are nicer units and people like nicer stuff. They are all townhouse units, nice units, they ain't this three-story stuff that they are building all over the place where they have people stacked up on top of each other. Well, my parcel number that I 'm talking about is 9197100052 . And I put the property that I have is. . .multifamily on one side, there is a vacant piece of property across the street, there is a brand new 30-unit they are building down the way from me, and the other side of me industrial. I don't see any houses for my property. And Fifth Street is going to go all the way through. I live down on Fifth Street and it is going to go all the way through and eventually. . .so the people who live in these multifamily will not have to drive in front of single family because they can go out the other way. Okay. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Are there any questions? Commissioner Forner: How much property do you own there? Charles Butts: Just around an acre. Commissioner Forner: And you have Charles Butts: It's like 105 feet by 400 feet, so it is. . .I really need to keep it as one parcel. I could never divide it up into duplex lots, I 'd never be able to make it off it. Commissioner Forner: You have plans for putting 12 units on it. Charles Butts: I got them in front of review right now. Chair Martinez: other questions. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: When you say in review, you mean that you have submitted them to the Planning Department. You are going through the SEPA checklist. Charles Butts: Right. Chair Martinez: Okay. That is the end of my list unless I missed someone. M'am. Yes you may. We have a few moments. Please identify yourself. You may want to sign the sheet before you leave this evening. 38 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Victoria Zapanta: My name is Victoria Zapanta. I live at 9329 South 218th in Kent. It is near the area designated as MF-11. My dad bought ten acres there before I was even born and has lived there ever since. It is an unusually isolated area. It was a great place to grow up. My brother has built a home on one corner of the property and my husband and I are planning on doing the same eventually. I just wanted to comment that just the traffic that has increased from areas around the area has been seen in our area. The corner that is. . .218th and 167. . .just within the last two months there has been four cars on that corner that have tipped on their side that we have witnessed in passing through the area, so I can imagine that any more residents in that area is going to increase that. . .it is a hazardous corner. So I just wanted to add that and that I agreed with the other residents of the area. If you get a chance to see it, it is a wonderful spot. We are lucky that it has been isolated. It is just the way of the land and the way people have developed there. That's it. Chair Martinez: Question. Thank you. There is another hand back there. Would you please come forward. Would you please sign up before you leave. Gary Nielsen: I also didn't get to sign up. I am Gary Nielsen. I live at 21604 94th Place South in Kent. I lived there 22 years, and I agree with Mr. Flick that R1-20 and the adjacent area is the least it should go, and the Orchard Place Grove and hope the grove still stays big and not small. Thank you. Mr. Harris: Sir, have you signed up? Chair Martinez: I think we have heard from all the. . .no we haven't. Thomas Megan: Thank you for the opportunity to address you. Chair Martinez: Your name and address please. Thomas Megan: Thomas Megan, 21807 92nd Avenue South, Kent. My wife and I live in the corner of the "L" formed by the property MF- 11, and so . . . and it joins us on two sides, so I 'd simply like to say that I would like to double my agreement with what you have already heard. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Questions. Mr. Harris: Would you come and sign up also. Chair Martinez: Okay. Please keep it very short. 39 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Don Bazemore: I wanted to make an additional. . . Chair Martinez: Please re-identify yourself. Don Bazemore: I wanted to make an additional comment about my neighbor to the south that is zoned MR2 or duplex. I honestly believe that that neighborhood is a serious candidate to be rezoned to single family. I think it would be stronger for them and better for them if the City gave them confidence that they are in fact a viable single family neighborhood and probably should remain that way. They seem to want to. If we are allowed higher density, we can berm against them, we can berm against the freeway, we can berm against the railroad. We really can do a very high quality development, and it seems from the testimony that I have heard so far tonight that a lot of people would rather have us with the density than take it themselves. Most people don't seem to want it. And because we do have access to Fourth and wouldn't dare come through that single family neighborhood, I think. . .I guess I respectfully request that the Commission seriously look at 30 or even in addition to 30 for that for that property. Right now if I do it in MR16, there are two-story buildings. And we got 128 units. If I do it in MR20, I get 172 units, still in two-story buildings. If I go higher than that, the worst thing happens is I have some three-story buildings on the property. But in terms of traffic and our relationship to our single family neighbors, we could probably do a better job accepting your high density needs than almost any of the other properties that I heard people talk about tonight. So I request that you give that serious consideration. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Any questions. Yes there is a question for you, sir. Commissioner Greenstreet: Being an advocate of high density, where do you propose that we get the money for our community for schools, green belts, parks, roads. Don Bazemore: From us. Commissioner Greenstreet: So tax ourselves or tax the developers that will profit from the higher density per piece of land. Where do we get that money or where do you think it is more fair. . . equitable. Don Bazemore: I think it is reasonable in your development fees, in your building permits. I don't think you have any other choice. Nobody else can float it. We bring additional people, then we are bound to pay for the facilities that support those people. We don't object to that. We have to do that. 40 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: Okay. Thank you. Chair Martinez: We have had a request to leave the record open for some written comment, and I would certainly entertain a motion to that effect. Commissioner Stoner: I move that we leave the record of the hearing open for one week for written comments. Chair Martinez: Is there a second? Commissioner Faust: Second. Chair Martinez: Discussion. All in favor. Voices: Aye. Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) For those of you who would like to submit written comment, please do that. You have a week to do that. Commissioner Stoner: And I would move that the hearing on this subject be closed with that one exception that the record be open for written comment for one week. Voices: I did not hear that. Commissioner Stoner: I move that the public hearing be closed with the exception that the record be open for written comment for one week. Chair Martinez: Is there a second to that. Commissioner Faust: Second. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion. All in favor. Voices: Aye Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) The public hearing is closed. For those of you in the audience we will be discussing this subject and making our decision, I assume, on October 23rd of this month here at 7:30. We will discussing it and we will be discussing the written comments that have been issued to us. There will be verbatim minutes available to the public as well as to the Commission. It has been suggested that we are scheduled to take a tour of the proposed East Hill sites on the 9th of October. It 41 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 has been proposed that we look at the sites on the Valley Floor as well on that tour. . . for sure the ones that have been commented on. (End' of Verbatim Minutes) Discussion followed. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 7!7 P Harris, Slecretary 42