Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 10/23/1989 (3) KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 23, 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7: 30 p.m. Monday, October 23 , 1989 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Tracy Faust Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Leona Orr Carol Stoner Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner Raymond Ward COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Anne Biteman, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Stephen Clifton, Planner Janet Shull, Planner Chris Holden, Secretary Commissioner Orr stated the minutes of September 25, 1989 should be corrected to show that her absence was excused. Commissioner Faust MOVED and Commissioner Forner SECONDED a motion to approve the September 25, 1989 minutes as corrected. Motion carried. (Verbatim Minutes) KENT VALLEY FLOOR HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION #CPZ-89-4 Chair Martinez reopened the public hearing. (Verbatim Minutes) Commissioner Orr: Madame Chair? Chair Martinez: Yes. Commissioner Orr: Just one note. In the. . .I assume we are still operating with the appearance of fairness 1 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Chair Martinez: That's correct. Commissioner Orr: And I want to enter into the record that I have held conversations with two persons; one of which is Jim Flick and the other is Pamela Newcomer and not in any way about what we planned to do or what our deliberations might be but just as a procedural information for them as to how to proceed through the process of appearing before the Commission and whatnot so I just wanted that to be on the record. Chair Martinez: Thank you. O.k. We have. . .can you all hear me, we're having some difficulty with the microphone. The first person that has signed up to speak tonight is Donald McDaniel. Yes, would you like to step. . .please always step to the microphones, state your name and address for the record. Don McDaniel: Yes, I'm Don McDaniel and I own the properties at 609 and 616 S. Bridges. I didn't know exactly what you're going to do tonight. I was at the last meeting and spoke. My primary concern was that our neighborhood letter of October 2 was entered into your packet. It was the signatures of about 80 percent of the property owners of the two blocks involved in. . . Chair Martinez: Excuse me, could you please tell us exactly which we are talking. . . Don McDaniel: In option review area. . . .option review area #1. Chair Martinez: One, thank you. Don McDaniel: And we have about three pages of signatures attached to a letter indicating our thoughts on your proposal for that area. Chair Martinez: Yes. Don McDaniel: So, if you have those. . . Chair Martinez: Yes sir, we do. Don McDaniel: Then you know. . .like I said about 80 percent of the property owners are opposed to your recommendation for that area. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you. O.k. , Dennis Holt. Dennis Holt: Thank you. My name is Denny Holt. My business address here in Kent is 505 S. Washington Avenue and I 'm here 2 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 tonight representing Mr. Robert and Patricia Lorentson who have Parcel ID #91977100081. Chair Martinez: In which area, please. Dennis Holt: And it's in the Planning area MF-2 . And the Lorentson's had asked me for some observation and monitoring assist relative to the efforts that you folks as Planning Commissioners have before you in the down zoning study with some of my prior background and credentials and previous involvements with the City of Auburn and their Planning Department as we go through the same kind of land use and zoning issues that. . . it led them. I'm sorry it led them to ask me to review what staff has done and I commend the staff and I've made that comment in earlier communications about how you have addressed what is not a simple task given the mandate of Council of 20 percent reduction. And in the review of the MF area 2 that specifically contains Lorentson's parcel which is on the southwest corner of the intersection of S. Fifth Avenue and Crow and being within a study area that by previous comment from others who are in the area and who's opinions I respect and I 'm relative to, I think some of their shock in the initial study deliberations and may be presuming they were in a single-family area and finding that they weren't and the area being proposed for the MRD downzoning to duplex which Lorentson's are not personally in favor of at first blush and in my review we are of the opinion that there's some long-term benefit to the City in general and general populous in retaining the Lorentson's parcel as identified with the MRM classification. The parcel as I think you observed it earlier in your field trips and I commend that effort on your parts to go out and take a look at these. . .what you called site specific areas and our pleading is that even beyond that you may be going to some analysis of subareas and I think from observation in your deliberations of last week that that's one of the things that making your decision task tough because things were. . .the rezone classifications that you have felt to be fairly straight forward you have made some decisions on and those which are more difficult, you're studying further and I commend that and would simply make the pleading that given the existence of new and what I referred to