Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 09/18/1989 (3) KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 18, 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7: 30 p.m. Monday, September 18, 1989 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Leona Orr Carol Stoner Raymond Ward COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Anne Biteman, excused Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner, absent PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Dan Stroh, Senior Planner Stephen Clifton, Planner Janet Shull, Planner Lois Ricketts, Secretary Commissioner Greenstreet MOVED and Commissioner Orr SECONDED a motion to approve the August 28, 1989 minutes as printed. Motion carried. Commissioner Forner MOVED and Commissioner Orr SECONDED a motion to approve the August 14, 1989 minutes as printed. Motion carried. KENT EAST HILL HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION (CPZ 89-3) Chair Martinez reopened the public hearing. (Verbatim Minutes) Mr. Harris: Madam Chair, before we hear from them, could I have entered four letters into the record. The first letter is a letter from James Tracy, who is Acting Director of King County Parks Planning and Resources Department. Now this is a letter very similar to the one he Faxed to us and we got into the record last time, except some of the wording is just a little bit different, and he also "cc'd" another person, so I want that into the record because it is a little different. We also have a letter from Jeanette Molzhon. She is directing the letter to whom it may Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 concern, and she has a specific parcel number. You all have copies of these letters. Next letter is addressed to me and that is from John Stewart, and he has identified a tax number and his area, I think, is up on- Summit. Last one is from Dale Snow who signed up this evening to talk, and his letter is a letter to the Planning Commission, and he also identified parcel numbers. I think he is going to talk a little bit about his letter this evening. So those are the four letters that I request to be put into the record. Chair Martinez: I will open the public hearing. I want to remind everyone that we would like to hold the testimony down to 10 minutes per person. Leona. Commissioner Orr: There has been question raised about appearance of fairness in my activities as an East Hill activist, and in that light, so there is no confusion and no question later on when the Planning Commission makes its recommendation, I have decided to step down from the deliberations and will not take part in the East Hill decision. With that in mind I will excuse myself. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Forner: Just for the record I need to tell you that I did have communication with Mr. Snow. He just contacted me to ask about how to proceed at a hearing, and anything that he discussed with me he will discuss this evening in his letter. Chair Martinez: Are there any other folks that need to discuss what has happened between our meetings, because we are operating under the Appearance of Fairness, which means that all communications to this body should be made in a public setting and/or report. If you talk to each other or talk to anyone outside this meeting, that we need to report that back into the public record. Okay. Four people have signed up to speak this evening. Mr. Snow, would you please step to the podium, identify yourself, please. You have identified parcel numbers, can you also help us by identifying the map number in the study. Dale Snow: I am Dale Snow. Is that the end number out beside it. Yes. MF-03 with an MRM zoning. Commissioner Greenstreet: Three and what. Dale Snow: MF-03 Commissioner Greenstreet: That's all. Okay. Commissioner Stoner: EH-26 is his parcel. 2 - Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Dale Snow: These parcels are located on the east side of 100th Avenue, south of 236th, and they have the Benson Center on the east boundary, the Benson Shopping Center, and the rest of the property is surrounded by apartments other than one old house there that is in the process of being torn down because of the zoning on the property. However, there are people still living in it, but I 've been told that it is going to be torn down. This property is within walking distance of schools, metro bus, the Benson Shopping Center. It would be a good location for a senior building. . .senior citizens, and it is also within walking distance of the Valley Floor. And with our traffic problems in the area, it would seem that this property should be perhaps upzoned rather than downzoned because of its location. And there are current plans before the Building Department, as stated in the letter, that brings us up to date on that. The builder is City Construction who I have been working with out of Olympia, and he was to be here to present site plans for the zoning as it is now zoned, then he would come forth with working plans of it, but I was supposed to meet him at the Auburn Airport. It's closed for two days for resurfacing, so I am sure that he is not going to be here. I ' ll be brief. I think that covers it as far as I am concerned. Does somebody have questions? Commissioner Forner: I have a question. Right now it is MRM, that is Medium Density Multifamily. Is that correct? Dale Snow: Yes. I believe that is 23 units per acre by the code, and the consideration is to take it down to 16 units per acre. This was rezoned to the MRM zoning in 1962 by the request of the City of Kent. And I 've been paying taxes on it through these years trying to get something together. I did build on one corner of it 20 years ago, but there would be a substantial impact on the value of the land, because the value of the land is based on the number of units you can put on it. I have paid taxes on it since 1962 as its existing zoning. Thank you. Commissioner Stoner: Can I ask you if you have a building permit at this time. Dale Snow: No, we are just in the process of approaching it. There has been. . .I was looking at it here. . .there has been. . . $150 has been paid for a. . .something the city requires. Commissioner Stoner: Environmental checklist. Dale Snow: That has been done. 