Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 11/20/1989 (3) KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 20, 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7: 30 p.m. Monday, November 20, 1989 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Anne Biteman Tracy Faust Greg Greenstreet Carol Stoner Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Elmira Forner, excused Leona Orr, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Lauri Anderson, Planner Stephen Clifton, Planner Janet Shull, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 16, 1989 Commissioner Stoner noted the October 16 minutes, page 30 Commissioner Forner's motion "I move we adopt the recommended 51000. . .and a minimum of 1,500 square feet and a maximum of eight acres" The minimum should read 15, 000, because the minimum was to be three lots. Commissioner Faust MOVED that the minutes be approved as amended. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 23 , 1989 Commissioner Forner MOVED and Commissioner Ward SECONDED a motion to approve the October 23 minutes as written. Motion carried. Chair Martinez presented Tracy Faust a Certificate of Appointment to the Planning Commission. Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 The election of Planning Commission officers for 1990 will be November 27, 1989 . KENT EAST HILL HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION (Continued) CPZ 89-3 Verbatim Minutes Chair Martinez: This evening we will be attempting to complete our action on the Kent East Hill Housing Study and the Valley Floor Housing Study. I understand that there are people who are going to want to testify and there are. . .just to set the ground rules before we begin. I would like to have testimony for no more than three minutes. I also would like testimony to be limited to those sites that we have not already decided upon. In the minutes of the 16th and 23rd there are a number of areas that have already been decided by consensus by this body. We are not planning to reconsider any of those, so please limit your remarks to those areas that we have not already made a decision on. I would like to reopen the public hearing on the Kent East Hill Housing Study and have, yes. . . and begin that by input from the staff, please. Fred. Fred Satterstrom: Before starting I wanted to go over some procedures. . .suggested procedures for the Planning Commission tonight. I kind of feel for the Planning Commission because we don't go through this procedure every night. In fact I think this is the first time we've ever had two areas both on for public hearing at the same time when you are expected to hold the public hearing as well as try to draw some conclusions and make a recommendation to the City Council. At any rate, I have authored a memo to the Planning Commission dated November 13th. I believe it is in your packet. It is up here on the front table for those who do not have it, suggesting some procedures for you. As long as you, Linda, are going to open the public hearing and allow public input, I 'd like to go over these procedures before you do that. First, we suggest that you review the East Hill area zoning recommendations and decide by consensus on those sites that you haven't already reached some preliminary consensus on. That would include the sites as well as some of those other decisions that the Planning Commission is being requested to make. I would suggest that no final action would be taken on East Hill, but, number 2, citing from the memorandum, you would then go on to review the Valley Floor recommendations and going through a similar process as you would with the East Hill. And then again, you would not take any final action on the Valley Floor. All of these would be more or less by consensus such as we have done in the past. Then in step 3 after you have gone through East Hill and through the Valley Floor, Stephen, Janet, Lauri and myself, the staff working this, will be hurriedly trying to catch up with the. . .trying to 2 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 calculate the impact that you are having in terms of density and trying to keep track of what that number is so that the Planning Commission, when you take your final action, will be apprised of what that density reduction figure would be given the scenario of your decisions. Then if you are satisfied that the density figure is close to what you want it to be, close to the directive by the Council, or at least you are assured that is what you want to recommend to the Council, I would recommend at that time that you make a formal recommendation concerning both of them, both the East Hill and the Valley Floor. And then, finally, in step 5 that we would then come back to the Planning Commission in one week, next Monday on the 27th, and we would have a set of findings and conclusions for you. That is a very quick turn around time for us in light of the half week that we are dealing with here. So actually those findings and conclusions would likely be brought to you the night of the meeting. And it would be at that time that you would adopt the final findings and conclusions so we can bring the entire recommendation to the City Council at the earliest possible date. Chair Martinez: Now, Fred, I want to make sure that your November 13th memo. . .as we go through the decisions on the zoning map, the decision on amending the Subarea and Comprehensive Plan Map, we can do that. But the already approved single family designated area overlap, etc. etc. , . . .should we not hold that off until we see what all we have done as a result of the action of tonight? Fred Satterstrom: I think the way in which the staff report reads is that you adopt a single family overlay that is consistent or in conformance with the approved zoning by the Planning Commission. We would bring that overlay back next week and you could see it at that time. But I think it is entirely appropriate to adopt that language tonight that we have suggested in the staff report. So, basically, we would recommend, therefore, that you open the hearing part now on the East Hill, and go all the way through East Hill, including our staff presentation by Lauri Anderson, then begin to make your decisions on East Hill, wrap those up and then proceed to Valley Floor. Thank you. Chair Martinez: If we get off track, please remind me where we are. It is everyone's responsibility here. Is there a staff presentation. Fred Satterstrom: Yes there is. Commissioner Stoner: Could I request heat. It is really quite cold back here. If anything can be done. . . 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Mr. Harris: Up here we are roasting. You got a vent that probably needs to be. . . Commissioner Ward: It might be your own personal temperature gauge. Put your coat on. Lauri Anderson: This is Lauri Anderson with the Kent Planning Department. Tonight we are going to be looking at the remaining sites on East Hill that the Planning Commission was not able to reach consensus on last time. I will describe briefly what we have for you and then run through them. I can either do it individually and allow time for discussion and questions afterwards, or go straight through all of them and respond to questions. We can see which you prefer. Chair Martinez : Let's start it and see how it works. Ms. Anderson: What I have are overheads of each of those six sites. The overheads are merely reproductions of the applicable pages in your East Hill Housing report. I also have videos of each of the sites in which we've tried to get a feel for the surrounding uses and the properties themselves since on our bus tour we did not visit all of the sites. So, for the six sites we have a short video. We've also prepared this large working map. Let me wheel it over. . . I may have to get this pretty close for you to see what is going on. But what we've done on this is to indicate the density. . .the residential densities, existing zoning, and those that you have approved. . .the new zoning, and then we have identified the areas that you have not approved. So, just briefly. . .yellow is single family zoning. The areas outlined in black were the areas you considered in this study. The areas in the red tones are multifamily areas. And those show a range of densities. Lightest pink color is duplex, going to the most intense color, this sort of red brown, which is high density. So we have tried to give you a gradation from light color, low density, to dark color, high density. And then if you have made the decisions, we have filled in the appropriate colors. For example, on this site you indicated a change to single family. Over here a change to garden. . .actually I think that was a no change area but to a Garden Density Multifamily. And then for the areas that you have not decided upon, they remain white. But gray zoning is everything else--commercial, office, industrial, etc. And we have indicated the six sites on East Hill. We have also put the Valley Floor planning area on this map because I know there have been some concerns, particularly over here, that you wanted to see what was going on across the street in the Valley Floor planning area. So, as we go through, if you have questions about surrounding zoning and how earlier decisions you've made have affected what you may want to do on these sites, we can refer to 4 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 this map. Okay. So at this point what I will do is start running through. . .as I said, there were six areas. I think first I will give you a verbal description and then we will turn on the video. The first no consensus area was Multifamily Area 10, and that area is on South 248th Street up on East Hill in the approximate vicinity of 100th Avenue NE, which does not go through as yet but will be going through as a result of a single family development that is going in right in this area. Initially this was a larger piece, and I might point out why this is split. Initially the area incorporated all of this, but this large central piece here has since been vested, in fact the apartments are going up, the Ridgegate Apartments, in that area. The existing uses on the remaining parcels are single family, and the staff was recommending no change from the multifamily zoning designation which is currently in effect. . . surrounding uses over here, to the east we have some office uses, single family to the north across 248th, the apartments here, Forest Creek Apartments here, and then office here, and then down to the south. . .this is vacant, (unclear) is office zoned. So with that I will have Janet turn on the video. The first one is longer than most. We were experimenting so you will have to bear with us. Here I am looking at the intersection of 104th, the Benson, and 248th. I am panning now to the south, looking at the office zone immediately to the east of this site. Now we are looking at the two larger parcels. You can see the single family homes on those parcels. Again, this is considered underdeveloped because it is single family in a Medium Density Multifamily zone. Two parcels here. After we decided the sun was in the way, we actually went down the street and drove up with the video, so you are going to get a better look. But these are the Ridgegate Apartments that are going in here. Panning down to the west, down 248th, looking back across to the north which is single family zoned and is single family uses. In this area there are three new single family subdivisions proposed, probably about 60 new homes going in to the north of 248th. . .a little bit farther to the west, and then coming back around and looking again at 104th. We have tried to go back behind the office and look down and see. You can see. . .you can't really see because of the sun, but it is undeveloped in the back. And then this is the small piece of Multifamily Area 10. We are just driving down 248th to the east, so we will be going past the apartments. There is a small ravine here, which is about in the area of 100th Avenue. These are the Ridgegate Apartments I mentioned several times. And this is the piece that is split, the very small piece, and the two larger pieces. As I said, we got faster at this, so the other ones won't be as long. And then just beyond these apartments are the two pieces with the single family house at the front and then stretching back to large areas of vacant land. You can see how far back the yard is going behind this house. 5 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Voice: (Unclear) Lauri Anderson: We are headed this way down 248th Street and we would be coming up to the Benson right there. This is the second home, and then just beyond this we are going by the office development. This fronts onto 104th. Voice: (Unclear) Lauri Anderson: I 'm not sure how many units. It is fairly large. Stephen do you know on that one? I would say it is 200 plus. But, anyway, that is Multifamily Area 10. Now I can go immediately to Multifamily Area 11 unless. . . Chair Martinez: Are there any questions about this area? Commissioner Ward: Staff is still recommending MRM. Lauri Anderson: Staff is still recommending no change, right, to retain the multifamily zoning. Chair Martinez: Let's just move along. Lauri Anderson: Okay. The next site is Multifamily 11. Chair Martinez: Would you do something for me. Would you point it out on the colored map as well. Lauri Anderson: First of all this is Multifamily 10 right here. So you can see that one. Multifamily 11 is right here. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Lauri Anderson: It is on the north side of SE 256th Street. It is a single parcel. It is about three and one-third acres and it is currently zoned MRM, Medium Density Multifamily. Staff again was recommending no change primarily because it is surrounded, as you can see, by the red zoning, not only by multifamily zoning but also by multifamily development. I ' ll have Janet start the tape on this one. Okay. We are actually looking at the site now. Now we are panning across this direction and looking at the apartments that are located to the east. We are looking down SE 256th Street toward the east now. Uses to the south across SE 256th are primarily commercial-type uses. There is an office right here. This area is zoned Community Commercial immediately across the street. Now we will be looking to the west up SE 256th Street, and the intersection of 104th is what we are looking at down in this direction. . .a large commercial node there. Swinging around again to the north, we were just looking this direction, now we are 6 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 coming around here. . .apartments on this parcel, and then this is the house on the piece of land in question. Okay. Any questions Voice; Unclear. Lauri Anderson: Not on this one. No, in fact on the East Hill there were no petitions filed that I am aware of. There were several citizen concerns on Multifamily 18 and on Multifamily 21 which are two of the areas that we will be looking at, but not petitions. The next area is Multifamily 17. This area, as you can see, is to the north of. . .well it stretches between SE 260th and SE 264th. Right here on the map. . .the city boundary is here. The Kent Shopping Center with the Albertsons, etc. , runs along 104th right in this area. This is about nine acres. It is currently zoned Medium Density Multifamily. Staff was recommending Garden Density Multifamily on these pieces. Surrounding uses. . .to the east you have single family zoning, and then (unclear) these. . .this area is developed with single family residences. You have multifamily development in this area. The shopping centers are over here to the west, and to the north you have multifamily zoning. I think is in permit but is not developed as yet. And to the south is in King County. There is single family development in here. When we get over to this area, there is a multifamily complex. Chair Martinez: Is that zoned single, or is it zoned multiple and it just happens to have single on it. Lauri Anderson: It has both in that immediate area. There is some single a little bit farther to the. . . in this area, and multi starts here. Okay. So. Okay, we are looking now toward 104th. I am standing on SE 260th Street. I am going to pan around to the south, and we are looking at the back of the shopping center. The front is on 104th. Now we are panning down onto the. . .this is the northernmost piece. This piece right here. That parcel has actually split zoning. On one side there is apartment zoning, and then the undeveloped portion over here to the east is actually zoned for single family. And you can see single family development immediately to the east. And then I am looking north across SE 260th. And again back around the back of the shopping center. There is a little more. Okay. Now I've moved down and we are driving down along here. The apartments you just saw were sitting right here. Then there are two single family houses on these pieces. Actually we are still looking at the apartments. And then across. . .on the south side of the street it is single family development. Here is the first house. You can see how long these parcels are. Again, all you can really get is a sense of the single family residences and then the land to the back. And then we just continued driving down SE. . .this is really the end of the 7 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 piece right there, and immediately to the west where we start the office zoning there is still some undeveloped land. You can hit fast forward if you want. Okay. There we go. Any questions? Okay. The next site, Multifamily 18, is probably one of the most controversial in terms of public testimony. Multifamily is at the corner of 116th and Kent-Kangley Road. We actually drove by this site on the bus tour. But it is right here on the map. it is almost 10 acres, currently zoned Medium Density Multifamily. Staff was recommending a change to single family for this parcel, and there was quite a bit of public input. . .that residents in the area did not want the single family zoning. Surrounding uses to the east, which is actually in King County, is both zoned and developed with single family residences. To the west, and you can see on the map the red, to the west and to the north is multifamily development. And then to the south, of course, is the Kent- Kangley roadway. So I ' ll have Janet turn this one. What we did with this one was, we started right here and sort of panned down the street trying to get a feel for what was going on over here, and then we started driving south down 116th and turned on Kent- Kangley. So, now I am looking across the street at the development in the county. This is at the far north end of the site. Looking down 116th toward the Kent-Kangley. . . Voice: What' s along side in that area? Lauri Anderson: I believe it is SR 7200, the zoning in the county. And then we started driving down 116th and we are looking into the site itself. The site is basically developed with single family at the moment, although at the corner there is a nursery day care and a lawn. . .I can't remember whether it is an auto repair or lawn type of service. So there is commercial development at the corner. So we are still on 116th. Chair Martinez: And what did you say the zoning was south of there. Lauri Anderson: Zoning to the south, which is in the city, actually should be in the city, no it's in the county. I would have to check on King County zoning. I could get that information. I know immediately to the east it is single family, but across Kent-Kangley I 'm not sure. What we just passed there was the day care, the preschool, on the corner. Pause here to get out onto Kent-Kangley, and now we are driving west up Kent-Kangley. Here is the other commercial operation. And then these are the apartments, the large apartment complex that abuts it to the west. Any questions? Okay. Voice• (Unclear) 8 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Lauri Anderson: Okay, the next site, Multifamily Area 19, is closer to downtown. It is a very, small parcel, only a quarter of an acre. It is currently zoned High Density Multifamily, located right here. On this parcel by the Farrington Court Apartments there is an apartment building located here, and the bulk of the rest of the development in the area is single family. The staff recommendation for this piece was to go to Duplex Multifamily. Okay, we are looking at the Farrington Court Apartments, we are looking down to the east down Titus. Now we will pan around. This is the first piece that is actually in Multifamily Area 19. You can see the single family residence. Then looking back toward the undeveloped land that makes up the rest of the area, and you can see in the back there is a large apartment building that is at a higher elevation. This was a site that has fairly steep slopes and the lower density zoning was. . .that was one reason for the lower density zoning. We are now panning to the south. Here we are back on the site. I wanted to get a little farther down so that you could get a sense of the slopes and also the apartment building in the background. Okay. Questions. Multifamily Area 21 is up on Summit Street, and it is about two-thirds of an acre. It is really . 6 of an acre. It is currently zoned Medium Density Multifamily, and is located right here. It is immediately to the south of Multifamily Area 5, which you designated as Single Family at the last hearing. Surrounding uses on this piece of property to the north is single family, and to the south is a multifamily complex. To the east is multifamily and to the west, across the street in the Valley Floor, was another area that you just considered, and you also targeted that for single family. Commissioner Ward: How large is this one? Lauri Anderson: Point six of an acre. One thing I might point out, there are two apartment buildings in the center of this piece, and they are detailed if you want to flip to the map after this. It would be page EH-97, you can see the building footprints. There are two apartments there. We included that in the area to provide a more contiguous zoning area. According to the zoning code, the density. . .residential density is exempted from the nonconforming regulations, so in other words the density that is currently on the site would not become nonconforming even though it were included. This is a confusing issue. But people have asked, well what if you put an apartment complex in there it will become nonconforming, but in terms of density it does not. That is specifically written in the zoning code. So. I thought I 'd just point that out. Now I' ll have Janet turn on this one. Okay, we are looking. . .I am standing toward the north end of the site. Those are the apartments that are included in the property. I am looking down Summit Street, and then panning back around. This single family residence is the northernmost parcel of Multifamily 21. This is Multifamily 5 9 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 looking up the street. . .and then looking across the street you also designated this as single family in the Valley Floor hearings. Okay, I have moved farther down the street. So that you could sense that this is so steep, I wanted you to be able to look at the parcel to the south which you couldn't see previously. That's the southernmost parcel of this area. And immediately to the south of this is some more apartment development. There are a couple of. . .you can see there . . . apartment buildings. . And then looking at the bend of Summit where it goes down to Smith Street. Okay, so those were the six areas that remain for you to reach a consensus on. Are there any questions? Voice: (Unclear) Lauri Anderson: Umhmm. It is. . . 116th is the border. Right. It is right here. This is the city border. Voice: (Unclear) . . .What would be the advantage of making it residential. Lauri Anderson: It' s got multifamily to the north and to the west. Across the street in King County this is all single family and is developed with single family residences. So, staff felt that since this is already developed in single family, and since across the street is developed as single family, that made sense. We were also concerned with traffic counts on Kent-Kangley, particularly in the area of 104th/Kent-Kangley intersection, which is probably one of the worst in the city. And by limiting the density in this area we felt that would work somewhat to improve the situation at that intersection. So those were the primary rationales. Commissioner Biteman: What is the land zoned directly below us. . . Lauri Anderson: On Kent-Kangley. . . it is in the county. I 'm going to have to go. . .I ' ll have to get that information because I don't know off the top of my head. I have the map upstairs. Perhaps while I don't know if you are taking public input, but I could go upstairs and get that information for you. Okay. Chair Martinez: Any more questions. On that same parcel of land, practically speaking, has single family been built any where along Kent-Kangley in the last three years. Lauri Anderson: I don't know. I know that. . . Chair Martinez: It is zoned over across the street, but has anybody actually built along there? 10 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Commissioner Stoner: If you look directly (unclear) . . . There is quite a grade separation between Kent-Kangley and parts of that development so that even though it is physically quite adjacent, you are not really that aware of it because of the rise in the. . . Chair Martinez: That is really not true in 18 as much. Commissioner Stoner: Eighteen is established single family, real deep lots that nothing much has happened with. Chair Martinez: Right. Okay. Commissioner Biteman: I have another question. (Unclear) Lauri Anderson: Is that view property? No. Okay. Commissioner Stoner: Maybe we could take testimony in the order that they are on our sheets so that we can. . . Chair Martinez: That would be very (unclear) . Commissioner Stoner had made a suggestion that it would help us a lot. I have three people signed up to talk about East Hill. Actually, I only have one person who wants to speak. Well, I was going to propose a plan, but I don't need a plan for one person. I will open the public hearing, and again I would like you to limit your remarks to about three minutes and to just those parcels that we are considering, not the ones that we have already decided on. John Lemmon. John Lemmon: My name is John Lemmon and I live at 22911 101st Place SE Kent. I 'm not sure if it is the right time to talk or not, but I'd like to address the Planning Commission's approved standards for the R1-5 zoning district. Chair Martinez: It's not the right time. We would like to take testimony just on East Hill tonight, and just on those parcels that are. . . John Lemmon: You didn't have a list. . .you are going to talk about this tonight. Is there a list? Chair Martinez: We have already approved the creation of the single family designated area overlay. John Lemmon: Umhmm. Could I talk about it, though. Chair Martinez: No. We've already taken care of it. I 'm sorry. John Lemmon: You've already taken care of it. 11 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Chair Martinez: Yeah. John Lemmon: All right. Chair Martinez: Is there anyone else who would like to testify on the East Hill Housing Plan. Yes M'am. Lucille Lemmon: My name is Lucille Lemmon. I live at 22911 101st Place SE Kent. The two areas that I would like to address are MF- 18 and MF-19. MF-18 is being recommended for single family. MF is recommended for duplex. I would like to see them both single family. I believe it would be appropriate transition area for a proposed PUD. That is all I have to say. Thank you. Chair Martinez : Single family, something other than R1-7 .2 . Lucille Lemmon: I think because it is surrounded in some areas by apartments that it would be a good area for single. . . for a. . .not a traditional single family but for a PUD. Chair Martinez: okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify about the East Hill. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Stoner: I so move. Commissioner Faust: Second. Chair Martinez: Discussion. All in favor. Voices• Aye. Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Now I would like to, if we can, by consensus decide on the remaining areas that are left in the East Hill. Starting with Multifamily 10. Commissioner Greenstreet: Last week on Multifamily 10 I believe the impasse was either accepting MRM or we were going to split it and have that small square be MRM and the large one (unclear) . . .and there is (unclear) office (unclear) . . . Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I think I would support the staff recommendation after seeing the video (unclear) . . . Voices: So would I. Chair Martinez : Is there a consensus on MR. . .Multifamily 10. 12 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Voices: Umhmm. Chair Martinez: Okay. Multifamily 11. Yes. Do you have 18. Lauri Anderson: Yes, I do. Let me put it up here for a minute. Multifamily 18 sits right in the corner here. Across the street, as I said, is 7200 in the county. There is one parcel right here, right at the intersection that is zoned multifamily. This parcel. Across the street in this area is SF7200. Then across the street right here is RM24001, which is multifamily. Let's see if I can give you a density, medium density, right here. So multifamily, single family, single family and then multifamily development here and to the north. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Appreciate that. Could you remove it now, Lauri. Back to Multifamily 11. We have to keep (unclear) folks. Voices: I think it' s (unclear) . I do too. MRM is fine. Chair Martinez: Do we have a consensus. Voices: Umhmm. Chair Martinez: Okay. Multifamily 17. Hold it. I don't think this one is lost. I really don't. It is lose enough to R1-7 .2 that I think we could look at recapturing it. Commissioner Faust: I would agree with you except for what is going on in the surrounding areas. It is all commercial or whatever. It's the grand other category, and one of the things we have been talking about as preserving as part of our sort of overall umbrella includes putting a higher density near to commercial areas, and the fact that so much of it is already multifamily even though there is that little strip, still if we are going to be consistent about the kinds of things that we have done before, I really think we ought to go ahead and keep it as multifamily, as MRG. Commissioner Ward: It is MRM now. Leave it as MRM or downgrade it to MRG. Commissioner Faust: Staff recommendation to MRG. Commissioner Greenstreet: So this is two pieces again. You could separate (unclear) because that one (unclear) drawing 7 2 if you wanted to. While the other one is surrounded by office. Chair Martinez: Having trouble seeing. I 'm sorry. 13 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: That would be the only way I could see residential working would be (unclear) the southwest piece it doesn't fit to be single. . .be an island. Commissioner Stoner: I guess I would ask you to look at the amount of red adjacent to Kent-Kangley. A lot of those schools, not all of them, but a lot of those apartments are served by Scenic Hill Elementary School. Scenic Hill Elementary School is way over capacity. It has a highly transient population because of that. Lauri Anderson: Stephen just told me that the northernmost piece, for your information, apparently they are to the stage where their building permit may be issued this week for. . . Voice: MRM. Lauri Anderson: Yeah. Days away. Commissioner Stoner: I would propose MRG. That is the staff recommendation, and I don't think that is inappropriate in that area. If we don't feel that we can legitimately look at another zoning category, then I think MRG is appropriate there. Chair Martinez: Consensus. MRG. Commissioner Ward: Yes. Chair Martinez: Speak up. Okay. Now we are in 18. Voices: (Unclear) Chair Martinez: Across the street they have a nice development, actually. Commissioner Stoner: And the houses along 116th are in good repair and well maintained, and they are large lot single family homes. Chair Martinez: And there would be a potential, I think, for someone if they wanted to do something with a block of that in the development sense that there is land there to do it. Voices: (Unclear) Chair Martinez: I think it would be irresponsible, personally. And 1 7 2 is. . . Voices: Umhmm. . .yes. 14 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Chair Martinez: I haven't heard from everyone. Voices• Umhmm Commissioner Ward: The majority is saying seven point two. . . (unclear) Chair Martinez: I think it is less. Commissioner Stoner: I think the lots appear larger than that. Commissioner Ward: Ten thousand. Chair Martinez: At least, because they are very deep set lots in some cases. Commissioner Stoner: And again, the houses sit. . . Commissioner Ward: What is it going to be, 7 .2 or 10, 000. Chair Martinez: Seven point two, because that is what the adjacent area or the area across the street is. That would make sense to me. And that would give you enough land, too, to do something. Right. Voice• (Unclear) Chair Martinez: Right. Right. And the PUD is a good idea. Okay. Multifamily 19. Commissioner Faust: Is this the one that is not too far from the senior center? Chair Martinez: Yes. Commissioner Faust: Well, I 'd really like to see it as fairly high density. Brought it up last time and I' ll bring it up again. I really think that that location ought to be high density and I know that we cannot dedicate it, but with the recommendation that it be used for (unclear) . I 'm sorry that (unclear) failed, but this just seems like a perfect place to build another fairly dense place for seniors. It would be near the downtown area, near the senior center, and it is near the other apartment building that is senior dedicated already. And I know what the staff recommendation is, I 've seen the pictures, but I just think it would meet another big need in this city if we did not lower this one and kept it in fairly high density with the recommendation that it be used for seniors. I don't know how much of a recommendation we can make. 15 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Chair Martinez: And I 'd like to speak against that. The rest of that neighborhood on that side of the street is, in fact, single family with the exception of the condominiums which are single family. They contain single family residences. So the entire Scenic Hill at that point is, in fact, more like single family. We have the condominiums behind and we have further down by Dunhams. . .we have two apartment complexes, one that sort of down by the telephone office and one of the other ones. But. . . first of all I don't know what we can do about the seniors, but I would hate to see another high density apartment building going up there in a place that is trying to preserve its single resident character. Commissioner Stoner: Can I ask staff. . .that site is very small. It is only one quarter of an acre. That is probably not enough square footage to support R1-5, is it, because you wouldn't have 15, 000 square feet. So that is not an option for us to use. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I was thinking that during the sites proximity. . .services downtown (unclear) Voice: That would be my alternative. Commissioner Ward: The site is so small why doesn't it stay as MRH where it is. What could possibly go up there. How many units. Voice• Ten. Commissioner Ward: Ten at the most. Commissioner Faust: How many could go if it were MRM. Commissioner Greenstreet: How hard would it be to find that out. . (unclear) . . .on the videotape. . . (unclear) . . . Voices• (Unclear) . Chair Martinez: Yes, across the street. Stephen is still working on how many it could be (unclear) . Commissioner Faust: Stephen, do you have an MRG yet? Stephen Clifton: Four for MRG. Commissioner Ward: How many units for. . . Voices: Four Commissioner Faust: How many with a duplex. Could there be two. 16 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Commissioner Stoner: Two and one half, two and one third. Lauri Anderson: We are looking at Farrington Court here, and then we will swing around to the north and pan the (unclear) site from the south. This is the lot right on the corner. Commissioner Stoner: There are existing single family homes on that site. Lauri Anderson: Yeah. And then this is vacant back here. These are the condos. Commissioner Stoner: Okay. How much of the site is vacant. Lauri Anderson: I would say about half. It's the first large. . . and I think that first house may take up that second little, tiny lot. There is a nonconforming very, small lot. Commissioner Greenstreet: (Unclear) . . . single family homes (unclear) . . . it looks on my map like it is R1-7.2 that we are looking down the hill directly on. . . Lauri Anderson: On the multifamily. Now we have view restrictions on slopes, and this is an area of steep slopes. And in fact the density might eventually be limited because of the steep slopes. We tried to take that into account. That was one of the rationales for bringing the density down was the slopes on the side. Commissioner Ward: Could we have a consensus on MRG. Four units possible. Commissioner Faust: I 'd rather see MRG than MRD. Commissioner Greenstreet: The senior housing I think is a real good idea (unclear) but if it is something (unclear) senior housing and it is high density, then I am not for it. So I don't see how we can put the restrictions unless (unclear) . . . I 'd rather see it single family and if senior housing could be worked out, then (unclear) that makes sense. Commissioner Stoner: But I think that if we have a senior housing proposal, it might be appropriate for those people to say here is a site that we would like for senior housing and we would like you to change the zoning because we have a specific proposal for this site, rather than for us to zone with the idea that we want senior housing there but having nobody who had a concrete proposal. And I guess I 'd like to see it happen the other way around. It is an obvious site for it, but not at this point perhaps. 17 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Chair Martinez: I wouldn't have any problem with MRG. Voices: Neither would I. Commissioner Ward: And we could probably put. . .could we put that recommendation along with that due consideration be given for senior citizen housing on this location. Would it make any difference. Mr. Harris: It would make any difference. The private section would. . . Commissioner Ward: We could do that and it would satisfy what you want and it would make you feel better. Voices• Unclear Commissioner Greenstreet: If you can't permit (unclear) why are you going to MRG and not duplex. Commissioner Stoner: That would also be my question. Commissioner Ward: You can built four units of senior citizen housing compared to two. Commissioner Stoner: If you have two viable single family homes on that parcel, , then you might want to leave the remaining piece for a duplex or for single family housing rather than trying to eliminate the existing single family to be able to build MRG. Commissioner Greenstreet: I would think that people who are living in that house would rather live next to a duplex than a multifamily unit (unclear) . . . the whole thing could be sold as senior housing at higher density, then they might sell. But otherwise, I don't see why we want Garden Density if it is not going to go (unclear) rather see the duplex. Commissioner Faust: I 'd like to know from staff on the portion of that property that is not built on, how many. . .only two duplexes could be built on that entire parcel. Right. And that includes the land that already has single family houses on it. Right. So in other words, nothing could be built in addition to what is on there now. Lauri Anderson: You could put another unit with that. Commissioner Faust: Another single unit. 18 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Lauri Anderson: You could, for example, convert the existing single family and then put a duplex on a neighboring lot. . . (unclear) so a total of three. Where the single is you could. . .I mean. . .they are currently single family. They could add another unit here, and then (unclear) . . . I mean one duplex. Chair Martinez: Either way. . With Garden Density or with Duplex, we end up with four houses. . .or four living units. Is that correct. Well then, what difference does it make? Commissioner Faust: What I 'd really like to see is the higher density and . . . (unclear) maybe we could bugs in the appropriate people's ears that it be a site that is considered for senior housing. Chair Martinez: Of course, the only thing then is that the seniors are then going to need scooters, because it is not walkable. Commissioner Biteman: The seniors might not want to live there. I wouldn't want to live there. Mr. Harris: It is up a hill. Commissioner Forner: Is it any more (unclear) that Farrington Court. Mr. Harris: Quite steep as you come off Gowe Street and try to go up Kennebeck. In fact seniors have a hard time sometimes getting from downtown up a little hill to Farrington Court. Chair Martinez: That's why there is a park there I always thought. Mr. Harris: And I saw a senior today taking a rest there sitting on a wall there waiting to go on. What you are doing is getting people going almost straight up the hill. Kennebeck is a very steep hill. . .Gowe. Voices: (Unclear) Chair Martinez: What is the consensus here. Commissioner Forner: It seemed like a really good idea. Chair Martinez: Okay, what is the consensus. Voice: I 'd go along with the (unclear) . Chair Martinez: Duplex, okay. MF21. 