earlier as what seem to be tastefully done apartment complexes in the area of near proximity and just south of Lorentson's parcel. And given the railroad circumstance in the westerly boundary of that particular MF-2 zoning area, Fifth Avenue and the land use that seems to be showing itself in the full development of that particular area from Fifth all the way back up to the tracks in apartment complexes. Proximity to the downtown area, proximity to the future mass transit and potential rail corridors, our hope and desire is that that this area would be retained MRM. We respect the interest of others in the area where 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 the MRD and the duplex downzoning is certainly in the proposal as an option and may be falling in. . .with favor on some people who live in some of the older single-family areas or single-family residences that are there. We don't choose to judge on how you might elect to approach that balance of the area to the east but we would like to be of record in encouraging that the zone between Fifth and the railroad, Lorentson's parcel in particular, remain MRM. Chair Martinez: Are there any questions? Commissioner Forner: Was there any mention on how the traffic might be handled in that area if it was left MRM? Dennis Holt: The. .there's. . .there's a deadend on a part of Fifth just off of Willis but I have. . .I have not specifically addressed that other than. . .than to have a vision that off Willis which was recently improved there's a. . .there's a pretty elaborate and tasteful median area there in the long-term planning I 've. . . I 've rather conjectured that may turn out to be a Metro collector stop or things of that nature. The overall character of the street improvements in that particular zone I think will lead to probably developer improvements or LID improvements as the area is. . . is upgraded and evolves through highest and best land uses in time but, no. . .I have not specifically addressed any particular traffic except to say that it's quite well defined in there. The right of ways, I 'm not sure, Mr. Harris, if those are. . .I think they're City standards and sixty-foot rights of way as I recall. But there's a portion of Crow Street which is immediately adjacent to the Lorentson parcel which is apparently been vacated for the park purpose but the roadway seems to be of traditional rights of way existing and their ultimate improvements I 'm not. . .I 'm not sure about timing of the street construction plans for those. Chair Martinez: Other questions? Thank you. Connie Epperly? Connie Epperly: Councilmembers. My name is Connie Epperly. I'm a homeowner at 639 S. Fifth Avenue; the area known as MF2 . I 'm in support of the proposed downzoning from multi-dwelling to duplex. After the September meeting which I attended, I decided to talk to my neighbors and get their reaction to the proposal. I wasn't surprised. The support was overwhelming. I collected signatures which I turned over to the Planning Committee and you have in your packets. All in favor of proposed downzoning. I promised them I would be here tonight to speak not only for myself but for them also. We want to preserve the neighborhood that we've all worked so hard to create. This area is made up of mostly older homes, homes that are a part of Kent's history. Some already registered 4 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 with the Historical Society and others are of great interest to the Society. Kent needs to preserve some of it's history. When you take 50, 80, 100-year-old homes and surround them with modern two- story townhouses, you take history and make it look out of place. Just on Fifth Avenue alone we now have 90 units in a one-block area with a proposal to 76 more future units. The units we already have all have either vacancy or for rent signs n them. We've taken quiet, tree-lined streets and made race-tracks out of them. Streets where a senior citizen thinks twice about taking a walk. Where parents think twice about letting their children ride bicycles. Where are these children going to play that come and live in these apartments. In the street? In the parking lots? We have a mini-park down at the end of the street, but it's Crow Street and if the development keeps going like it is, that will be Crow Street and we won't have a park. Our schools are overburdened with children and the traffic on our streets are ridiculous. The developers and the real estate consultants don't live in our area. They come in, create the problems, pocket their money and leave and we don't want what they leave behind. They say that a duplex zone is a failure. Well a lot of our older homes are duplexes and with them the neighborhood is preserved. As far as our desperate need for housing. There are vacancies in most of our complexes and you can't open a newspaper without seeing the enticing ads begging people to move into their apartments with low rents, groceries, free cable. We believe that apartments should be built at a need, not greed. We've found in our area that our City government does not have the manpower to enforce our City codes and ordinances. So, in turn, they aren't being followed, they are being overlooked and the developers are slipping right by. If this is so-called progress, then we, as a neighborhood, vote to stay behind the times. Again, I stress that myself and the 40 neighbors with signatures that I have given you, support your proposal to downzone this area MF2 and we thank you for your concern and support in preserving our neighborhood. Thank you. Any questions? Chair Martinez: Yeah, I do. I know that a lot of the housing stock in that area right now is single-family. Do you have anything to share with this group regarding the addition of mother- in-law cottages on some of those single-family properties. Connie Epperly: Fine. We have no problem with single-family duplex type housing. But, these apartments that they are putting in are just massive and the kids are massive and the traffic is massive. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Other questions? Thank you. 5 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Connie Enperly: Thank you. Chair Martinez: Tom Condit? Tom Condit: My name is Tom Condit. I live at 610 Railroad Avenue. In the area called 0-1 and basically I just. . .we sent around for a petition I guess you have all the signatures and things in there. I don't know what else more I can say except for the fact that I have been planning for a long time to turn my property into commercial and to use in a commercial aspect and this has taken a lot of my planning and years of. . .just changing everything around. I 'm just saying I 'd just like to see stay commercial. Commissioner Forner: I 'm sorry I didn't get the area you were talking about. Tom Condit: Area 0-1. Commissioner Forner: 0-1, oh, o.k. Chair Martinez: And your name is on the petition, is that correct. Tom Condit: Yes, it is. Chair Martinez: Are there other questions? Thank you. Pamela Newcomer. Pamela Newcomer: Pamela Newcomer. I own property at 839 Third Avenue N. Excuse me. It's multifamily 6 and there's also a piece of property up to the north called Option 2 . And I was at the last meeting, I expressed some concerns and you gave us the time to turn in written testimony and I took it up with my neighbors and I also filed an informal petition with about 75 signatures. I was only able in the time limit, I'm a working mother, to get about 55 percent of the neighborhood. Excuse me. The general consensus from the people that were interviewed was that #1, nobody realized that they were zoned duplex. These are people that have lived there 20-30-40-50-60 years. The other consensus was there was probably five people in 75 that wanted it zoned duplex. A good estimate and I didn't really get into figures on this. I 'd say probably 40 to 45 percent of that neighborhood is elderly people that have been there on an average of 20 years. There's one small section of the neighborhood that that has some, I guess you would call it low-income rentals. There's a lot of unhappy people on Second Avenue but, for the most part, we have stable people that would like it, I guess you call it downzone to single-family; to take that into consideration in your planning. They are already very concerned about the traffic as it is now. I also know there's 6 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 16 duplexes sited for the northend of the road and people are real concerned about what. . .what traffic problems that's going to bring. I might add. . .several of the people that signed the petition are duplex owners. They do not want to see anymore in there. And the other thing, I probably got a little short in a personal letter that I wrote to the Council, I was in a hurry and I was probably pretty angry when I wrote it. I read the entire study pamphlet. And I noticed over and over again it talked about quality of life. And, I don't see that happening to the valley. I see. . .the only instance I see to the valley people that it's low-income. We need affordable housing and we can look into Renton, we can look upon the hill in Renton which is a City of duplexes and people don't want to live there. It's very transit and what I 'm getting is all the zoning for the downtown area is for apartments and duplexes and I just. . .I don't feel that it's going to bring a very real quality of life for the people that are there. I think it needs to be a good mixture. There's a lot of apartments now, there's a lot of duplexes. Quite a few duplexes in my neighborhood. And, it's fine for what it is. But, if every land that become available is put to duplex it won't be good family place anymore. Some of the people that are, including myself---I 've been there three years, I opted to live there. I lived five years on east hill. Everybody in the world does not want to live on east hill. I lived in between Smith and James, halfway up the hill and I got tired of waiting and extra hour to get up the hill to get home. I chose to live in the valley in that particular area because it was kind of like being rural. Just. . .I spent a lot of my time growing up as a kid up in Lester up in the mountains and that's what that reminds me of living right next to the tracks. There's younger people moving into rental homes, into homes they've bought and they are moving there because of the quality that's there and no one is aware that it' s zoned duplex and, like I said, the majority would like it zoned. . .downzoned to single-family. Chair Martinez: Can I ask a question? Did you, when you were talking to your neighbors, did you talk about the size of the lot. How. . .how large you would like to have it. We have been talking about R1-5, 000; R1-7.2, etc. Did you talk to your neighbors at all about that? Pamela Newcomer: I ' ll put it this way. I did to the ones that