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Commissioner Stoner: Okay. You have a site plan now. How many units per acre are you planning to put on the site with the site plan that you have. Dale Snow: It was. . .the total units. . .I think there's about five acres there. . .the total units as a proposal, and it hasn't been worked out with the city of what they would accept yet, was 90 to 120 units for the five acres. Commissioner Stoner: Thank you. Chair Martinez: Any other questions. Thank you. Erik Pfaff. Erik Pfaff: Hello. My name is Erik Pfaff. I just wanted to address your thoughts on that 50-foot lot and 5, 000 square feet. I feel that it's far too small. It worries me about the type of building that would go on it, the type of environment that would surround that. Maybe. . .Lea Hill Homes, are you familiar with that up by Green River College. It is very tight and small. If you are familiar with that. . .that's the type of thing I 'm worried about coming in. I have some property around and I want to build. I 'd like to do some other things in Kent, too, do some more building, but if you lower the standards in Kent and it starts turning into something like that, that's not going to be a real desirable place for something like that, I don't think. Chair Martinez: Do you feel that even if we had the 5, 000 designation and we had some building standards that went along with it that would be a problem for you? Erik Pfaff: That would help, but I really haven't seen. . .maybe I haven't seen it, maybe you do, but I haven't seen any standards proposed with this. And if it doesn't go hand in hand, it is hard to catch it up later. You will have everybody out there building cracker boxes, little shacks, and they won't make for a good quality. I just wanted to say I 'm against that. It is great for the guys that want to go out and make money and they have a big piece of land and they want to divide it up and build more houses on it and things. So the bigger developers will like that, too. I guess from my point of view I could go out and make more money with it, but I don't want to see Kent go downhill like that either. It's not right. I also am quite concerned about the downzoning, too. I don't really want to see all of that taken away. I am worried about that in regards to some things for myself, too. I don't want to see it downzoned too far, you know, in your decrease of multifamily units, because it is just going to go across the street just outside the City of Kent and then you will end up annexing it in later anyway and having to take care of it. So, there's got to be a happy medium in there. I don't have all the 4 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 answers to the problems, you know, but if you stop all that, it will be developed just across the street. . . il6th and a little further out where it is King County property. They'll start allowing it to go out there. You'll have to extend your services further out there, larger costs, that sort of thing. But the 5, 000 square foot lot worries me quite a bit. I think it is far too small and you won't attract the right type of housing. And the type of environment that will go with it. . .it will be like Lea Hill Homes, I picture, which. . .I know it is not nice to single out a particular area like that, but it is not the most desirable when they are that small, close and tight. You could have a happy medium, a mix. I know you have some rules where you can put some smaller houses in where there is existing smaller lots in the City of Kent where you have one lot that is isolated in the middle of the hillside over there, and that should be accounted for. People should be allowed to build on there with proper standards and things. I 'm not saying to take that completely away from them, but you shouldn't come in with a five or ten-acre development of 5, 000 square foot houses. That's about all I have to say. Thank you. Commissioner Forner: Before you go I have one question. With the high building standards and codes, do you think a single family home on 5, 000 foot could be as attractive as a comparable apartment? Erik Pfaff: Could be attractive. Yes, it could be, but I just don't think it will follow all the way through. I don't think it will happen. Commissioner Forner: Thank you. Chair Martinez: Maureen MacNamara. Maureen MacNamara: Maureen MacNamara, 23839 94th Avenue South. A comment on the lot size. I also would agree that that's too small a lot size for a home that is going to eventually give an appearance to the City of Kent of something other than Newark, New Jersey. If you drive around 116th and 114th, it's beginning to look very close to that. At that point when those lots are that small and there are many children and many people running around, there is no open space, there's no place for children to play. They play in the street, or they play downtown, or they play in places that they start creating vandalism, or they run across other people's undeveloped property. In addition to that, I would encourage as strenuous amount of downsizing as you can until such time as you begin to look at the development of open spaces, places for children to play and the development of services. To say to people that there is a bus nearby and there is walking distance, children don't that. They don't bus down to the park to play. 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 They play in their neighborhood. Three, four and five-year-olds are not going to take the bus down into one of the parks and play there and bus back. They also are not going to walk down the street unaccompanied. They are going to play in and around where they live. If you go up to any of the apartment complexes, you will see children playing in the parking lot. Cars get damaged, dumpsters are played in, litter is all over and there is broken glass all over. In addition, while it may be local developers that build the apartment complexes, shortly thereafter they are sold. In fact one of the apartment complexes that I know of is now maintained by a landlord in New York who doesn't have a vested interest in the City of Kent. The conditions at the apartment complex have slid dramatically downhill in the three years since the complex was completed. It has been put up in a way that it can be leveled in about ten years to build a higher and more expensive unit. And I think we are kidding ourselves if we say we can allow all these people to come in and they will invest in the City of Kent. They're not. It's transition and until we start planning for a city of permanent people. I think we need to put a hold on things until we get services up to the same level. Any questions. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Richard Nelson. Richard Nelson: I spoke at the first meeting last month. I didn't mean to sign up again. Chair Martinez: Okay. Richard Nelson: I could add a little bit to it. Chair Martinez: It's your pleasure. Richard Nelson: My name is Richard Nelson. I live at 430 Summit. I 've been there approximately 27 years now. I own the first parcel going south on. . .I didn't tell you, I 'm on Area MF-5 on the East Hill just off Summit. I bought that lot next to me, I guess, 18 years ago and I 've paid premium taxes on it. I'm constantly in a battle with King County over how much that property is worth. Right now that half acre. . .I 'm paying taxes on $21,500, and it's no view, the back of it is a swamp during the winter, and there is only a 20-foot right of way to it. And they are trying to raise it to $35, 000. And I 've fought them four years over this, and that's the mark they feel it is valued at. I feel that if this is changed. . .I would like it to stay at MRD, multiple dwelling, because all these years I 've paid into that as part of my retirement. I plan to build one or two duplexes there and I 'd have my own private right of way in there. I also plan to live in one of them so I will be controlling it. I want to build nice 6 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 duplexes. I just can't see downzoning that now with all the money I have invested in it and then bring in a family and try to say you can build a single family home on it, but I'm going to have to charge you $15, 000 for that little piece of property to build on, or $20, 000 the way it is going. . .prices. And I know King County won't come down again. I think they are tired of looking at me and will go after me next time. But I beat Ruthe Ridder four times over this, finally, before the judge, and they still insist that this property is going to go up to $35,000, which will probably be next year. And I think that we are actually within walking distance of the downtown, and I think this is important. And I think we should have more multiple family dwellings close to downtown Kent to give our merchants a chance, not build way out here on the plateau where it is really tying up traffic. If we are going to have the traffic, we should have it right downtown where people have their choice of either walking or driving in it. I believe that is all I have to say. Commissioner Forner: Are there sidewalks close to your piece of property? Richard Nelson: Not on Summit. I don't know if there are any being planned or not. There is, of course, two blocks up on James Street. Commissioner Forner: So you are close to James Street. Richard Nelson: Yes, and also about the same. . .a little bit further you are down on Smith Street and you can get on the Canyon there off Summit. commissioner Greenstreet: Excuse me. You said small piece of property. Is that three and one-half acres? Richard Nelson: It's a half acre lot there. Commissioner Greenstreet: Half acre. The book says 3 . 5 acres. Chair Martinez: That's for the entire area. Richard Nelson: That's the entire area. I have the first lot looking south. Chair Martinez: In this corner right here. Richard Nelson: Yes. Right in the bend of the road on Summit. Like I say, there is a 20-foot right of way into it 100 foot long, and that is mine. Not wide enough for a street. 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: There are structures on it. Richard Nelson: No, it's vacant. There is a house out in front of me on that property right on Summit. Commissioner Greenstreet: There is one marked vacant. Commissioner Forner: Are there other apartments around you. Richard Nelson: There is up toward 240th, James Street, and south of us also. Just down the street, Oh, I 'd say two blocks, you are into apartments again. That whole corner there. Chair Martinez: The following people Ralph Wright, Frank Chopp and Robert Nelson have just signed up to receive further information that comes out of these hearings. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ward: So moved. Commissioner Forner: Second. Chair Martinez: All in favor. Voices: Aye. Chair Martinez: I would entertain a motion for action on any one of. . .we have four things we have been asked to consider. If you refer to EH-101 there are four proposed actions. The first is to amend the East Hill Area Plan Text. The second is Subarea and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment including the creation of the single family designated overlay. The third is proposed to amend the zoning code text by creating a new zoning district, R1-5.0, single family residential. And the third or the fourth is to amend the zoning map for multifamily areas MF-01 through MF-21. And we have three, sometimes four, options on each one of these areas. We can decide to do whatever we want, actually, and whatever we think fits good planning. So I would entertain a motion to get something on the floor so that we can discuss it and start this moving. Commissioner Forner: I would move that we table the creation of R1-5. 0 until we have the final (unclear) . . .the same as we did for West Hill. . . (unclear) Commissioner Greenstreet: I 'd second it. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion? 8 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Commissioner Ward: Where are we. Mr. Satterstrom: The report of that committee is . . . the preliminary report of that committee, as pointed out by Jim Harris, you have a copy of that in front of you this evening, and the single committee is favorable towards the creation of the R1-5000 zone. Commissioner Forner: But we haven't had the opportunity (unclear) . . . Mr. Satterstrom: Janet Shull is here this evening and can address questions that you might have about the committee and some of the background on that as well as some of the concerns you might have. Might be better situated that I to respond to questions on the R1- 5000. Chair Martinez: Thank you. We do have a motion on the floor to table. Is there any discussion of that? I personally am not in favor of tabling. I think that particularly in East Hill this is a critical issue and we need to bring it out and talk about it in this particular form while the people who are interested are listening, I guess. Commissioner Greenstreet: In discussion last week I 'd asked the slides of the 5000, the people who came. . .they must be 5, 000 but they were saying (unclear) . . .7200, but it's the type of single family construction (unclear) Is that part of discussion. (unclear) Chair Martinez: I think in all fairness it needs to be at this point, because I think the issue is very crucial to the full discussion, and let's do make it part of our discussion. Mr. Harris: One thing I would remind those of you who were here last week did see slides showing development of 5, 000 square foot lots. And that's in the record. The question did come up as to what happened with those houses on Strawberry Lane and James Street. And we went out and measured those homes and are here to tell you tonight exactly the status of those homes. Now that they are painted. . .and I went up there personally with my kids Saturday. You can hardly see them, so I think there is going to be a change in status from just the fact they are painted and blend in with the background. But someone on the staff is ready to respond to that if that would help you. Chair Martinez: That would help us. Okay, Dan. 