19 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: Last meeting we were trying to decide what sorts of RI 5000 transition zone (unclear) recommendation duplex. Isn't that where we were at. Voices: Yeah. Commissioner Greenstreet: How close (unclear) to 5000 (unclear) . Lauri Anderson: Immediately to the north. And then in the Valley Floor, you also changed the area immediately to the west in the Valley Floor. I think that was to R1-5, I 'd have to. . .Oh, okay. Janet will have to come. Commissioner Stoner: MF5 is R1-7.2 . Commissioner Ward: Is this the one with the (unclear) building presently on it. Lauri Anderson: On the middle piece—right here. Commissioner Ward: Surrounded by single family dwellings. Voices: (Unclear) Chair Martinez: Speak up. Commissioner Ward: I think that probably should be MRG at the lowest. It really should remain MRM. (unclear) . . .with the building setting in the middle of it and put single family dwellings around it. Transition from what. . . from MRM. . .MRD. . . Commissioner Stoner: Lauri, would you point out the duplex zone. . .adjacent there. There is one to the south. Lauri Anderson: Here's the site. This is MRM zoning. This was an area you just changed to duplex. This is the area you just changed to single family, and this area you changed to single family, and this area you changed to single family on the Valley Floor. Commissioner Stoner: Is there an area. . .little area north of that that is duplex. Lauri Anderson: Right here, farther to the north. This is farther up the hill. Commissioner Stoner: Could we see that one on the video. 20 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Lauri Anderson: These are the apartments in the middle and we are looking toward the south. Commissioner Greenstreet: That lot there. . .where the street. . . Lauri Anderson: It is the southernmost piece. Those apartments are the center piece, and this house is the northern piece. Now we are panning up and we are looking at Multifamily 5, which, as Carol Stoner just pointed out, is single, R1-7.2 . Commissioner Ward: What is that house on the corner. Lauri Anderson: The house. . .which Commissioner Ward: Is that 7200 or 10000. Lauri Anderson: It is zoned for 7200. Commissioner Greenstreet: What if that one house on the corner is part of this MF21. . . Lauri Anderson: Right. It's not actually on a corner. That is actually their drive that goes up there. I mean there are no streets that go through. But that is a large lot. That is bigger, much bigger in size than 7200. And then this is looking at the southernmost lot and down to the south. There are apartments at the south end of Summit. Commissioner Greenstreet: Are there. . . (unclear) . Lauri Anderson: Yes. They're on here. If you want me to run it back. Commissioner Greenstreet: Sure. That southern piece. Lauri Anderson: Right. Right here. This is the southernmost piece. Chair Martinez: Okay. Is there any consensus right now on this now that you've seen it and you understand the other actions that we have taken. Commissioner Faust: I 'd go along with the staff recommendation that. . . Commissioner Stoner: And I 'd support that also. I think there is enough topographical change, I think those apartments are isolated enough with fairly good-sized trees that a duplex is not inappropriate there. 21 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Chair Martinez: Given that we already have apartments smack in the middle. Commissioner Greenstreet: What about that upper home that sits. . .looks like its well maintained. . . (unclear) . . . it would be better to take this lot and separate. . . (unclear) . . . Commissioner Faust: Well, Greg, it's already MRM. If we downzone it to MRD, I should think that would give those folks somewhat of a tax break. Commissioner Greenstreet: (unclear) Chair Martinez: Do I hear MRD. Voices• MRD Chair Martinez: MRD. Okay. I would like a motion that this is what we have in our minds at this moment to send to staff to do figuring, so that we can get the computations back. Okay. All right. I don't need a motion. Let's call on. . .we can do one other thing this evening. . .no we can't. There is nothing else we can do on East Valley until we get the computations back. Okay, I would like to propose a 15-minute break. And then when we come back we will be discussing the Valley Floor Plan, and we will also get input from. . . BREAK VALLEY FLOOR HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION CPZ 89-4 (Continued) Chair Martinez: Do we have a numbers report. Fred Satterstrom: No, we are going to give you the numbers report after you have gone through the Valley Floor so that you can see what you have done in totality. Chair Martinez: Before we make a motion. . .thank you. Again, I want to repeat for those. . .we have a number of people who have signed up to speak on this issue, on the Valley Floor. Again I would like to repeat. . .three minutes and only on the parcels that we are considering tonight, not on those that we have already reached consensus. And I will be. . .I 'm a very polite person, but I will cease being polite for the duration of this evening to interrupt you. So we would like to follow the same procedure. . .have the staff give us their report, then open it for public testimony, and then we will go through our deliberations. 22 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Janet Shull: I 'm Janet Shull, Planning Department, and as our chair just pointed out, we will follow the same procedures, so I will be starting with area Multifamily 2 on the Valley Floor. We have just. . .to go over this briefly, we have nine areas to consider on the Valley Floor. Eight of those areas you have not reached consensus on yet. I should point out that we are asking you to reopen discussion on option Area 4, and that is in the memo that I sent to you. The reason for that is that there was some confusion as to what. . .where the grocery store property was at the last hearing. That was one reason. The other reason is that we have some additional information we would like you to look at. The Multiservice Center owns the property adjacent to the grocery that they recently purchased for transitional housing, and we thought we should bring to your attention that under the current GC zoning that is an outright allowed use, but if it is changed to MRG, then it would not. . . it would make another nonconforming use. So we thought you'd want to reconsider that and perhaps take that parcel out. That was the area that you wanted MRG except for the grocery store. We are recommending you also leave out of that the adjacent parcel for the multiservice center. That is the reason we are asking you to reopen discussion on that. So there are a total of nine areas. Janet Shull: I 'm afraid we blew our light bulb, so we are going to try to find a spare. Chair Martinez: We have our books. Janet Shull: Then in that case. . .I had actually. . .on this one I colored you an overhead because you had asked for additional information for Multifamily Area 2 . I believe at the last hearing you wanted us to be very clear on what was actually developed currently as multifamily and what was developed as single family. I suppose what I could do is pass this around. . .and we also do have a video, and on this overhead, the area that is colored red is currently developed as multifamily; the area that is indicated in yellow is currently developed as single family; the area that you see in green are the two tot lots in the neighborhood, and the one parcel that is colored in blue is the fire station. And there is one parcel that is only outlined in red. . . it is not filled in, and that is Applewood Lane II. It is not constructed yet, but you can pretty much guarantee that you will see that developed. So you can get a sense of how big the parcel is that that project will be going in on. But the ground is at this point vacant. And if you like, we can start the video now while you are passing that around. Chair Martinez: I think we can go ahead with that. 23 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Janet Shull: Okay. We started out here going down First Avenue and we are heading south. And this is the tot lot here that is at the corner of First Avenue and Crow. Now we are rounding the corner onto Crow Street. We are heading west at this point. And we are going to pause here at Second Avenue and sort of pan the intersection of Second Avenue and Crow. Okay, now I believe we are going down Second Avenue. This is a very big site, and so we tried to show you as much of it as we could. What we did is we went to the end. . .the southernmost end of Second Avenue and we are heading north. You can see there's a multifamily building at the southernmost portion of Second Avenue. . .we're heading north. At this point it moves into single family development. We're still on Second Avenue. Now we are back at the intersection of Crow Street sort of looking north. Now where are we. Now I believe we are on Third Avenue, and we are heading south and we are just passing some of the apartment buildings there in the center of the block on Third Avenue between Crow and the southernmost portion of the neighborhood. Now we are heading south on Fifth Avenue. We are jumping over to Fifth, and that was a tot lot that we just passed which is vacated Crow Street, and we are heading south on Fifth Avenue. This is where you would enter Applewood Lanes II, that gravel drive that we just passed. And this is Applewood Lane Phase I development that you are seeing now. There were a couple of single family homes in there, and at the end of the block there is another multifamily development. On this area we have had a lot of public testimony, both pro and con. We have had a petition from 33 citizens who are in favor of the downzoning. We've also had a lot of public input against the rezoning particularly from property owners who live east of Fifth Avenue, the street that we just panned in the vicinity of Applewood Lane. I believe that everything that is vacant. . .when I pass that overhead around, anything that wasn't highlighted at all is considered vacant, and I believe every parcel in that area has been spoken to. . .not in favor of the proposed change. Commissioner Greenstreet: Some of the Valley Floor application (unclear) . Janet Shull: Right, but the southernmost vacant piece that is east of Fifth. . . if you turn to page VF28, the southernmost piece there that is vacant. I believe there is an application in process for that piece, and then the piece. . .Applewood Lane II, of course, is under the process for approval, and then the piece adjacent to the tot lot. We've had testimony from that property owner and their representative that they'd like to retain the existing zoning for that piece as well. They have intentions of developing that in the future. So, as I said before, that side of the street has been represented by people against the rezone, but there also have been people that live in homes, the single family homes on that side of 24 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 the street who have signed petitions for the rezone. So, you have had both sides pretty well represented on this area. Voice: Was the video (unclear) MF2 . Janet Shull: Yes, this has all been in MF2 . As you can see, it is a very, large area. We tried to show you as much of the area as we could without going into a real lengthy video. So we basically took you down . . . a little bit down First Avenue, around the corner where the large tot lot is on the corner of First and Crow, then we took you north on Second Avenue, and then we took you south on Third, and then we took you south on Fifth. So we tried to get the three main streets that run through that neighborhood. Chair Martinez: Okay. Does anybody have any questions now about this. . . Commissioner Biteman: Is that MRM, Medium. . . Janet Shull: It is currently zoned MRM, and the staff recommendation was MRD. Commissioner Biteman: So that would be 23 units per acre. Janet Shull: Yes. Are you ready to move on. Okay, the next area under consideration was Area MF5, and that is shown on pages VF38 and 39. That's where you will find the maps. It is currently zoned MRM, Medium Density, and the staff has recommended R1-5 for this area. And I must point out at this time that with the R1-5 as you have recommended it with the specifics on minimum and maximum lot size, that if you see the three vacant pieces to the north, if you look on page VF39, the one parcel on the eastern side of the street, you could only put two lots on that parcel. It is 100 feet wide, so what it means is that you can't apply R1-5 to that piece, so you need to know that. And I think we can see the video now. Commissioner Faust: Could you point that out on the map. Janet Shull: This piece right here, surrounded by MRM, Medium Density, to the north and south and then single family to the east, and it has quite a bit of single family development currently, but it is also interspersed with multifamily. So what we are doing here is. . .we are looking down the street. . .this is Woodford Street, and that is the vacant piece that is on the eastern side of the street. The first piece you saw was the piece on the western side. These are some four-plex units and duplex units that surround it to the north. And then what we are doing now is that we are heading south on Woodford and we are looking to the east, and this 25 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 is the vacant piece to the east, and then you will see how it transitions into single family as you move to the south along Woodford. And then if you look to the east, you can see some multifamily that is further to the east along Central Avenue. Then we will be coming out on James Street, and there is an apartment building here at the intersection. Okay, that was the end of that voice• (Unclear) Janet Shull: They are in the neighborhood of six. . .7200. Commissioner Greenstreet: What did he say about R5000. Janet Shull: What I needed to point out to you was the parcel that is on the eastern side of Woodford Street is only 100 feet wide by 100 feet deep, so it precludes the application of R1-5 since you could put only put two contiguous lots there and in your recommendation you've established that there needs to be at least three on the east side of Woodford. Commissioner Ward: What could go there then. Commissioner Stoner: But Janet, if we said that we wanted that whole area to be R1-5, then if you could get another lot. . . Janet Shull: You could put one home on that 10, 000 square foot lot. Commissioner Stoner: Or you could buy some more property and redevelop it at R1-5. Janet Shull: If you could obtain the property on either side, you are surrounded to the north by some duplex and some fourplex units, so it is developed on either side, so the chances of obtaining that would be fairly slim. Commissioner Stoner: Because those are not single family homes. Janet Shull: Right. Commissioner Ward: Or you could make. . .this should be an area for an exception to the three-lot thing. Lots of people who want R1- 5 and you've got two lots sitting there and there is nothing. . .no where else for the person to go, that should be a possibility (unclear) and go to some hearing process to make a deviation. Chair Martinez: Okay. Ready. 