could understand. Chair Martinez: O.k. Pamela Newcomer: A lot of elderly, they just don't understand. Chair Martinez: And what was the reaction to that? 7 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Pamela Newcomer: They didn't care. You know there's one in particular that on's a postage stamp. It's the little, tiniest property that I 've ever seen but it has one of these prefabed homes. It's real cute. They keep it up immaculately. And, that was another thing, all the homes in my neighborhood are immaculately kept up except mine. You know. . . .the smallest of the lot, I guess I would say wouldn't matter. And I don't. . .some of the people didn't understand the zoning anyhow because. . .I ' ll take for instance. . .I learned a lot by talking to these people. Straight across the street from me there's a lot that's more than 50 foot wide maybe 70; next door to that there's a duplex, two very nice people. It's 50 foot wide. Now, the house. . .the people that used to own the 70-foot wide property wanted to put a duplex there but they were told they couldn't even though it was zoned duplex. Where, next door, it went in on a postage stamp. You know, I don't understand the zoning laws. Chair Martinez: O.k. Questions? Commissioner Faust: I 'll ask you the same thing that I asked the lady who represented the neighborhood down south of Willis. How do you feel about putting mother-in-law cottages on those properties? Say as opposed to duplex or as an alternative or whatever. Pamela Newcomer: There are some presently. I think it would probably cause just about as much traffic and that and maybe a mother-in-law apartment can only have one person in it, maybe two. But if you start crowding three and four people into it, cause they want to get low rent cause it's going to be a real small apartment. There's one of those in particular, the neighbor was ranting and raving about a whole family being put in a little, tiny bachelor apartment. We don't. . . .just don't want that kind of stuff. You know, I don't think the shop owners want to get (unclear) of the downtown area either. You know, we talked about the. . .planning book of making nice shopping so people would be attracted to it. And, if there's nothing but low-income on our valley, where are they going to go? They are going to go up to that nice pretty white one up on the top of east hill. Chair Martinez: Are there other questions? Commissioner Ward: What size is the lot that you personally live on? Pamela Newcomer: That I live on? 50 by 30. 8 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Chair Martinez: Other questions? Commissioner Forner: Do you feel that the apartment. . .that the duplexes that are there now are. . .are detrimental to the quality of life? Pamela Newcomer: There are. . .there's one that is. They took out the front yard and made it a parking lot. The children were just taken away because the father tried to poison the kid and the other one went. . .the two kids went to foster care. There's two people that live across the street from me that are wonderful people. They've both lived in their duplex for ten years. They are solid people. You know, you can't say whose going to move in but. . .the other thing that I would want to say is that the type of duplexes that are going to be attracted here because it's in the Polk directly. . . it's called zero income level. We're going to get cracker box duplexes that go up to five feet of the property. We aren't going to get quality townhouse type duplexes. Chair Martinez: Are there other questions. Thank you very much. Pamela Newcomer: Thank you very much for listening. Chair Martinez: Steve DiJulio, did you want to speak? O.k. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who did not sign up who wishes to speak? I would. . .oh, yes. Yes, sir. Would you speak to the microphone and identify yourself please? Hugh Leiber: Good evening. My name is Hugh Leiber. I have an office of 1819 S. Central. I live in the City of Kent. I live on James Street. I want to speak just very briefly, if I can. How many of you have read the Pierce Report. It has a lot of interesting things in it. One of the main things that one really has to face with, we have the growth here. You've got find the ways and means of cooperating with that growth because we truly have true growth here. It is not a loose growth, it is a true growth and this City has the opportunity to become a great city it you will allow it. And we no longer can stand by and see just drabness go by and by. One of the interesting things that I think we also must be aware of and that is that we cannot continue to be driven by fear. The fear of being overbuilt because we don't know what we are doing. And we need to, at this point, begin to do some real, real planning and not, as a matter of fact in the Pierce Report the essence of that was stop your silly downzoning and really get on with the true business of planning because your growth is here you can not ignore it and let's all get together and make this a nice great City because it has the opportunity to be so. Thank you. 9 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Chair Martinez: Questions. O.k. Thank you. Yes, you wish to speak? Don Bazemore: As a suggestion as how to support. Chair Martinez: Would you please identify yourself. Don Bazemore: I 'm sorry. My name is Don Bazemore. I 'm at 401 Second Avenue S. in Seattle. B-A-Z-E-M-O-R-E. Oh, I 'm sorry. I wanted to