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Dan Stroh: Dan Stroh with the Planning Department. We have gone back and taken a look at those and taken some slides for the Commission in response to your request last time. And I also have a copy of the assessor's map for the county that shows the dimensions of those lots. They are. . .I might say to start off with. . .a little larger than 7,200 square foot lots. So they are even larger than the lot which predominates in certain single family neighborhoods. That doesn't mean that you necessarily get the housing type that everyone is going to like. So let me show these slides. Mr. Harris: He is being nice. Commissioner Stoner: I noticed that diplomacy. Voices: Unclear. Mr. Stroh: The first light here is at the corner of James and 98th and you can see two of these three houses front directly on 98th. Looking across James, the corner house there is kind of a. . . it has two wings that come out from a central section. This is what it looks like from the front view looking across 98th. In this shot looking across 98th you can see the first house on the corner of 98th and James and also the one directly south of it, or a piece of it. This is the side that actually faces James. You can see the fence that has gone in between James and that yard. You can also see a piece of that fence going into the back yard. This shot looks between the two houses that front on 98th and looks back towards the house behind there. The house that is at the corner of 98th and James actually has only about a . . . well it has a 26- foot yard, but 20 feet of that is the easement that is shared. So you are looking at the easement that actually provides access into the two garage doors of the building that is west and fits behind the one that fronts on 98th. This was a short plat approved by the City back in 1977 during a period when the City was experiencing a lot of short plat activity and a lot of single family activity. I have a. . .one more slide here and I will show you the assessor's map that shows the lot dimensions. This is the other house that fronts on 98th Avenue. The Planning Department has received a lot of comments about these houses, so it is something that we are aware that people have been noticing these. I ' ll put the overhead projector and I will show you what the assessor's map looks like. This shows the actual lot dimensions as measured by the county tax assessor's office. And it is in the approved study plan. The lots we are talking about are right here. I can point to those. This lot, this lot and this lot. These two are the ones that actually front on 98th, with this one, the one behind, that fronts. . .that appears to front on James but actually has access to this other lot, the Lot 2 . The dimensions of these lots. . . 10 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: Does the driveway (unclear) . . . Mr. Stroh: Yeah. Voices: Across Lot 2. Mr. Stroh: It comes in like this. This is 98th. It comes in like this, I 'm sorry. This is 98th. It comes in like this and goes back to the house on Lot 1 that sits back in here. So. . . Mr. Harris: Dan, you might explain that the top of that is James Street. Mr. Stroh: Right. The top of that is James Street. Mr. Harris: Lot 1 has a legal right to have a 20-foot setback from James Street. Lot 2 has a 20-foot setback from James and by rights can have a 15-foot side yard setback on the flanking Street, which is Strawberry Lane, and the staff went out and did measure to make sure that the builder put it in the right spot and Dan, what is the answer. Mr. Stroh: Well, they seem to meet the setbacks. Chair Martinez: What about in the backyard the front yard of that odd house. Mr. Stroh: The first house sits on the lot facing 98th kind of like this. It is the one that has the two wings that kind of come out from the central unit. It only has about a 12-foot yard back here. Because this is the narrow dimension of the lot it is actually interpreted that the front yard is this yard here, and so that. . . Chair Martinez: That's a side yard then. Mr. Stroh: It's actually considered to be a side yard. Mr. Harris: The flanking side yard is on the street. . . is 15 feet. The rear year only needs to be eight feet in the City of Kent, so you don't need. . . in some cities it is a 25-foot rear yard. Council said many years ago why waste all that back yard and allow. . . (unclear) Chair Martinez: And you can call anything you want the front yard? Mr. Harris: No, it's the width of the lot, the narrow part of the lot. 11 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Mr. Stroh: So, this other one sits back in here and it sits within about 30 feet, I think, is the setback of this one or so, and it has a huge backyard. This is a large lot. It is 11,400 and some square feet. This one here, with the access coming in through here, sits back on a lot like this and it does meet the required setbacks. This is considered the front yard and these the two side yards and the rear yard. I think the point of all this is if you look around the city and look at the predominant housing type, West Hill, for instance, predominantly is 7,200 square foot lots. Well two of these are a little larger than 7, 200 square feet, and one is almost 11, 500 square feet. So it is not really a matter of size of the lot. It is how it was done that has a lot of people's attention. You can put. .and I don't want to come down and be real critical of one developer, but this is something that a lot of people have been concerned about. These are in a very public location. They are noticed by a lot of people. There is a lot that goes into site planning and layout and good site design. You can do it well or you can do it not so well. People notice the difference. For me what these slides show and what this particular case shows is not so much in this case that the size of the lot was inadequate, it is what was done with it. And it is important that there be good site sensitivity, good layout on the sites. You saw slides last time that showed that you can do good site planning and good layout on lots of R1-5. In fact, it is not uncommon to do good site planning on lots of R1-5, 5, 000 square foot lots, but it does take sensitivity to the site and to the special requirements of that. Chair Martinez: Dan, I think, though, that is the point of all