26 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Janet Shull: Okay, the next area is Multifamily Area 8. You can find that on pages VF49 and 50. This area is currently zoned MRH, High Density Multifamily, and it is surrounded by high density to the north and to the south, and single family to the west. I will point it out on the large map. This piece right here currently is zoned high density, high density to the south, currently zoned high density to the north. But there are two areas that you are also considering, Area 9A and Option Area 3 which surround it. Option Area 3 is currently zoned CM, so you would have CM zoning to the east, and then you have the (unclear) city limits over here, and I believe it is single family, but it is also the ridge line of the hill, and it is at this point. . .the city limits. And there has been public testimony on this piece. The three pieces that I 've just shown you are all owned by the same family and they are not in favor of the proposed rezone. The proposed zoning is for MRG. And we have a video. This video starts out at Jonathan's Landing and we are heading north on 88th Street, and we will be coming upon the vacant parcel right about now, so we have Jonathan 's Landing directly to the south. This piece goes up the hill. There are three existing single family homes up in the trees. If you look real close, you can pick those out. And then vacant pieces down on the western portion. And at some point towards the end of this it starts to run into Option Area 3 , and also Area A is directly to the north. I 'm trying to orient myself. Voice: Unclear Janet Shull: It basically goes all the way up to the summit of the hill. So, half of it is very flat, and the other half is quite so steep. Commissioner Faust: Is it buildable. . .the steep bit. Janet Shull: There are three existing single family homes there currently. Voice: But would there be some. . . Janet Shull: This is the. . .excuse me. . .we. . . Voice: Sorry, go ahead. Janet Shull: We are coming into the CM-zoned area at this point, so you can see what is to the north of it. And we basically panned this area, and I believe we turn the corner, and now we are heading east toward the hill. . .on South 228th Street at this point. So you can see some of the surrounding businesses. So now you are kind of looking back into Area 9A with that clump of trees. There is a large clump of trees which is essentially Area 9A. We intended 27 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 to use this segment to show you for both areas since you are considering them one right after the another. Did you have questions, I think you had a question on Area 8. Does somebody have a question. Chair Martinez: On Area 8, the Jonathan's Landing. . . Janet Shull: Is directly to the south. Chair Martinez: Now is that. . .now I thought there were two parts to Jonathan's Landing. Janet Shull: Jonathan's Landing is right in here, and then there is across the street what I believe they call Chandler's Bay. A large portion is zoned MRH and a little triangular portion is zoned MRM, and across the street is zoned MRM. Chair Martinez: It is built out at MRM but it is not built out at MRH. Is that how I recall. Janet Shull: That I don't know. Commissioner Faust: Somebody said something . . . Janet Shull: I believe parts of it are MRH. There's some three- story, higher-density buildings, and there are also some two-story townhouse-type buildings. So there's a mixture within the development, and I don't know what the overall density is. Commissioner Stoner: There were some constrained areas on which site. . . Janet Shull: Actually, both of those. A very small piece. If you look on page VF50 you can see the topography on Area MF8. And if you look towards the east, it becomes very steep up behind the existing single family homes. So that portion is considered a high hazard area. And then also Area 9A, which is the area you need to consider right after this, and that is VF56 and 57, has some wet areas as well as some steep slopes. And that whole area has been considered a high hazard area, and it has been earmarked by the Department of Ecology. It was initially part of the Overlook site that was dropped out later because of the development constraints. At this time it is not known what could be developed exactly on that site because of those constraints. Commissioner Biteman: To the north of that in that 8, it is also zoned high density. 28 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Janet Shull: Yes. Area 9A is currently zoned high density and this piece which is the Overlook site. They've broken ground and believe they are in the foundation pouring stage. Voice: And how large is that. . . Janet Shull: Which. MF8 . The Overlook. I ' ll have to check. They are building about 185 units on that, and that is less than what they would have been allowed with the MRH zoning and that is because of the nature of the site with the steep slopes and such. Commissioner Biteman: How much acreage is there on the MF8. Janet Shull: MF8 is 14 . 33 acres. Commissioner Ward: (Unclear) regarding this site. Janet Shull: The Carpinito family owns Area 8, 9A and Option Area 3, and those are the three areas that you can see that are all contiguous and they are against the proposed rezoning of any of those properties. Are you ready. Okay. The next area to consider is MF12 . That can be found on page VF66. This again is a single parcel, and we had testimony against the proposed rezone for this property. It is currently zoned MRG, and the staff recommendation was for MRD. And I 'll point it out here on the large map. Here to the north. . .the area that is indicated yellow is actually zoned RA. I should point that out. Everything that is zoned or built out as a mobile home park or as RA we designated. . .or we colored as single family since it wasn't really multifamily but it is not zoned single family, so I wanted to make that clear. But the uses allowed are single family in nature. . .so to fit into our color code system. So the area to the north is zoned RA. To the south is zoned MHP or Mobile Home, but I believe that an office park is going in there. So we've shaded it gray as a non-residential use. And at this time we will show the video. We are actually looking in at the. . .we are going to be looking in at the property. There is an existing home and some outbuildings on the site. And what we are doing now, if I can remember, we are rounding the corner and we are going to be going on an overpass and looking down into the site. The road you can see just there is the access to the site, and this is where the property starts. You can see the willow tree, and there is that white house and another building existing on the site, and we are going to round the corner so that you can see how 167. . . in a minute you can see 167, that's the eastern boundary of the site, so it is that little corner piece. Commissioner Ward: Where? Janet Shull: I 'm sorry. 29 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Commissioner Ward: It was blanked out. . . that cut off right there. Janet Shull: I 'm sorry. That was the end of that. That was a hard one to represent because the access was difficult. But it is bounded west. . .I might have said east. . .It is bounded on the west by 167 and then surrounded by RA, and across the street will be potentially an office development. Commissioner Biteman: How many acres. Janet Shull: There is 1.24 acres. Okay. Next area. Now we are into the option areas. The first area we are going to look at is Option Area 1 and it is on page VF77, and it is currently zoned CM, Commercial Manufacturing. The recommendation for this site was duplex. Right here on the map it is currently surrounded pretty much on all sides by CM, and then the railroad tracks are to the left, and this is area is MF2 to the left. We had quite a bit of public testimony against the proposed rezone for this area. Property owners think it ought to be retained CM. Essentially what we did to video tape this site is we went and looked internally for going around the site, and we are heading south on Bridges. And what we are going to do is basically circle the site looking inward, and then we are going to come back and circle the site looking outward so you can see what surrounds the site. So there are quite a few existing single family homes in this area. There are also some businesses that do exist within this area. And then we are coming up upon Crow Street. No, I 'm sorry, we are down at the bottom of the site, we are on Morton, going to go around. . .so now we are on the side where Burlington Northern Railroad is behind us, and we are going north. That is Crow Street there that we just passed. And that was an existing business that we just passed there. Now we are looking out onto Willis. Now we have quickly turned back around and we are heading south along the tracks and we are going to circle, and we are looking outward now so you can see what surrounds the site. Now we are on Morton Street and we are coming up upon the tar factory or the asphalt plant that we have heard a lot of testimony about, and that is to the south of the site. Now we are going to be heading north on Bridges, so you can see it is sort of two different worlds when you look inward versus looking outward. There is quite a contrast. And this property is all zoned CM. Now we are heading back onto Willis. That was the end of that site. Are there any questions. Chair Martinez: The asphalt plant that is currently in the CM zone, that is a conforming use is it not. Janet Shull: Yes, as far as I know. 30 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Commissioner Stoner: Would you locate that for us on our. . .so that I know where it is on the map. Just in terms of corner even. Janet Shull: Yes. This is the site here. So when we saw the asphalt plant, we were looking south on Morton, so the (unclear) is here, and the last part of the video was going north and looking east along Bridges. Commissioner Faust: And the next street over to the east is. . .Central. Janet Shull: Central runs along the boundary between, so it is essentially one long block east, so it is the next street. Commissioner Stoner: What is to the north of that site. The boundary is Willis. What happens across Willis. Janet Shull: Then, I believe it is still CM, but there is some GC in the area as well as along Central. Commissioner Stoner: Okay. Is it developed as that, or is that just the zoning and there are really a lot of houses in there. Janet Shull: I 'm really not sure exactly. Voice: I think there are houses on the other side of Willis. Janet Shull: It is zoned GC and there could be some existing homes, but the zoning is GC. Voices• (Unclear) Fred Satterstrom: You are talking about the area north of Willis Street, north of this area. It is a little like this area in terms of the character of development. Best of my recollection is that it is smaller homes, some of them again have been converted to a business-type use as Janet has pointed out, consistent with CM zoning. Chair Martinez: Okay. Janet Shull: Okay, the next area is Option Area 2, and that is on the next page, and it is north of Area MF6 where you made a recommendation for R1-5, and it is currently zoned M2 . The staff recommendation is for MRG, Garden Density. That area is eight and one-half acres in size and it is bounded to the north. . .sort of the northwest by 167 and the railroad tracks to the east, and then MF6 to the south as I just mentioned. And we've had some testimony for the site specific recommendation, but also request that you look 31 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 at even higher than recommended zoning. And we've had some concern from neighbors living to the south as to what is developed there being buffered from them. We are basically going to pan this site. This is a real easy one to see. I am standing at the end of Second, and we are just sort of panning from east to west. It is a vacant site at this time. And that is 167. You can see the berm and the cars going by is 167. And then now we are going to be looking south on Second, so you can see there are some single family homes that butt up against it on Second. And now we are just looking south along Second towards downtown. Chair Martinez: Are there any questions. Voice• (Unclear) . Janet Shull: Okay. That is zoned M3 , which is industrial general, so you could have any kind of industrial. Virtually anything that is allowed in an industrial zone is allowed in an M3, so you could have a wide variety of uses. . .open storage is allowed, things of that nature. The freeway acts as a pretty sharp boundary. Voice: (Unclear) . Janet Shull: Oh, I 'm sorry, that is zoned M2 . There is a little sliver here that is zoned M2 and then it turns into GC as you get closer to Central Avenue. And you have the tracks that actually act as the real, hard boundary to the site, as you have 167 to the northwest. Voice• (Unclear) . Janet Shull: Next area is Option Area 3 , and that is as we just looked at Areas 8 and 9A. Option Area 3 is adjacent to both of those areas. It is currently zoned CM, and the staff recommendation