support Ms. Newcomer and volunteer because I represent the property immediately north of here. The triangle which you had originally scheduled for MRG which is 16 units. We respectfully request that you give us a higher density than that. I think your three categories of 40 units, 23 units and 16 units, either one of the two higher than 16 would help us considerably. Chair Martinez: Now, are you talking. . .you are still now in MF2, are you? Don Bazemore: I 'm on parcel #2 in the valley study which is the triangle part with the railroad on the east, freeway on the north and Ms. Newcomer's neighborhood which is duplex is immediately south of us. Our program suggests that we, in fact, shows that we would enter off of Fourth. We discussed this with Ms. Newcomer at the last meeting and assured her that we had no intention of using any of the streets in that single-family neighborhood to access our property. But, to go over onto the arterial at Fourth because our triangle allows us to do that. The numbers are 138, if you leave us at MR-16 units; or 199 if you take us to 23 units or something seriously in excess of that if you go to the higher one. We can take the unit lost in the duplex and move them north very happily. If they go to single-family and we go to 23, we would be delighted, they would be delighted and that would give us about 60 more units on the property which would certainly more than compensate for the berming and the screening on our south border. We would physically separate ourselves from the single-family neighborhood completely. We also need to spend a lot of money to separate ourselves from the railroad track and the freeway. So, if you could entertain that motion to give us up to 23 or to even higher, we would seriously appreciate it and it would help us to do an even better job in being a neighbor to the single-family neighborhood. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Are there any questions? Jim Harris: Just one comment for the Commission. Did you all find that option area 2 . O.k. 10 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23 , 1989 Chair Martinez: Yes, thank you. Fred Satterstrom: Also, Linda there are a number of people standing, so I thought I 'd do is open this divider here so they can set in the first row. Chair Martinez: O.k. That sounds like a courteous idea. O.k. While they are doing that I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing and then I would like to take a break so we can read all of the material that we have received tonight because we have not seen it either. Commissioner Stoner: I 'd move to close the public hearing. Chair Martinez: If there's a second. Commissioner Ward: Second. Chair Martinez: All in favor. Voices: Aye. Chair Martinez: Opposed: Silence. Chair Martinez: I 'm sorry. We've closed the public hearing. Several people talked at this point--nothing clear on tape. Chair Martinez: I would entertain a motion to reopen the hearing. I believe there are a couple of people that did not speak. Commissioner Stoner: So move. Chair Martinez: Is there second. Commissioner Ward: Second. Chair Martinez: All in favor? Voices: Aye Chair Martinez: Would the people who stuck their hand up please. . .one of you step to the microphone, please and identify yourself. Vern Gibson: My name is Vernon Gibson. I reside in MRM area. 11 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Chair Martinez: Which one specifically. Vern Gibson: Right downtown Kent. Chair Martinez: Is that MF. . .do you know which one it is? Vern Gibson: It's 701 Fifth Avenue S. Just just spoke of a few minutes ago. . .MF2 property. Chair Martinez: MF2? Vern Gibson: 2 property, yes. Chair Martinez: Fine. Thank you. Commissioner Greenstreet: Two or six. Chair Martinez: Could be two. Jim Harris: Two. Vern Gibson: Would be in two, yes. Anyway, I do live in the area. I do own the apartment complex which (unclear) talked about, Applewood Lane. We took great pride in putting that complex in the area down there and the reason we put it in down there because we knew that the area could stand this type of a growth. The complex are very elite for executive type of individuals if you will. It's not downgraded by any way. We have complexes that are three and two bedroom. The children in the area, at the moment, play down the street which we just vacated. We have it for families. We designed it for families and I feel that we have to have something like this in the downtown area in order to handle the growth which is coming forth here in the Kent area. I usually do not get up and speak like this but because of the large zoning that is going on, the downtown area needs something, I believe, to do this. We are proposing to build some other complex units in the same area which is in front of the Planning Commission at the moment. And, we do regret there are some ill feelings that is going on because of the proposal that is being planned in that area. I also own six units in the area, across the street from the present location where we live now. It's the Downtowner Phase II. And, I 've had families in there for over six years. And, I live there in that area and I 'm proud of living in that area. I'm an executive myself and I don't think the area has been downgraded at all. I think it has been upgraded and we hope to continue to do so. Thank you for your time. 12 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Chair Martinez: Are there any