the testimony that we have heard, and that is that in fact Kent does not have the ability to prevent odd and peculiar things being built that are not conducive to the quality of our lives. Now if we could think of some way of having a 5,000 square foot lot and put in the same kind of construction standards that we put in for some. . . like our new apartment building standards and that sort of thing, perhaps we would in fact have something that the citizens would approve of. But I think they are seeing this sort of thing happening on 5, 000 lot. What can we do? Mr. Stroh: One thing. . .one point I 'd like to make is that item seems to have gotten more attention than any other single site, and this does only apply to one site, which is MF-15. So if Rl- 5 is the issue, it applies to one out of all the multifamily sites that you are considering tonight, and that is MF-15. There is a variety of things you can do. The city has chosen in the past not to put stringent design standards on single family housing. And whether we put stringent designs on the single family housing class. . .would it actually encourage the construction of single 12 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 family and development of single family, which is a strong goal of the city, is a big question. Would we be taking the costs. . .the savings that you'd actually be incurring in land costs and transferring that into higher costs for the actual building. It would be a big issue. Would anybody actually then build at the R1- 5. Another thing I would add is that it is very important that the R1-5 be used only in appropriate areas. We felt that where we were proposing it was an appropriate area. It has commercial on one side, multifamily on one side. The Housing Element Update sees it as a kind of transitional zone between single family and more intensive uses. And those are some of the kinds of places that we looked at trying to apply the R1-5, not wholesale, not replacing the existing neighborhoods we have that have a character of whatever size lots they have now, but using it as a transition in appropriate areas and using it very sensitively. So it is not a size lot that would apply across the board. It has to be used only in certain areas where it fits. And we feel that this is particularly appropriate as a transition kind of thing. And here where we are talking about going from multifamily to single family, it seemed like it allowed us to retain some of the density that we had with the multifamily, but in a little more transition kind of approach, so it allowed us to transition more into single family neighborhoods on the other side of it. Commissioner Forner: I guess that was my concern when I wanted to table it, because we have not (unclear) and second of all (unclear) specific to the 5, 000 square foot lots. And there is nothing that identifies how many can be built in specific areas. Right now we say only a few, but once you establish that, there is nothing to stop others from coming at a later date, especially if we annexed east or whatever. I would feel very uncomfortable (unclear) without those standards set at the same time, not to create the monster and then try to deal with it later. (unclear) I would like to see some standards that said that there could be only so many lots (unclear) without a green belt. And before we did that I would hesitate to say let' s just create a 5, 000 square foot lot and go for it. Mr. Stroh: If it is guidance on that from the single family committee that the Planning Commission would be waiting for, and I 'm not trying to steer you towards acting one way or the other, but the Single Family Committee is really not going to be passing any judgment on that. They have reviewed kind of a preliminary set of findings of what kind of recommendations they are going to be making. They do endorse the concept of R1-5. They thought it was appropriate for Kent, that it could encourage building of single family and the development of single family in some cases. They felt it was a positive thing, but they don't get specifically into talking about any kind of design standards or specifics of how 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 it would be carried out. There are some development standards I think you are aware in the first part of the report in the overview section which simply says for the most part the. . .they are on page 10 of the overview. . .and these are the same kind of development standards that apply to other single family zones. Now in this case let me just lay those out briefly. Minimum lot, 5, 000 square feet. Minimum lot width, 50 feet. Maximum site coverage, 40 percent. This is on page 10 of the overview section of the report. Maximum site coverage, 40 percent. Minimum yard requirements-- front yard 20 feet, side yard 5 feet, rear yard 8 feet, and side yard on flanking street of corner lot 15 feet. Those yard requirements, by the way, are similar to the other single family districts. And then height limitations--two and one-half stories, not exceeding 35 feet--which is also similar to the other R1 single family standards. Commissioner Ward: I have a question. Do you have any figures as to what the houses that you showed on the. . .the cheap-looking houses. . .as to what they would sell for. Mr. Stroh: We understand, I don't have anything official or in writing,but I understand that they are in the 901s. Commissioner Ward: They're not cheap houses either. Mr. Stroh: That's my understanding. I don't have anything confirmed on that. Mr. Harris: That's common in Kent now. The houses in the 70 's have disappeared, and the houses and the 80's. . .we had a planned unit development come through here about a week ago where the person started out in the 701s, 80's and 901s. Now he has dumped all that and he is up in the 1301s. That's what the market is today for his PUD. And it is going up two percent per month. Mr. Stroh: The more affordable housing in Kent, of course, is the older housing. You are seeing the new houses. . .it's very hard to find anything under 110. So HUD when they came in for their joint venture in affordable housing program and talked about that, they were talking about houses in the 901s, which a lot of us don't consider to be inexpensive housing, but this is more affordable than some housing. Commissioner Greenstreet: Looking at hindsight back in the early whatever, early 701s, there was so much multifamily approved for the Valley (unclear) . . .if they had had the foresight and PUD which was developing at that time, we would have a much better quality of life now. To just say let's have a 5, 000, we are making the same mistake again. We have nothing on