is for MRG. As I mentioned before, we have had testimony by the property owner and representatives against the proposed rezoning. And we have CM zoning to the north, and GC to the west,MRM to the south, and MRH to the east. And to the south of the site is the Chandler's Bay development, and to the southeast is the Jonathan's Landing and also the vacant MF Area 8. And we are going to be heading south on 88th and looking at the larger part of Area 3 . So it is basically all this vacant land, and then you can see some of the surrounding uses that are along Central Avenue in the distance. So there are some GC uses. A lot of the area is being farmed at this point. There are some top soil businesses, and you can see the mounds there and there are topsoil and bark, so the portion along Central is being used for general commercial uses. Then as we head south we see the surrounding apartments that abut the southern portion of the property. Now we 32 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 are just panning across the street and you can. . .that was Jonathan's Landing. Oh, now, I 'm sorry. Now we are going back north again so you can see the other side. And it' s where this clump of trees is, where that little "L" crosses the road, the little "L" of Area 3, and you have the surrounding CM uses to the north. Any questions. Commissioner Faust: Yeah. Under Option B, on (unclear) which is, of course, no action, could you elaborate a little more as to why you did not favor that and why you favored the MRG. Janet Shull: Yes. We were looking at the nature of the development in that area. There has been quite a bit of multifamily development along 88th Avenue, and it seems appropriate for additional multifamily development. Eighty eighth is little bit more off the beaten track, whereas you have Central to the west. There's lot of traffic there and a lot of good access for businesses, and this 88th Avenue has been developed in more of a residential nature over the past few years. And we looked at the potential there for residential in keeping with the surrounding uses. But it does have uses, as you saw, that surround it that are not residential. We looked at the nature of 88th becoming more of a residential street. Commissioner Greenstreet: Looking (unclear) put together in some unit (unclear) . . .sensitive slope, water (unclear) . Janet Shull: If you look at the ownership pattern of the property, it is all owned by the same owner. So, in fact you could view it as one large area. But there are different zonings. . .current zonings that apply to those areas. So that is why in our study we looked at them as different areas, because, for instance, Option Area 3 is currently zoned CM, and Area 8 is currently zoned High Density Multifamily, as is Area 9A. Nine A was at one time when we first started our study part of the Overlook site and has thus come into different ownership and is now part of the same ownership as the other two areas. So in essence it is one property, and I am sure the property owners see it as one large piece. But we have looked at it as three pieces in this. . . for the purpose of our study. Chair Martinez: Okay. Janet Shull: Okay. One more area. Option Area 4 and we have already discussed this one. We ask that you look at it again in light of some additional information. If you look in the last page of my memo, I have prepared an overhead for this but we don't have an overhead projector, so there is a large map of Area 4 and we have designated on there the existing grocery business as well as 33 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 the "L" shaped piece adjacent to it that is the Multiservice Center property. We have a video which will, hopefully, help explain this, but there is one large existing house that used to be part of the grocery store property, but they have gone through a lot line adjustment and now that large house and the two houses on the property to the west of it are one lot and it is owned by the Multiservice Center and we are asking that you look at that and realize that if it is zoned MRG, it will create another nonconforming use. Chair Martinez: Do you have that overhead that you. . . Janet Shull: Yes. Chair Martinez: Could we pass it around. I 'm a little unclear as to exactly what that looks like. Janet Shull: It is also in your memo. If you have your memo, it is on the last page. Chair Martinez: I apologize for that. I didn't see . . . Janet Shull: Okay, and we also do have a video of this. We are gong to be heading west on 238th and the grocery store is in the back of the white house. You can just kind of make that out. And the white house is now owned by the Multiservice Center, and the next two houses you will see are also part of their property. They purchased this for transitional housing. There are some other single family homes on the next site, but they are not part of the area we are asking you to reconsider. And then you will see there is a mobile home park just directly to the north. There is a little skinny piece that runs along 238th that is part of the site. And then it opens up into the larger area towards the end of 238th Street. So there is a total of approximately 28 acres in this entire site if you remove from consideration the store and the multiservice property. Now we are looking across the street. There is an existing cannery that is part of the site, and now we are heading back to the east along 238th and we are looking at the other vacant piece. And the other side of this piece fronts on James Street, so it goes all the way through from 238th to James. As you come up to the end of the street, there is an existing single family house which is also part of the area. This is the house here, and they have a large. . .I 'm not sure what this use is here, that' s basically. . .the border of the site is basically their property. And now we are just going to bring you back out to Washington Street. The piece that's along Washington Street is zoned GC, so just to the east is GC-zoned property. Chair Martinez: Okay. Are there any questions. 34 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Commissioner Faust: Yes, there were some comments on that area. Janet Shull: Right. The comments pertained to the grocery store. We had testimony that the owners of that property requested that you exempt it from a zoning change. They would like to retain the existing GC zoning. If you like, I can point that out on the large. . .I didn't do that yet. (Unclear) and we have colored it in since you've already discussed it. This is the mobile home park here. I think this corner is the grocery store and a house and this little piece behind it is the other property that the Multiservice Center has purchased. If you were to exempt both those properties, you would be removing .89 acres from the total 29 that is in that area. So, there would be 28 .1 acres total that you would be considering. Chair Martinez: Are there any other questions. Now I will reopen the public hearing. I have eight people to testify. I believe. . . Barry Anderson, is it possible that we can. . .can you get yourselves organized so MF2, MF3, MF4. . .can I call for people who might want to testify on MF2 just so that we keep this in order. Voice• (Unclear) Chair Martinez: Yes sir. Are you on the list. Okay. Oh yes, I see. Would you please testify. Is that OK with everybody. If you would please testify. Hugh Leiper: Good evening, again. The hour is late. I ' ll try to get right to the core of the problem. I have three main concerns that I would like to talk to you about. The petition that was given to you at the last meeting. . . Chair Martinez: Have you identified yourself? Hugh Leiper: Hugh Leiper. Chair Martinez: And your address please. Hugh Leiner: 1819 South Central, Suite 116, Kent. The petition that was given to you at the last meeting supposedly contained 45 signatures. The chances are great that a very large percentage of these signatures are renters, not owners. I therefore challenge the validity of that petition as being solid evidence of the majority of the property owners of true thoughts and actions. Two, that there is presently now a very significant amount of older multifamily dwellings in MF2 area. To downzone this area now would mean that it would be impossible at some later date to upgrade these older units, because it would not fit the zoning requirement 35 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 at that time; therefore, these older units would continue to deteriorate. How many of you have seen Applewood Apartments. I would venture to say that Applewood is a pacemaker for that area, and we certainly believe that it is an excellent asset to the community. Now if the rest of the area could be developed in something of this nature, it would be an excellent asset for the total community. Now Applewood I had the possibility of having 48 units. We placed 30. That means a reduction of 37. 5 percent. In Phase II now in permit drawing there would be possibility to build 58 units. Forty will be built, a reduction of 32 percent. If the balance of the area of MF2 is planned correctly and over a number of years, it can be a great asset to the community. Downtown (unclear) will eventually improve and has to. As a matter of fact along Willis Street area as you come into it, I would even like to see a nice high-rise apartment. Now I am. . . in closing here I am going to take you on a very quick trip through Kent. Chair Martinez: (Unclear) Hugh Leiper: As you know, there are 35 million square feet of manufacturing and warehousing in this valley. Now suppose that we say that it takes two persons per thousand square feet, pardon me, two and one-half persons per thousand square feet of gainfully employed in the 35 million square feet of warehousing and manufacturing in this valley. All right. That would mean 85, pardon me, 87, 500 people that we have in the city limits during the day, plus the 31, 000 we already have. So during the day we have 118, 500 people. One thing more, if I may. If you should take all the people that are not living in the city limits or living on the East Hill or the West Hill just beyond your city limits. Now if you are going to do a real study in this area, you have to take into consideration the whole area because you are not really getting to the real problem. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Is there anyone else that is testifying on Multifamily Area 2 . Denny Holt: My name is Denny Holt and I am representing the parcels held by Mr. Robert and Paticia Lorenson. The parcel from your prior trips you may recall is. . .this overhead slide that Janet developed, I reviewed the other day and the parcel of Lorenson is immediately south of the tot lot on the vacated street. Mr. Leiper addressed Applewood. I am sure you folks are familiar with where that is, and in illustration I would simply invite your attention to the density of the probable vesting in this Applewood Phase and our (unclear) in the past. However, this particular zone might go, the staff recommendation being for MRD, that certainly this zone between the tracks and Fifth be retained in the MRM or I don't find it appropriate to address a higher density as Mr. Leiper 36 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 suggested, but I wouldn't say that it is necessarily out of order in long term planning proximity to the corridor and Central Business District. The area is here and the apartment zoning balance around the central core. . .again I would feel that would support MRM. Chair Martinez: Question. Okay. Anyone else speaking to MR2 . . .I mean MF2. Voice: (Unclear) . Chair Martinez: If it's on MF2 . David Ellis: My name is David Ellis. I live at 803 Reiton Road, Kent, Washington, and I am speaking on behalf of our family. My father, Paul Ellis, is passed away and my mother now owns the property which we refer to as Applewood Lane II. We are definitely not in favor of having the entire area downzoned. We own other property in the area as well. My main concern is that, as been mentioned already, that we need to be addressing the concerns that happen from East Hill. Most of our traffic are people who are from East Hill that come down through Kent for traffic problems. I would like to see Kent be a place for people rather than a place for heavy manufacturing and things like that. I would like to see Kent as a fine, residential area rather than something that looks like South Park. And whatever we can do to help that out would be wonderful. I am amazed that we are talking about downzoning in this area which is ideal for senior citizens to live in when we were arguing earlier about a quarter of an acre on the bottom of Scenic Hill. This seems absolutely ideal for what Kent should be like and hopefully will be like in the future. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Question. Anyone else wishing to speak to MF2 . Yes M'am. Connie Epperly: My name is Connie Epperly. I live at 639 South Fifth Avenue. I am not going to make a speech. I 've made my speeches and I 've written my letters. I just want to reaffirm that the people that I have talked to, and not only homeowners but residents, too, a lot of the people are elderly that do rent houses there, but they have lived there for a long period of time and I didn't specifically go by homeowners there. We support the downzoning. Another thing, it would be perfect for senior citizens and there wouldn't be a problem there, but the apartments that they are building are costing $735 a month. What senior citizen is going to be able to afford it. The average rent down there runs between $400 and $500. Our new apartments are $600 and $700. So it is not going to help any senior citizens, but it would be nice to retain it down there for them. Thank you. 37 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Commissioner Faust: Where's the overhead. . . (unclear) . Connie Epperly: I 'm living there but it shows vacant. Voices• (Unclear) . Chair Martinez: Anyone wishing to speak to MF2. Okay. Is there anyone interested in speaking to MF5. Okay. Moving along. . .MF8. Steve DiJulio: Good evening. I 'm Steve DiJulio, 540 Scenic Way, Kent, on behalf of Richard Hill and Foster Pepper and Snefelman, representing the Carpinito family. In light of the lack of a light bulb, I will do the best I can. I will pass this out. These exhibits have been given to staff already. To orient you to this area we have the Valley Freeway and Central Avenue (unclear) . . .We have added to this graphic that you don't have in your materials the rough approximation of the density of the Overlook property that has been discussed over time. The current zoning in this area. . .and I 'll pass this down the line so you can see it. . . is already shown in your materials, but we think that the emphasis should be shown more to the west rather than to the east. Because of the steep slopes, there is really very little orientation of this property to the single family homes on top of the bluff. The Carpinito family holdings are shown overlaid on this graphic, and you can see that it goes from the slope all the way out to Central Avenue and incorporates some of the areas that are not shown and unincorporated into the current exhibits. Additional, since this Commission last met, the Carpinito family did in fact acquire Option Area A. So that is new information since the last time this Commission met. In terms of a proposal for development, we think the area is most suitable for development consistent with the existing uses. The video that was shown by staff demonstrated graphically the impact of the abutting industrial development and multifamily housing surrounding the property, and in terms we are responding to planned development, as Mr. Greenstreet inquired about, that this property is most appropriate for planned development. It would include substantial commercial development, singular access on Central rather than a bunch of cut-up strip commercial developments. And the proposed zoning in the areas identified do not accomplish that. I ' ll pass that down. As I say, staff has already been provided with that. Sensitive slope in the environmental areas will be adequately protected consistent with the City of Kent's existing water quality ordinance, hazard area ordinances, as well as the general review that will be provided by SEPA. The property is surrounded by high density multifamily . . . multifamily that you have already considered in recommending Parcel 9 for continued high density on both sides. This property is appropriate for a planned and considered development in the future 38 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 as a gateway. . .northern gateway to the city and should not be cut up at this point. We think it is appropriate that it be retained in its current zone. This Commission has responded well to the Council 's charge with respect to studying density reduction. Here, where densities are most appropriate to be at the higher level . . . in order. . .where the infrastructure is provided, is where it should be located. We respectfully request on behalf of the Carpinito family that no action be taken with regard to these properties. Be glad to answer questions. Commissioner Stoner: I didn't understand which parcel they had purchased. Are you talking about 9A. Steve DiJulio: Yes. The graphic that has been distributed shows 9A. There is actually a piece of property between 9A and the extension of Option Area 3 that is not subject to the Planning Commission's considerations. This strip for some reason was not included in the recommendation, so you actually have an area of CM that actually comes into and is not covered by the Planning. . .You have a CM island jutting in between whatever action would be taken. So all of this area, 9A, 8, and Option Area 3, is owned by the Carpinito family, as well as the extensions. . .Central as well as the additional area to the north. Commissioner Faust: I 've been waiting for this to come back to me. On the east side of 88th, would the section of parcel 03 retain . in other words you want the piece of 03 that is on the east side + of 88th to remain CM. Steve DiJulio: The current expectations are for that to be developed in some type of commercial or office use. Now it is not likely that any of that property will develop to CM densities. It just doesn't fit with the commercial and retail direction that that property will be taking. That property is directed more to servicing the multifamily areas around it now and not industrial uses. It is a perfect site to service that multifamily residential area with services. So at this point we just recommend not fooling with it, including that area, that spur area of CM that juts out from Option Area 3 . The option areas to be considered as we understood the report based upon factors considered in the other parts of the city. Having addressed the other parts of the city as you have, we see little need to address this area. Chair Martinez: Any other questions. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to discuss MF8 . . . or MF9A . . . MF12 . Okay. Option Area 1. Yes sir. Don McDaniel: I am one of the repeats, as you know, and I just did something to this thing. Anyway, I just wanted to clarify one 39 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 thing. It was mentioned that immediately Option Area 1 across the other side of Willis Street that this was all residential area. That is not technically true. If you go up Railroad Street from Willis, you find out that there are some commercial operations there. And the reason I noticed it, is because when I drive by there there are so many vehicles there in front of those establishments that you can't hardly drive down the road. So that area is swiftly transitioning into commercial area as well, which means that Option Area 1, basically, is surrounded on three sides by commercial and the other side by the railroad tracks. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Question. Anyone else wishing to discuss Option Area 1 . . . Option Area 2 . . . yes sir. Don Bazemore: Good evening. My name is Don Bazemore. I 'm with DB Associates, Architects. Our address is 401 Second Avenue South in Seattle. To assist you in reaching your 20 percent reduction, or, hopefully perhaps, leaving 80 percent in place, we suggest that this parcel is suitable for probably even higher density than the MRG that you have assigned it. We did not resist being rezoned from industrial, provided that we get a density count that gives us a land value that is comparable. We need to be able to back up our units to the freeway and control the noise by sort of turning our back on it. We need also to do some noise things up against the railroad tracks. Our views are to the east and to the south, and we'd like to open that up so that we can see that way. We'd like to provide an intense landscaping between ourselves and our single or duplex neighbors to the south. We'd like to enter and exit the property off of the arterial Fourth, and would certainly presume if we had enough density to pay for it, that we could provide some traffic controls at that entry and exit. So we would not impact our neighbor to the south in any way other than to show them a lot of greenery and some buildings above the tree tops. I 'd like to suggest that low density does not necessarily provide a buffer unless it is beautifully designed and the landscaping is well done. Low density can look just as ugly as any high density. It just depends on how well you do it. And the more units that we have, obviously, the more money we have to do it with. So, we would like. . .when your arithmetic comes down and you find out how many units you need to put back, that you put them all back on our property. Chair Martinez: Please, is there anyone else wishing to speak to Option Area 2. There is nothing else to be said. Option Area 3 . Voice: That has already been addressed. Chair Martinez: Okay, fine. Option Area 4 . Yes sir. 40 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Carl Bloss: My name is Carl Bloss. I am representing Gerry Schneider. We have an eight-acre site in 04. I guess you can see it there, it's about eight acres. It is bordered on the north by 238th and on the south by James Street. We had proposed an apartment. . .or a rezone there in March of 1988, and it was rejected pending the outcome of this study you are doing now and the rezoning. We don't object to the rezone that was proposed, but since it was opened up again, we'd like the more dense MRM. I 'd like to make the same request that the previous gentlemen made. We'd certainly like to see it increase. Thank you very much. Chair Martinez: Any questions. Thank you. Now I have three people . . . two other people that were signed up to speak. Barry Anderson and Associates and Arnie Reischl. I think we've gone too long. Is there anyone else wishing to speak. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Faust: So moved. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: Second. Chair Martinez: Discussion. All in favor. Voices• Aye. Chair Martinez: Okay. MF2 . Commissioner Faust: When we looked at this last time, part of the reasons we (unclear) . . . was that we wondered whether perhaps this could be split and I 'd like to raise that again. Would possibly a split (unclear) actually, not all together along Fifth, Voice: Talking about (unclear) . Commissioner Faust: And retained and leave that little section at a higher density than the rest of it. In fact, perhaps leave the rest of it as MRD per the Planning Department's suggestion. Perhaps even single family, but split that little bit off and leave it at a higher density. Voice: Talking of MRM. Chair Martinez: So leave it at MRM. Commissioner Faust: Yeah. Chair Martinez: I think that sounds very practical. 41 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Commissioner Faust: It sort of acknowledges the reality of the situation. Chair Martinez: Right. Right. Commissioner Stoner: Can I ask a question of staff. When Mr. Leiper expressed the concern that if we changed the zoning on that parcel, the older multifamily would not be able to be upgraded because they would be nonconforming uses. Janet Shull: They would be able to be upgraded, but I think he was making the suggestion that maybe they wouldn't be upgraded. The only time they would lose. . .now if you rezone it to duplex, they are not nonconforming uses because the density issue. . .you can't be nonconforming by virtue of density, but if you were to make a rezone recommendation to single family, then you would be creating nonconforming uses. So they can maintain their buildings and upgrade their buildings, but if you went to single family, it would put substantial additions to the buildings, or if they burned down, or were destroyed more than 50 percent, you could not rebuild. Commissioner Stoner: But that. . . Janet Shull: But if you go with the. . . Commissioner Stoner: Modify with MRD. . . Janet Shull: Right, right. Commissioner Stoner: I would add that they are going to rehab program has put a certain amount of money into this area as well as H&CD block grant money. I would support Tracy's suggestion, too. Commissioner Greenstreet: I would support Tracy's suggestion, too. Chair Martinez: I would, too. Commissioner Ward: Would a portion then remain in MRM. Voices• Yes. Commissioner Ward: And then the balance would be MRD. Voices• Yes. Commissioner Ward: Yes, I 'd go along with that. 42 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: (Unclear) . Chair Martinez: But the dimensions that we are discussing are from . . 0 bounded by Crow Street, Fifth Avenue, I don't know what this street is down here. Commissioner Stoner: It's the area south from the tot lot south along Fifth. Chair Martinez: And west of Fifth Avenue. Commissioner Stoner: Right. Chair Martinez: And that will remain at MRM, with the remainder of MF2 at MRD. Voices: Right. Chair Martinez: Okay. MFS. . . Commissioner Ward: It seems to be ideally suited for the R1.5. Chair Martinez: Except for the fact that you can't play it there. Commissioner Ward: Except for the (unclear) with the exception being noted that the two lot thing. . . Chair Martinez: What about MRD. Commissioner Stoner: That was going to be my suggestion. I think that's a viable option for that area. Chair Martinez: And that would still act as a transition area. Voices: Sure. . .umhmm. . .sounds good. Chair Martinez: MRD. Voices: Good. Chair Martinez: Okay. Eight. Commissioner Faust: I would suggest that we look at 8, 9A and 03 together and that we do it much later. Chair Martinez: At another. . .this may be one we want to take a look at what has been proposed. I would like to do that, too. I would like to see what is being proposed, because I. . .the pictures we saw tonight. . .commercial is not my favorite zone. 43 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: I agree. Chair Martinez: We have not seen a decent. . . Voices: Unclear. Commissioner Greenstreet: I see this steep slope, water. . .you know, I see a planned unit development like high density, green belt, you know, something like that. That's a good place to put it. I don't know if it is (unclear) or possible. Commissioner Faust: As much as I would really love to finish this up, I really feel we ought to remove 8, 9A and 03 from deliberations for now and perhaps take it up next week. Voices• (Unclear) . Chair Martinez: I think that's a good idea. Commissioner Greenstreet: What PUDs do we have proposed. . .what do we have on record. Commissioner Stoner: I guess I would like to see a better look at the zoning from Central east, probably from approximately where 167 crosses Central, jogs there, probably south to Jonathan's Landing so that we know what is there and what that whole area looks like a little bit more clearly. Commissioner Greenstreet: On the drawing that is shown there, it shows. . . it seems to be in a direction that I am thinking that would fit the community in that area. It could be expanded. It shows 9A basically as green anyway. . . (unclear) . . . Chair Martinez: If we are going to remove