HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 08/14/1989 (3) KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
August 14, 1989
The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by
Chair Martinez at 7: 30 p.m. Monday, August 14, 1989 in the Kent
City Hall, City Council Chambers.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Martinez, Chair
Anne Biteman
Elmira Forner
Greg Greenstreet
Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner
COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT:
Carol Stoner, excused
Raymond Ward, excused
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager
Dan Stroh, Senior Planner
Stephen Clifton, Planner
Janet Shull, Planner
Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING OF JULY 24 , 1989
Commissioner Forner MOVED that the minutes of the July 24, 1989
Planning Commission be approved as printed. Commissioner Biteman
SECONDED the motion.
Chair Martinez reopened the public hearing
(Verbatim Transcript)
Dan Stroh: Good evening. I 'm Dan Stroh with the Planning
Department and I would like to inform you about the two facets of
what needs to be discussed tonight. One change in the scope of
the items being discussed, which is a fairly important change, is
that the staff recommendation of what would be reviewed at this
time would include only the three multifamily areas, the
multifamily areas that have been studied on the West Hill, which
include essentially all the vacant and underdeveloped land that
has been identified up there. This would not include the single
family areas that have been identified earlier in the study. At
this time we would propose that the Planning Commission hearing
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14 , 1989
look specifically at the multifamily areas and not at the single
family areas at this time. This is somewhat of an adjustment in
the earlier work. We were planning to carry this through for all
three planning areas so that the scope of the work would include
the multifamily areas throughout the city with single family areas
not reviewed at this time.
Chair Martinez: Can we stop right there and ask some questions.
Dan Stroh• Sure.
Chair Martinez: Do you want to talk about why, please.
Dan Stroh: Sure. We have done work in looking at the single
family areas and the vacant and available land that could
potentially be developed in the single family areas as well. The
major scope of Resolution 1172 that set up the study is toward the
20 percent reduction and the site-specific review toward that end.
We have a lot of concern that given the timing and the amount and
the time that has elapsed between when the Council first identified
this as an issue and a priority and the current date is a long,
long time that has elapsed, and that the process of looking at all
single areas as well as the multifamily areas could really just
pull this out into an unacceptable length of time. So we do
recommend basically looking at the multifamily areas. We feel that
we are looking at accomplishing some things through the study still
that would address the single family issues. For instance, the
single family designated overlay zone. . .would continue to recommend
that that be established as an overlay in the comprehensive plan.
The creation of the R1-5 district, which would be a new zoning
designation, we would recommend that the Planning Commission go
forward with a recommendation on that. Would also include other
work we have been doing with single family development. For
instance, right now the city has a Single Family Committee that has
been meeting to look at a number of single family issues. In fact
they just had a meeting this evening. That work will continue.
They will be coming out with a range of recommendations towards
encouraging single family in the city. Also, the first phase of
this project in response to 1172 was the Housing Element Update.
In that process there were a whole new range of policies that were
introduced into the comprehensive plan housing element that
addressed number of single family issues. So we feel that by
moving forward on the multifamily areas we can address much of what
the Council resolution asked us to address with the addition of the
single steps that I mentioned. We will be moving forward on really
providing a lot of the encouragement to single family that Council
asked us for as well. And by doing it, limiting it basically to
these two areas, we will be bringing this forward to the Council
2
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
in a much more timely way than would otherwise occur. The Council
would then have the opportunity to decide how it wants to go on
these issues while there are still decisions to be made. Every day
as we talked about last time that decisions aren't made on this,
more and more sites get tied up by becoming vested through the
building permit process. So we do feel that it is important to
move along and take action, whatever that action may be, on the
multifamily issues the Council asked us to address as soon as
possible.
Commissioner Greenstreet: If we feel that it makes sense to
concentrate on the multifamily and not deal with the single family
but we don't want to recognize the 5, 000 square foot lot until we
do address the single family, can we focus just on multifamily and
not have to address the 5, 000 square foot on all these West
Hill. . .East Hill. . .
Dan Stroh: In the West Hill area I don't believe we are
recommending the R1-5 for any of the three areas. In the East Hill
we are. For the multifamily areas I think the first time we will
need that is in the East Hill planning area. For the East Hill we
would need to create that, because we are recommending a rezone
from a multifamily designation to R1-5 in the East Hill Area.