the books for. . . it's not 14 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 a planned unit development, it's (unclear) zoning. . .split lot 3 in half. Have an easement driveway there to the back and put in two houses. I foresee the same criteria. The people we are hearing today (unclear) the quality of life. The quality of homes being built. . .the easement wouldn't be bad if you had nice standards, green trees and all that. It's the devil 's advocate. . .the possibilities of what could happen. We want to put a control and make sure it is a quality development here. That is why I think we are reviewing this. People have demanded it. Town hall meetings. Come to City Council and it is before us, and we are trying to correct (unclear) . . .lay the groundwork for future development. . . (unclear) . . .quality of life. The only way to do it is have it done correctly. Just to pass the 5,000 square foot lot and let it go at that. . .that to me is not the solution. Not sure what it is but we need to get something on the books and work toward a 5, 000 lot description and criteria. And if it's in a minimum lot size area where you have ten acres and (unclear) this will be it. If somebody can show me a better way than that. . (unclear) . You know, we were seeing slides from Issaquah called. . . (unclear) was it 120 acres or 100 acres, but we are still talking green belts, trails, $150, 000 homes and up. Well we are talking about people moving from San Francisco from a $200, 000 home and getting a deal and moving here. This is not what we are building here in Kent or proposing at all. It's not the solution I feel. (unclear) . . .I am willing to review it. We talked about it during West Hill, and that was after we got through all three plans we would review the 5, 000 (unclear) . . . I feel that is the best way to go instead of singling out one plan, the West Hill, the East Hill or the Valley, and work on the 5, 000 lot size later on. That is why I seconded it and I still think we should work on it. Commissioner Forner: It doesn't jeopardize the approach to hold the multifamily issue (unclear) 5, 000 (unclear) It affects only a very small percentage. . . Chair Martinez: In Option A, which is the staffs recommended proposal, it is one. In other options, the East Hill option specifically, there are a lot of R1-5. Commissioner Stoner: I guess that I would ask if staff could list those for us, because I would really like to know what those are. Chair Martinez: Didn't we used to have a chart laying that out that I can no longer find. Mr. Stroh: On page 18 in the overview of the report. . . Commissioner Ward: Can I have a book, overview book. 15 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Mr. Stroh: Page 18 of the overview section of the report shows all the multifamily sites that were reviewed in the study. And it is broken down into the four density reduction alternatives. There is the no-action alternative, the site-specific reduction, the text reduction, and the East Hill reduction. If you start with the no-action alternative for each site in East Hill which is at the top of this chart, you can see the existing zoning and potential units, multifamily and single family. Then if you go to the far right column you can see under the East Hill Reduction, which is the one that would take all multifamily zoning or almost all multifamily zoning, you can see the potential number of units and the proposed zoning. where in this case it stays multifamily, it stays multifamily for a reason that we really can't. In the East Hill alternative going down all the way to MF-21, there is only one site that stays multifamily, that's MRG where we really didn't get into reviewing that because it was just rezoned by the Council. So these are the series of options, and you can see under there there are a number, as was mentioned. If you take all the multifamily off that we are proposing as. . .would go to R1-5. And I 'd have to take a ruler to follow it across, but including MF-7, 81 9, 10, 11 and so forth. And so it is only under the sites specific reduction and the staff proposal that only one site would be affected, and that is the MF-15 site. I might add as one way for proceeding is if this is an unsurmountable obstacle, it would be possible to take action on the rest of the study, have us come back with a report on options for dealing with this R1-5 issue, perhaps even looking at some height and development standards, and you could consider that for MF-15 at your next meeting in a week, if that is the way you wanted to go, and it would then possible to take action on the rest of the staff proposal that doesn't involve the R1-5. Chair Martinez: Unless it were. . . Mr. Stroh: Unless you went with the East Hill Reduction Alternative, which is not the staff proposal. Chair Martinez: Is there more discussion. The motion on the floor is to table the discussion and decision on putting a R1-5 zone in the city code. Commissioner Stoner: I would speak to that in that I think it really. . . if we vote to table that, it precludes Option C. I think the other part of that is that you cannot go with Option C because you don't have an alternative to (unclear) . And I feel that's an issue, because I feel that it is really going to limit us. And if we do vote for that. . .to table that issue, I don't know how much farther we can proceed tonight. 16 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Commissioner Forner: (Unclear) Chair Martinez: Well, we have. . . Commissioner Stoner: No. Option C is the East Hill reduction of 100 reduction of multifamily on East Hill. That is Option C. Chair Martinez: Option A is staff proposal—site specific proposal. Option B is the text reduction or across the board 20 percent reduction. Option C is the East Hill reduction, which is. . .basically we eliminate multifamiliy zoning on East Hill, and Option D is no change, to go as is. Commissioner Forner: (Unclear) Chair Martinez: If we table the R1-5 decision, then we have three options instead of four. Commissioner Stoner: I don't think we can deal with the East Hill reduction proposal in any kind of responsible way. I mean, look at that as a viable option either for any or all of the sites before us if we do not have a proposal for R1-5. Commissioner Greenstreet: That makes a quarter of the options (unclear) . Commissioner Stoner: Or even more. Like two thirds. Commissioner Greenstreet: The only way that you ever consider, I feel, East Hill option is to see a better proposal on the 5000 which is (unclear) as I see it. If you want to (unclear) this down and then wait for some added language for R5000, I could understand that. But to accept the 5000 as it is