questions? Commissioner Ward: Yes. You want, what are proposing. Are you proposing that the multi be increased. Vern Gibson: Leave it like it is. Commissioner Ward: Leave it like it is. MRM? Vern Gibson: MRM, yes. Chair Martinez: Other questions? O.k. Thank you. Vern Gibson: Thank you. Chair Martinez: I saw another. Yes, yes, ma'am? Connie Epperly: I spoke earlier. I just had. . . Chair Martinez: Please identify yourself for the record. Connie Epperly: O.k. My name is Connie Epperly. I live at 639 S. Fifth Avenue. I would like to make a comment on Bob Lorentson who has property down there, who has a representative here speaking for him tonight. Four years ago, Bob Lorentson had a fourplex, a duplex and a house down there. After a long time of dealing with him, he fixed up his house. After much more time, we had to condemn the fourplex that were rat infested. There was an old couple still living there and the floors were caving in. The lights didn't work. There was no water and he left them that way. We, as a neighborhood, had to get together and work with the City to get rid of them because he's up in Snohomish County and he could care less. This is the man that wants to build more apartments in the area or wants to keep it a multi-dwelling area. Another thing, I heard a lot of developers recently comment on the unstable ground that we have in the valley. Since the recent earthquake in San Francisco, this is farmland, it's good rich dirt farmland and we are at sea level and all of this building---I 'm not sure what the codes and restrictions are and stuff, but according to what I have heard from developers it's an unstable ground to be building such a high density of modern apartments on. That's all I had to say. Chair Martinez: Are there any questions? Commissioner Ward: Yeah, do you live on a piece of ground. Connie Epperly: Um hum. 13 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Commissioner Ward: Is it single-family? Connie Epperly: Yes. Commissioner Ward: It's not farmland. Connie Epperly: Well, at one point is was a farm. It's a 100 year old home, it was one of the original homes down there. Right now, we are on a 7, 000 foot lot. Chair Martinez: Any other questions? Thank you, very much. Last call, are there any other people in the audience that would like to enter anything into the record? Yes, ma'am. Gail Williams: I debated whether to or not. My name is Gail Williams and it's about MFil. Chair Martinez: And your address, please. Gail Williams: 21817 93rd Avenue S. And, I just wanted to make sure. . .I sent some correspondence and I wanted to make sure that you had an opportunity to review that and that you realized that when the spokesman for the owners that he misrepresented that as being one of five parts where actually four parts are single- family houses already on it. I just wanted to make sure that you understood that. Chair Martinez: O.k. Commissioner Ward: You're talking about the MF2? Gail Williams: MF11. Chair Martinez: Yes, question? Commissioner Forner: You mean there's houses on the four lots that are identified in there. Gail Williams: Um hum. Commissioner Forner: O.k. Gail Williams: They're custom homes, single-family residences and I understand you came out and viewed the property and that you saw those four houses. But in the way it was written, it was written up that he wanted to withdraw. . .or he spoke, he wanted to withdraw one portion of five parts and he only has one part in the first 14 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 part. He doesn't have anything. . .ownership in the those other four parts. Does that make since. Chair Martinez: Yes. Gail Williams: I just thought maybe I wanted to clarify that. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Any other questions: Thank you. Gail Williams: Thank you. Gwen Thompson: Gwen Thompson. I live at 535 S. Bridges and I also own property at 539 S. Bridges. I just wanted to the. . .petition that was turned in. Chair Martinez: Which piece. Gwen Thompson: On the area 1. Chair Martinez: Option? Gwen Thompson: It is commercial now and there's a petition there from 80 percent of the homeowners saying that they wish to keep it commercial. Chair Martinez: Yes, yes. Gwen Thompson: I would just like to say that I didn't get my name on the petition and I would like you to be aware that I would like it to be on there. Chair Martinez: O.k. Anyone else? I would entertain a motion to really close this hearing. Commissioner Forner: So moved. Chair Martinez: Is it? Commissioner Stoner: Second. Chair Martinez: All in favor? Voices: Aye. Chair Martinez: Opposed? Silence. 15 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Chair Martinez: We will close the hearing and will take a break for. . .what, fifteen minutes. For at least 15 minutes while the Commission has an opportunity to read what has been submitted in the last week and then we will come back for our formal deliberations to decide what we really want to do. O.k. Pardon? Voice: Unclear Chair Martinez: It may very well be. And, and we will probably go to about 10:00 and if no decision has been reached by 10:00 normally we might. .we adjourn to another time and date. O.k. So. I would like to call the meeting back to order, please. Has everyone now had time to look through the packet of our materials and at least take a short. . .short gander at them all. Yes, it's your own fault, whatever you've missed, it's your own fault. Last week we, in