Commissioner Greenstreet: Oh, all right.
Dan Stroh: So we would need that for. . . .that would be at the next
set of hearings which right now we are projecting to begin on
August 28th for the East Hill area. But you would need to do it
for the West Hill area, given the current. . .at least to put into
effect the staff recommendation that is before you for the
multifamily areas on West Hill.
Commissioner Greenstreet: It wouldn't set a precedent or undermine
any efforts to protect whatever zoning for single family on West
Hill though by creating the 5000 lot. . .and that doesn't really
change that it is already zoned 7200 or whatever.
Dan Stroh: If you were to go ahead and create the R1-5 now and
not put it into effect anywhere on West Hill, it really wouldn't
have any effect at this time. It probably makes sense to go ahead
and withhold action on that until the East Hill review and when
that R1-5 is really needed. The other thing is. . . if this meets
with the Council 's approval. . .or with the Commission's approval,
we'd be actually recommending that it is possible you'd be moving
towards taking action at the earliest phase possible. If that is
possible tonight, that would be great. There is another date that
is possible. Set aside next week if you need to continue this
3
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
further, but given that basically the review is limited to the
multifamily areas, it may be possible to do your deliberations
tonight. In whichever case, there are findings and conclusions
that would be drawn up that would summarize your deliberations and
we would be able to do that. For instance, if it were tonight that
you came up with a decision, we would be able to provide whatever
staff support you needed for that to have something available on
the regular meeting on August 28th. The other thing I wanted to
add is that Stephen Clifton will be following me with some other
information from the staff. We'd like to respond to some of the
points raised at the last meeting both in terms of. . .I think there
was some concern about notification, and also specific concerns
brought up about some of the site specific analysis and he'll be
able to provide some summary comments on some of those fronts.
Chair Martinez: Before we go on though, do any of the
Commissioners have any further questions or comments regarding the
recommendation.
Elmira Forner: I have some concerns about it. But if we (unclear)
don't somehow take up that number of housing units that we prevent
(unclear) and we don't offer some substitute for that, we are going
to create a housing shortage which is going to drive the price of
houses up which means that affordable housing in that area is going
to be less and less. I have a real concern about that. . .saying
that we are going to reduce multifamily but we are not somehow
going to substitute something in the single family housing that
would be comparable.
Dan Stroh: I don't think it was ever the staff's intention to
substitute single family units on a one-to-one basis for the
multifamily units. If we were to be able to put into effect some
of the single family recommendations we are looking at, it would
provide for, I believe, something on the order of 200 or 250 units
of single family. . .not sure of the exact number. . .but versus. . .we
were recommending to reach the Council 's 20 percent target on
multifamily taking off something on the order of 950 or 960 units
or so of multifamily. I don't have the precise figures. I was
never my intention to really have a one-to-one swap of taking
multifamily areas development off and being able to replace it with
single family. The single family is so much more intensive. . .or
uses so much more land per unit, it is not really possible to do
that. We have been aware certainly of the affordability
repercussions of anything we do that would modify the housing
market, and that is a concern, and it is an important concern of
the study.
4
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
Elmira Forner: What do you feel (unclear) multifamily and not the
single family.
Dan Stroh: I think that. . .several things on that front. One is
that we are doing some things other than the site-specific analysis
on the single family to address the single family encouragement and
that some of those potentially could actually help to bolster the
single family market and provide for additional. . .sort of spur the
market on for single family development in Kent. To some degree
the affordability question is a little bit different for the two
markets, because many of the people who are in . . . not everybody,
but many people that are in multifamily don't have the option of
becoming single family occupants. And so. . .and it is not the case
across the board. Some people could have the option of becoming
single family owners or renters and choose to live in multifamily,
but for a large portion of the population that lives in
multifamily, they don't have that option, so what we do with single
family really doesn't directly impact the affordability of their
housing. They were talking about what happens with the multifamily
rents.
Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: What happens (unclear) notification
on East Hill since you had this change in scope.