right now (unclear) without more language added. . . Commissioner Stoner: Madam Chairman, I would ask you in light of that. . .we have a meeting scheduled for next Monday night. Is that correct? Is it to be a workshop? Chair Martinez: I don't know. Is it a workshop next. . . Mr. Harris: No it's a hearing scheduled for the Valley Floor. Chair Martinez: Right. Mr. Harris: Now on your. . .just a little parliamentary procedure here on a motion to table, you have to vote it up or down. You can't do anything else with it. You've got to vote it up or down. 17 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Chair Martinez: That's right. I 'm going to call for the vote. The motion on the floor is to table the consideration of the proposed zoning of R1-5. All in favor of tabling. Voices: Aye (Three Commissioners) Chair Martinez: Opposed. Voices: Aye. (Two Commissioners) Chair Martinez: Motion carries. R1-5 is tabled. Commissioner Stoner: I think at this point, though, that we need to give some directions so that we know where we are going from here, and I guess my feeling would be that we would ask staff to come back with some design standards, some guidelines for R1-5 for next week if it is possible. Is that possible? Commissioner Forner: (Voice unclear) Mr. Harris: Could you do that formally for us? Chair Martinez: Yes, I need a motion. Commissioner Forner: I move that staff submit to the Commission a list of recommendations and standards that would be suitable for 5,000 square foot lot. Commissioner Ward: Why don't you say it. . .standards of design. Commissioner Forner: Building standards. . .design standards. Commissioner Ward: Design standards for R1-5000, single family. Chair Martinez: Is there a second to that motion? Commissioner Ward: I 'll second that. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion. Commissioner Ward: Question. Chair Martinez : All in favor. Voices: Aye. 18 - Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Is there any other action that the Commission wishes to propose tonight. Commissioner Ward: Could I make. . . is it appropriate for this statement. Chair Martinez: Yes. Commissioner Ward: Short and brief. I think what the concern is not the 5, 000 square foot lot, rather the design of the building that goes on that 5, 000. We need that anyway. We were shown some examples of 11, 000 square foot lot that did not meet those design standards. If we are talking about the same thing, I think we need to say it. We need some stronger design standards as far as the single family dwellings are concerned. Am I in left field or am I. . . Chair Martinez: You can be any where you want. What I hear you saying is that you want design standards for single family. What we have. . .what we are are asking staff is design for one type of single family designation in the zoning code. Is that what you well meant? Commissioner Forner: That is what I meant. . . (unclear) Commissioner Ward: In other words you want another thing like this built again. The one that we showed in the slide a few minutes ago. . . 11, 000 square foot lot. Commissioner Forner: No, my concern was only to establish some sort of code and building design and even planning for how many houses can go in a specific area for the new code that we are going to establish, the R1, which is the 5, 000 square foot lot. Commissioner Ward: That's a hypothetical thing. We don't have any of that now. What. . . (unclear) we don't want a low quality, low esteem, low design type of a building being built in Kent, single family, multifamily, whatever. If we are not saying that, then I 'm totally out in left field. But I thought that was what we were trying to say. Because we don't know what a 5, 000 is. . .we are trying to decide whether we want a 5,000. And if we haven't seen an example of one except the one we were showed last week in Snohomish or somewhere. . . Voice: Issaquah Commissioner Ward: Issaquah. . . (unclear) . . .design can be upheld in Kent, therefore we are against the 5, 000 (unclear) because we don't know what it will look like unless we set some design standards. 19 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 That's what I 'm trying to get clear. Am I the only one that is saying this? Am I surrounded, as William Shakespeare says. . . Chair Martinez: I'd like Dan. . .Fred is standing at the microphone. Would you like to input. . . Mr. Satterstrom: I actually got up here to speak to a different issue, but as long as we are on the topic of the R1-5000 zone, I think I hear what the Planning Commission is saying. I think you want to take a look at what design controls or development standards are there that will try to effectuate the type of development that we can all be proud of. Now that sounds pretty generic. I think what the staff will do is to take a look at the jurisdictions that have the 5, 000 zone. We will look closely not only at the development standards that are used in those ordinances, but also the areas or the instances where they use the 5, 000 zone. Dan pointed out that we wouldn't be using the 5,000 zone throughout the city. This would be a zone that would be implemented in certain circumstances. I see it more or less, as Dan pointed out, as a transition zone. Perhaps we need some additional guidance language either in the preamble to the zoning district itself that speaks to when. . .under what kinds of conditions it is used. Perhaps even some comprehensive plan language that gets to that as well so that you can trace it through from the comp plan to the zoning. Commissioner Stoner: That would address some of my concerns, and some of my major concerns is when and how will that zone be used. We have one instance of it at this point in this document, but I am concerned how it might be applied beyond that. Mr. Satterstrom: And that is what I got up to talk about was the R1-5 zone is, as far as the staff recommendation is concerned, stealing kind of Dan and Janet's thunder here, only applies to one site and that's MF-15. I got up originally to ask the Planning Commission the question of do you wish to proceed with the other 20 sites or to make some. . .propose some action for the other 20 sites. So next week when we convene we don't have to debate the other 20 sites. We are going to have a meeting next week on the Valley Floor. It will be equally as eventful as East Hill has been, and if we could narrow down the number of sites to be reviewed and simplify the process, that would be good. Now I realize and I 'm sensitive to what Commissioner Stoner here has pointed out, and that is that if you do act on the other sites, there is only one R1-5 that we are recommending from the staff's standpoint. But under