regards to the East Hill, we developed an interesting approach and that was, I thought it was interesting, and that was someone proposed a. . .that we look at one of the options and then go through and develop in workshop a consensus about the one's that we agreed with, go back into the formal process, approve those and then move to the one's that we could not reach consensus and I would entertain a motion to begin that same kind of a process this evening. Yes. Commissioner Faust: Madam Chair, I move that we use the site specific reduction for the Valley Floor as the basis of the process that you've just described. Chair Martinez: Would you please add about the work going into the workshop? Commissioner Faust: And that we go into workshop session to do SO. Chair Martinez: Is there a second for that. Commissioner Forner: Second. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion. All in favor? Voices: Aye Chair Martinez: O.k. Now, I would ask the staff to lead us one by one through each one of the sites. Yes, yes ma'am. 16 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Commissioner Stoner Do you have figures on the what the effects of the land changes we made on East Hill mean. Where are we with that? Fred Satterstrom: Fred Satterstrom from the Planning Department. The figures for East Hill are not really complete at the present time because we deferred action on, I think, five or six of the 21 sites. So we didn't get together and make any preliminary numbers on those. We, the staff had some estimates based on the site- specific recommendations prior to your actions but you made some adjustments to that recommendation. You left some windows open on five or six sites so we haven't really sat down and done a numbers game yet. Chair Martinez: O.k. And, for the purposes of this discussion when we get back into session we do actually have four things that we need to consider and each. . .the site specific is the fourth step. So, we'll do that when we go back into session. O.k. Yes. 8: 38 p.m. Went into workshop. 9:58 p.m. Commissioner Stoner: I move that we continue this hearing until November 20 to complete our deliberations and, at that time, look at maps of both East Hill and Valley Floor showing those sites that we have taken action on at this point and those sites that are still to be considered. Commissioner Greenstreet: I 'll second. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion. Fine. All in favor? Voices• Aye Chair Martinez: Opposed. Silence. Chair Martinez: We have a number of other pieces of this puzzle for the valley floor and would you like to go through. Because this site-by-site is the last thing. Would you like to go through each one of these so that we are prepared to make our decisions on November 20. O.k. Please turn to page VF-93. And the proposed action is to amend the Valley Floor Subarea Plan text as outlined. What is the pleasure of the Commission? Chair Martinez: May I have a motion? 17 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Commissioner Stoner: I move that we adopt the one Valley Floor Subarea Plan Text amendment. Chair Martinez: Is there a second? Commissioner Forner: Second. Chair Martinez: Are there any discussions? All in favor? Voices: Aye Chair Martinez: Opposed? Silence. Chair Martinez: Carried. Number 2, last, we in fact indicated our willingness to have a. . . Oh, I 'm sorry, just a moment. Number 2, I was getting to R1-5. This is the single-family overlay that was . . . indicated our desire to maintain some of these areas as single-family areas. Commissioner Greenstreet: (Unclear) . . .that we have. . . . Chair Martinez: Yes, because it has been suggested by Commissioner Stoner that and (unclear) overlay. Commissioner Greenstreet: Correct, that would be then. . . Chair Martinez: We have input from staff. Please. Stephen Clifton: I would like to bring up the fact that MF11, if you do decide to rezone to 9.6 it would probably be in the best interest to also include that into the single-family designated area. As you can see on the map on. . . I think close to the last page. . .that area, actually it's on page VF-92, you will notice a little chunk there that is white up in the northeast single-family designated area. That white chunk is multifamily Area-il so if you do go to 9.6 it probably would be best to also include that in the single designated area overlay. Chair Martinez: And, in fact, the text indicates that it is (unclear) . Clifton: Right. So you will have to amend that and just continue the easterly boundary down along there and include that in the single-family overlay area. I just thought I would bring that up. Chair Martinez: Yeah, thank you. 18 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Commissioner Greenstreet: On the single-family (unclear) . Chair Martinez: O.k. Let's. . .would you like to defer this one. O.k. O.k. , fine. Can we deal with #3 . Last time, we did, in fact, indicate our willingness to have an R1-5 zoning district. Which we could (unclear) since we are going to be considering them both in tandem we could refer back to that decision if we choose. Commissioner Forner: I thought we adopted to include. . .to it be applicable to all (unclear) . . .all areas. Chair Martinez: We just made a zoning code recommendation, right? And since we don't have facts and findings we don't. . . But, we could just go along with that. O.k. So, we have. . . Commissioner Greenstreet: Now, does this R1-5 also (unclear) include in this R5 (unclear) . . .east hill (unclear) . Commissioner Forner: No, it was. . . Commissioner Greenstreet: It was City. . . .average. Chair Martinez: And it has those. . . Commissioner Forner: Those two limitations. . .the three and the (unclear) acres. The three minimum and the eight acres (unclear) . Do we have to make a motion to adopt to apply to the. . . Chair Martinez: I don't think so. I don't think so. O.k. Is there a motion to adjourn this meeting to November 20? Commissioner Stoner: So move. Chair Martinez: Second. Commissioner Forner: Yes. Chair Martinez: All in favor? Voices• Aye Chair Martinez : This meeting is adjourned. End of verbatim minutes. 