Dan Stroh: What we have done on East Hill and because these things
have to be done so far in advance, we have already put all that
into play. The 200-foot radius and the list of affected properties
includes only the multifamily properties. . .multifamily properties
that have been studied and the 200-foot radius from the multifamily
properties, and the report only deals only with the multifamily
areas.
Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: One other question. Do you (unclear)
mail and update of what the housing (unclear) as far as encouraging
single family housing.
Dan Stroh: Sure. This has really been a year of housing in the
Planning Department. We've had a whole series of things going on.
We had the committee, as you are well aware, that met to discuss
and come up with strategies for the updated housing element. They
met last fall and that resulted in the new housing element of the
comprehensive plan. Subsequent to that we have had three other
committees appointed all dealing with housing. We had one meeting
on assisted housing, one meeting on the issue of group homes, and
we had one meeting on the issue of encouraging single family
development. They have all been meeting simultaneously and are all
pretty much into their deliberations. The Single Family Committee
is at a stage where they are beginning to actually develop some
5
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
recommendations on actions, so we could send you kind of a digest
of where they are at and what kind actions they are looking at.
Commissioner Uhlar Heffner: In a way it makes sense to delete
looking at site-specific concerns for single family (unclear)
recommendations for single family parcels until the Single Family
Committee comes up with (unclear) recommendations.
Chair Martinez: Okay. Thank you.
Dan Stroh: Stephen Clifton is going to follow me, and along with
providing some response to things heard last week, he also has a
digest or summary of the actual comments themselves that is an
easier way than reading all the verbatim transcript to review what
people said last week.
Stephen Clifton: Hi. My name is Stephen Clifton. I am with the
Kent Planning Department and I am here to partially respond
regarding the last meeting's comments. We had 13 speakers at the
last meeting and one submittal via a phone call which I received
and I submitted the comments to the Planning Commission. Most of
the speakers were against the single family recommendations to
rezone the two areas, SF4 and SF6, to Single Family R1-5. Many of
the speakers. . .there were four. . .the recommendations of rezoning
the multifamily land to a lower density. Some of the issues which
were raised were opportunities. . .this was by Mr. Mike Larson, the
loss of opportunity to build affordable housing, need for
multifamily housing and wants opportunity to serve these people,
and that was for Multifamily Area 2, which is on the northwest
corner of the Kent Highlands landfill. Other residents who were
against the R1-5 zoning, their concerns were regarding traffic,
regarding school overcrowding, water supply, utilities, police
patrol and a couple of people who were worried about the
devaluation of their homes due to R1-5 zoning next to their larger
lots. What you have before you is a summary sheet of their
concerns and, like , Dan had mentioned, that is a lot easier than
reading the minutes. To respond to those issues, I did talk to the
Kent School District and the Federal Way School District once
again, and some of the Kent citizens were very concerned. . .but Kent
Schools don't serve Kent residents or Kent students. Unfortunately
that is beyond our control. They mentioned to me that the people
who do define those boundaries are the State Boundary Review Board
and the Educational Service District. The state divides those
areas into service districts and both work at trading the
boundaries for these districts. I asked her what we could do as
a city as far as influencing the boundaries or how to define the
boundaries for the school districts. Unfortunately it is beyond
our jurisdictional control. She said that these boundaries can be
6
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
amended or changed, but it is an extremely difficult process and
it is very lengthy and whether or not they will be changed is
another issue. Part of the problem is that school districts are
not synonymous with city boundary districts. The City of Kent,
especially up on the West Hill, is serviced by the Highline School
District, the Kent School District and the Federal Way School
District. As far as cities being able to agree with one another
as far as what density are we going to get in this area, and what
density are you going to provide in that area, in order to get the
proportion of kids to fit in certain schools, it is extremely
difficult to do. More county or regional planning needs to take
place. Unfortunately that doesn't happen right now. I did do a
break down of how many students would go to schools as a result of
our recommendation. With the multifamily reductions we would have
a reduction of around 37 students, and that is within the Kent
School District. It is estimated that with multifamily units
approximately .405 students per unit is the calculation that they
use. So for 90 some units we would have a reduction of around 37
students. Now with the single family recommendations, of course
if we are not looking at single family areas at this time, there
is no reason to address it, but I think I should since there are
people here who are from the West Hill area. In the areas SF4 and
SF6, those students go to Federal Way School Districts. We would
have an increase of 22 students with those recommendations. So
overall for the West Hill area, we would have a reduction of around
15 students. The increase would go to Federal Way School District,
and the decrease would be taken away from the Kent School District.