the East Hill reduction there are a number of them. So I guess the real question I am asking is. . . is the Planning Commission going to proceed on Alternative D, the site specific recommendation, or are you going to hold the whole 20 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 decision in abeyance until the discussion on R1-5. That's what I got up to ask. Commissioner Stoner: Well, *I 'm not willing to, and I know this is not your first choice of answers, but I 'm not willing to foreclose the other option without knowing what we are talking about. And until we have our terms defined, and I think that means R1-5, we can't really compare those two alternatives in a vary valid or rigorous way. And I need to have that defined. Voices: (Unclear) Chair Martinez: For one thing on the East Hill, and only the East Hill, there are four options where they are in both. . .well, I haven't seen the Valley Floor, the complete thing, but we have had only three to consider. And so it could affect either one, or what. . .two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve, thirteen sites. . .depending on what the Commission. . .or some combination there. It may be that it could be the pleasure of this body to go someplace between these two. Option E is some place between these two. Option E is for MF-1 to go with existing MF-2 . . .I mean. . .we could (unclear) that. Commissioner Greenstreet: (unclear) . . .generalized plan (unclear) . Chair Martinez: That' s right. That is an alternative. Commissioner Greenstreet: (unclear) Commissioner Stoner: In the interest of time I would suggest to you that we could act on amending the East Hill Subarea Plan Text, and we could also act on the Single Family Designated Area, which is the second one, and defer the R1-5 and the map amendments. Commissioner Greenstreet: On page 101 you are saying we could do what now. Commissioner Stoner: We could act on Number 1, which is the East Hill Subarea Plan Text Amendment. . . Chair Martinez: In fact why don't we have a motion on the floor and we will decide then whether we want to act or not. Commissioner Stoner: I would move that we adopt the East Hill Subarea Plan Text Amendment the Housing Element as listed in heavy print on page EH-101. Chair Martinez: And that would exclude the one sentence under goals, objectives, goals. . . 21 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Commissioner Stoner: No it would not. I would take Housing Element Goal 1, Objective 1, and Goal 1 and Objective 1, Policy 4 ; Goal 1, Objective 1, Policy 5; Goal 2, Objective 1, Policy 2 ; Goal 2, Objective 2, Policy 2, and then the public facilities and services Goal 1, Objective 1, Policy 4. Chair Martinez: Is there a second to that. Commissioner Forner: I second that. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion. Commissioner Greenstreet: (unclear) . . .Only on discussion of what types of housing elements Goal 1, Objective 1, Policy 5 whether or not that kinds of language of R5000. . . Chair Martinez: Is it. Commissioner Greenstreet: That's my question. Chair Martinez: I don't know. I think of R1-7.2 would. . .that could be what we call our transition zone. Mr. Harris: It is whatever you give the life to it. It is the way you decide to implement that, you may do it with 5, 000, you may do it with a compromise of 6, 000, you may just say, well we're going to 72. Because we don't specify it here, but it was, quite frankly, aimed at the 5, 000 square foot lots, obviously. Chair Martinez: Is there further discussion. Okay. The motion is to accept the amendments to the East Hill Subarea Plan Text Housing Element as defined on EH-101 in our proposal. All in favor. Voices• Aye. Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Motion carries. I would entertain another motion to keep rolling if there is one. Commissioner Stoner: I would move that we adopt the. . .that we amend the East Hill Plan Map and create a single family designated area overlay. And the citation is the map on page EH-100. Chair Martinez: Does that include B. Commissioner Stoner: No, it does not. Chair Martinez: Is there a second to that motion. 22 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: The motion is for a. . . Commissioner Stoner: It is for the single family designated area overlay. Commissioner Greenstreet: I ' ll second that. Chair Martinez: Discussion. Commissioner Stoner: I think that is an important concept that could be significant in terms of giving staff some ability when rezones are asked for to say, we need to protect single family (unclear) . Chair Martinez : I would also like to speak in favor of this as I feel that the housing report that came to us, what was it seven months--eight months ago, stressed in our city for single family to be encouraged, and we passed that on to the Council and the Council has accepted it. So it is part of the rationale and the thinking of this body. I will call for the question. All in favor. Voices: Aye Chair Martinez: Opposed (silence) . Okay, we have passed proposed 2A. Is there any other action that this body would like to propose this evening. Commissioner Stoner: I think that any other action on this document needs to wait for clarification on R1-5000. Chair Martinez: Then I would entertain a motion to continue this hearing, and I need a date. Mr. Harris: Next week you have the Valley Floor Plan, and if you saw the ad in the paper, you saw it was two full pages of maps and parcels, so I am sure there will be 50-60 people sitting here next week waiting to testify. Chair Martinez: So we will have to continue this hearing to some night other than that or we are never going to get off it. Mr. Harris: Yes, I don't know that you can get this in next week and that also. Commissioner Stoner: Could we have a proposed date. When is our next. . . 23 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Chair Martinez: Our next regularly scheduled meeting, which is normally a workshop, is on October 16th. Commissioner Stoner: I would move we continue this meeting. . .these deliberations until October 16th. Commissioner Ward: Second. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion. The question has been called, all in favor. Voices• Aye. Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) This meeting will be continued until October 16th at which time we will expect to see some design standards for the R1-5 zone, and we also will begin our deliberations on the map and the comprehensive plan. Is there any other business to bring before the (unclear) . I would entertain a motion to adjourn this meeting. (End of Verbatim Minutes) The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ames P. Harri ec etary 24