19 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 PROPOSED C-SUFFIX AMENDMENT TO THE VALLEY FLOOR PLAN MAP CPZ-89-5 This is a proposal to amend the City of Kent Valley Floor Plan Map to add a C-Suffix overlay designation at the intersection of 74th Avenue S. and Willis Street. Chair Martinez opened the hearing on the proposed C-Suffix Amendment and requested staff presentation. Fred Satterstrom, Kent Planning Department, gave a brief explanation of C-suffix. Mr. Satterstrom showed some transparencies of the site depicting: 1) a conceptual circle of the proposed C-suffix overlay; and 2) the location of the property. A brief history of the area was given. Mr. Satterstrom commented recently a Downtown Plan was completed by the City and this area was designated business park. In addition, in conjunction with the Housing Study, there might be lower density housing on the east side of the railroad tracks. The area is associated with the downtown area because of its location and is associated with the freeway interchange as well. It is separated from the residential area to the south of Willis by the railroad tracks. Mr. Satterstrom commented the applicant Ronald Healy will speak regarding the future use of the site; however, it was the Planning Department's understanding that the site would be developed as a hotel/motel with a restaurant. Mr. Satterstrom commented this request has been through SEPA; however, when a specific development request is received, another environmental checklist will be required and the matter will be heard by the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Forner asked if it was true that the C-suffix allows other uses than service type uses to serve the area. Mr. Satterstrom stated the C-suffix permits motel development as well as restaurants. There was emphasis placed on service-type uses; however, most requests have been for restaurant/motel type uses. Mr. Satterstrom stated the Public Works Department submitted a report stating that presently the level of service is at F and they project 110 p.m. peak hour trips would be generated by the development. The report went into specific development requirements. 20 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Chair Martinez asked what further development could be considered within the circle other than what is being requested tonight. Mr. Satterstrom stated in his opinion the development potential is limited. The restaurant and motel site would use the land on the south side, between the railroad tracks and SR167 on the west. The north side of Willis, between SR167 and the railroad tracks would be left and that area has no direct access onto Willis. Thus, unless there was a change in the access, other than the limited access on the north side of Willis, the development potential is impeded. Commissioner Faust asked what happened to the proposed office building that was planned to be considered in the triangular piece of land. Mr. Satterstrom commented a variance was granted by the Board of Adjustment; the applicant has gone through the development process. Mr. Satterstrom didn't know whether a building permit has been approved. Chair Martinez asked if the applicant would like to comment. Ronald R. Healey, architect for the project, John Anderson & Associates, 10620 NE 8th, Bellevue, 98004, talked about what was being proposed. The project will be about 2 .9 acres and developed into a restaurant and motel. Mr. Healey commented the restaurant would be 6, 300 square feet in size and the motel would be about 132 units. The railroad tracks separate this site from the single- family area. Jim Harris commented the matter being considered tonight before the Commission is the C-suffix request, not the building of the motel/hotel and restaurant complex. Mr. Harris stated this area is zoned for heavier uses. Commissioner Stoner commented she would like some information concerning traffic and what could be developed in this area especially if the circle was expanded to the northeast--towards Kent Elementary. Mr. Harris stated the public hearing tonight is only to consider the south side of Willis Street for the C-suffix comprehensive plan change. A motion was made to close the public hearing. Commissioner Faust MOVED and Commissioner Orr SECONDED the motion. Motion passed unanimously. 21 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1989 Commissioner Stoner commented she would like to know what would be the traffic impacts on the intersection. Commissioner Stoner made a motion to continue the hearing to November 27. Commissioner Faust SECONDED. Motion passed. A MOTION was MADE and SECONDED to adjourn the hearing. The hearing was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 4ASO�PAo s P. Harris, Secretary 22