it, let's move on. Commissioner Faust: Oh, also, I 'd like another video tape of the entire area from Central up to the hillside and south from where 167 crosses over Central down to at least Jonathan's Landing, perhaps even farther south. Janet Shull: Okay, so. . . Commissioner Ward: Employ a slower driver this time. Janet Shull: Okay. I think I got my question answered. I just wanted to make sure that you wanted a new video. You don't want to look at the video now. 44 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Commissioner Faust: Brand new one. Chair Martinez: All right. MF12. Commissioner Greenstreet: Last time we planned on (unclear) park. Voices: (Unclear) . Commissioner Stoner: MF12 fits adjacent to the freeway but it is separated from it and from the office zoning by quite a change in topography, and I think there are no other even high density residential. . .single family residential uses on that hillside. It is RA and low density uses, large lot. . .I don't really think that MRG is appropriate there, and I 'd go back to single family. Commissioner Faust: Or at the most MRD. Commissioner Ward: How large is that area. Voices: (Unclear) . . .not very big. Chair Martinez: We certainly could take it back to single. . .am I not correct, above it is single. Commissioner Ward: Large lots. Should go multi. . . it really should go multi. The only place it is going to go with an office across the street. I 'm not going to stay there. Commissioner Stoner: But the office across the street. . .but there is no access on 208th from that office complex, and there is probably a 20 or 30-foot drop between 208th and where that office is going to go. . .at a minimum. Commissioner Faust: And that's a big street. Commissioner Stoner: And I don't think it is going to have that kind of impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Faust: I just think it is inappropriate for where it is to have it at. . .even at MRG. I don't think it is appropriate. Even if that RA designation changes in the future, it is probably only going to change to single family at a lower. . . smaller lot line (unclear) . . . Commissioner Stoner: There is a certain amount of new single family R7200 at the top of that hill in the area of 100th. . .up in there, but that whole hillside is large lots and single family with lots of fields and open space, and I just don't see the multifamily development. 45 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Chair Martinez: What about the duplex, which is multifamily zoning. Commissioner Stoner: That is absolutely the top. I just don't see. . . Commissioner Faust: Let's ask staff. How many places are we talking about, staff. We're talking about 12. If we zone that MRD, how many units are they talking about on that parcel. . . 1.24 acres. . . Voices• (Unclear) . Commissioner Greenstreet: Executive duplex. Go to work across the street. Commissioner Stoner: I don't see a duplex zone proposed for that site. Voices• (Unclear) . Commissioner Stoner: I 'm sitting here looking at my chart and it doesn't have it on my chart. Chair Martinez: It seems to me that to make this so that it may be (unclear) someday, you know, used at all, that the duplex would be a rational thing to do. Voices: (Unclear) . Commissioner Stoner: That's 12 units on one and one quarter acres where everybody else there has probably R9600 or larger in that area in one house. It's not consistent with what 's there. Commissioner Greenstreet: There isn't any other duplex there . . . (unclear) . . . Voices: (Unclear) . Commissioner Ward: No, I 'm a slum landlord. . . (unclear) . . .that's the last strip along where the . . . city limits, and across the street is county. Voice: . . .the county zoned. . . Commissioner Ward: Some of everything. . .everything in the county. But I foresee, especially with the office across the road, that' s the way it should go. That should be the transition area. It' s 46 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 good, view property, sits on the face of the hill. . .that's the direction that it's going to go. It will go to some higher type of density, and that it is getting down to the Valley Floor what we are talking. . . (unclear) . . . increasing the density here. Commissioner Stoner: The only view that I think you have from that. . . you probably have from that property is either 167 or Boeing Surplus, and maybe the hillside. Commissioner Ward: I beg to differ with you. From my kitchen window I can see all the way to West Seattle when the trees are cut down. Voice: And the bulldozers have gone. . . Commissioner Ward: Just cut down the trees. Chair Martinez: Do we have any consensus. If not, we should probably have a show of hands here. . . if it comes to that. Commissioner Ward: What are you proposing, then. Commissioner Stoner: I 'm still proposing single family. . . 172 . Voice• Great. Commissioner Greenstreet: . . . (unclear) . . .that's fine. Commissioner Biteman: I ' ll go along with the duplex. Commissioner Ward: I 'll go along with the duplex, too, or Garden Density. Chair Martinez: Okay. Single family. . .one, two three, four. and One, two three. Okay. That's the first one that's gone like that. Okay, so we are talking R1-7.2 . Okay, Option Area 1. Okay. Option Area 1. . . Voice: The people with the railroad. Voice: And the asphalt plant. Voice: And the mess outside the borders. Voice: Gruesome. Voice: Unclear. Commissioner Ward: I think so, too. I 'll go along with that. 47 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Chair Martinez: But commercial. . .what is it getting us. It is getting us a mess. Commissioner Stoner: Because people are waiting. Chair Martinez: You think that. . . Voices• (Unclear) . Chair Martinez: It's been commercial at least 20 years. What are they waiting for. . .the mud to get so deep. . . it's awful. Voice: How much land is involved. Commissioner Stoner: 4 .25 acres. Chair Martinez: But it is surrounded by mud, too. Commissioner Ward: It is surrounded by commercial and GC. Chair Martinez: This one doesn't look too bad, but. . .commercial. . . it seems to me that zoning it to commercial just throws up our hands and. . . Voice• (Unclear) . Chair Martinez: But so are the apartments. . .Applewood. It is a long. . .and they are not trashing. Commissioner Ward: They just haven't developed it yet. Voice: What's wrong with the duplexes. Commissioner Ward: Go from CM to duplex. Commissioner Stoner: I would suggest we defer this one. There isn't an obvious solution to this problem, and I think we probably need to go look at it and decide. Chair Martinez: Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Stoner: You're (unclear) is so wonderful I don't think you. . . Voices: (Unclear) . . .aerial view. Chair Martinez: Okay. Option Area 2 . They are not protesting it, but they would love to have it as a higher density. 48 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Commissioner Ward: They're right. I think it should be MRH. If you want to go from manufacturing, that's the place to put your high density. Commissioner Greenstreet: No, MRG. . . (unclear) . . . Chair Martinez: We've changed it to MRG, haven't we. Voice: No, no. Chair Martinez: No, that's one five. I 'm sorry. Commissioner Greenstreet: (Unclear) . A pheasant out there. . . Voices: (Unclear) . Chair Martinez: Is MRG. Voices: Yep. Yep. Chair Martinez: Is it a consensus. Voices: Yes. Chair Martinez: And 03 we have deferred. . . 04 which has been reopened. Commissioner Stoner: I would go with the staff recommendation on 04 . Voices: Yeah. (Unclear) . Commissioner Ward: What's that, MRM and GC. Commissioner Greenstreet: (Unclear) . . .expand GC because it. . . . (unclear) . . . Chair Martinez: And then we had testimony about the bottom portion. Commissioner Faust: So, in other words we are going to exempt a larger portion than we had originally intended to exempt and keep it as GC, and then we are going to recommend that the whole rest of it be MRG. Voices: Umhmm. . . fine by me. . . 49 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: One thing about that transitional housing. . (unclear) . . .when we approved that a few months, what are the guidelines of the size. . . (unclear) . . . so many residents. . . (unclear) . . . Chair Martinez: I can't remember the details and it's too late to answer that question, but we can get the answer to that question. You can bring the answer to that next time. . .exactly what are the guidelines for transitional housing in . . . (unclear) . . . Commissioner Greenstreet: (Unclear) . . .remember having it, but didn't know that. . . (unclear) . . .didn't know that was something they could do. . . Janet Shull: That was the original property they bought. There was a lot line adjustment done between the grocery store and the big, white house that was shown in the video, that used to be one property and they went through a lot line adjustment. So, now the big, white house is the same piece of property as the two houses adjacent to it. So it is an L-shaped piece. That is shown on the handout, the area that is shown, I believe, cross-hatched. It is sort of an L-shaped piece that is now one lot. And that is their original lot. . . Voice• (Unclear) . Janet Shull: No. Voice• (Unclear) . Chair Martinez: Okay. Commissioner Ward: What is what. . .GC for the grocery store, and MRM for the balance. . .or MRG. Chair Martinez: MRG for that. Voice• (Unclear) . Chair Martinez: This is what we have already approved. And then all of this. . .this cross-hatched area is what we are considering now, although we were asked to look at this other. Okay. Okay. We still have some things hanging fire. Did you have something you needed to tell us. Janet Shull: I was only going to suggest that maybe you go through your recommendations for the Valley Floor just to make sure that they are clear. 50 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Chair Martinez: In MF2 we have divided that again retaining the zoning in one and duplex in the other; In MF5, MRD; MF8 has been deferred; MF9A has been deferred; MF12 is 172 ; 01 has been deferred and we have asked for some more information; 02, MRG; 03 has been deferred; and 04 . . .go with staff recommendation of increasing the area. Janet Shull: Thank you. Chair Martinez: I would entertain a motion to adjourn, although we need to set a meeting date. . . Commissioner Stoner: We also need to. . . Voices: (Unclear) . Commissioner Stoner: We also need to amend the Subarea and Comprehensive Maps to bring them into conformance with Commission's approved zoning map designations for East Hill since those are all done, and I think we also need to talk about directing staff with a motion so that we can get the map on the designated single family overlay. I 'm reading from Lauri's memo on East Hill. Chair Martinez: November 13th. Commissioner Stoner: Yes. I would make that motion so we can have that one tidied up for the next. . . Chair Martinez: For the number 4 . . .say again what your motion is, please. Commissioner Stoner: All right. First of all I move that we adopt the decisions on the zoning map designations that we had not reached, and that's MRM on Area MF10, MRM on MF11, MF17 is MRG, MF18 is R172, MF19 is MRD, MF21 is MRD. The rest of the motion would be that we amend the Subarea and Comprehensive Plan Maps to bring them into conformance with our approved zoning map designations and then that we amend the already approved single family designated area overlay to bring it into conformance with our approved zoning map designations. Commissioner Greenstreet: Second it. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion. All in favor. Voices• Aye. Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) . 51 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Commissioner Ward: I thought we were going to wait according to Fred's recommendation for the next. . .27th meeting. Commissioner Stoner: No, that's when we can have findings and conclusions on East Hill. Commissioner Ward: But some you are concluding now. Isn't that what your motion is. Fred Satterstrom: I think the further you go towards adopting anything that is final, then it will tend to bind, or tie your hands, or at least get much more complicated next week. As we bring back the numbers to you, then you may wish to make some. . . you may wish to make some adjustments to it. So I would suggest that if you are not going to get through all of the sites tonight, and it doesn't look like you will, then you wait on all of those final actions until next week, including the motions dealing with the Comprehensive Plan and the single family designated area. We will not be able to bring back the findings and conclusions next week without taking final action tonight. So what that means then, is . . . Voice: (Unclear) . Fred Satterstrom: You can if you are confident you are not going to make any adjustments on East Hill. But, again, we'll be coming back to you only with. . . Voice: (Unclear) . Fred Satterstrom: Pardon. Voice: (Unclear) . Fred Satterstrom: I 'm not saying that it would. I think it tends to. . Chair Martinez: Are you suggesting that I ask Carol to withdraw her motion. Commissioner Stoner: He is suggesting that. Commissioner Ward: I 'm suggesting that she withdraw. Chair Martinez: And the second be withdrawn. Is that agreeable. . .all of you who voted. Commissioner Stoner: We haven't voted. 52 Kent Planning Commission Minutes November 20, 1989 Chair Martinez: Okay. Voice: We need to leave it open. Commissioner Stoner: I will leave it open. I really did want to tie it up. . . Chair Martinez: We need. . . instead of that I would like to have a date set for next week, November 27, at 7: 30. I would entertain a motion to adjourn to that date. Commissioner Stoner: Continue. Chair Martinez: To continue. I 'm sorry. Is there a second. Commissioner Ward: Continue to the 27th. Chair Martinez: Is there a second. Commissioner Ward: I did. Chair Martinez: All in favor. Voices• Aye. (End of Verbatim Minutes) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, C71 P. H rris, Secretary 53