I tried to get a hold of Federal Way School District officials,
but I did not receive any calls back from them so, unfortunately,
I could not tell you as to whether or not these students would be
able to be accommodated in those schools. It would equal 12
students for Star Lake, five students for Totem Junior High, and
four students for Thomas Jefferson High School. So you can see it
is only a few students per school. But just to let people know,
that would be the breakdown. We did have another concern regarding
notification. These were people in area SF5 primarily. We did
find the errors as to why those people were not notified.
Subdivision activity had been input into the system, but somehow
those parcels. . .those people who mentioned that they did not
receive notice were not put into the system, so we have taken
measures to rectify the situation. We would just like to thank
people for bringing that to our attention, because if we are going
to have any kind of mailing system in the future that is efficient
and effective, we need to know about these things.
Chair Martinez: Stephen, a question that I have is did you
identify the problem just as far as West Hill, or is it so that we
can fix it for all the other mailings.
7
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
Stephen Clifton: So far we did identify it for only the West Hill.
It is very likely that we won't find out about the East Hill or the
Valley Floor until the hearings. Then if there are any mailing
mixups or if the numbers aren't into the computer system, we'll
find out at that time. It is impossible to find out at this time
whether or not. . .
Chair Martinez: Who is responsible for inputting that information?
Stephen Clifton: We take our information off King County tax
rolls, and then in addition to that we also input information from
people who have done short plats so that, for instance, they have
one parcel of land and they short plat that into five parcels, we
take that information and put it into the computer system. So it
is . . . the majority of it is taken from the King County tax rolls,
and another part of it is taken from our GIS Information System
because we input the short plat into that.
Voice is unclear.
Stephen Clifton: According to what we are required to do, we are
required only to notify people within a 200-foot radius of the
affected areas, and so we also did advertise for this meeting in
the paper as well and we did advertise for the other meeting in
the Times. And we did talk with people who did not see it in the
Times, but we had other people who said that they did see it in
the Times. So it was in there. We used several types of methods
of advertising. Okay. Let's see. In regard to the multifamily
areas then, as Dan had mentioned, that is what we are hoping you
agree with as far as looking at the areas at this time. I did
break down some figures to help you with further analysis. With
the West Hill recommendations of reducing two areas from MRM to
MRG and one area MRH to MRG, we would have a reduction of around
535 vehicle trips per day for those three areas. Obviously without
the single family being analyzed at this time or recommendation
taken on those single family areas, the increase there would be
insignificant at this time. Just for your information, the
difference between the single family increases and the multifamily
increase was a reduction of around only 180 some vehicle trips.
So, I would like to address. . .excuse me, I already did address the
student population and where the students would go. In looking at
all areas combined--West Hill, East Hill and Valley Floor--we would
have a city-wide reduction, and this is important to know because
you need to know how the West Hill fits into this, city-wide
reduction of as many as 6, 115 vehicle trips per day. And so the
West Hill constitutes 535 of those trips.
8
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
(Voice unclear)
Stephen Clifton: That was when you combined the multifamily
decreases with the single family increases in vehicle trips.
(Voice unclear)
Stephen Clifton: 6, 115 are the total vehicle reductions city wide.
When you look at multifamily reductions city wide.
(Voice unclear)
Stephen Clifton: Correct. And I quickly also did some
calculations right before this meeting and when you do not analyze
the single family areas. . .before we were looking at 11.31 percent
increase in potential single family units over what would be
allowed under existing zoning. Under the recommendation of only
looking at multifamily units, that drops to 9 percent, so you only
have a reduction of 2 .31 percent, so you can see that the single
family zoning or the single family areas in which we were
recommending single family increases was only 2.31 percent of that.
So you can see that most of the increases are coming from the
multifamily reduction, and with that reduction the single family
increases on that multifamily land. Okay. I believe that is all
I have at this time unless you have any other questions.
Chair Martinez: Thank you.
Stephen Clifton: You're welcome.
Chair Martinez: A couple of things before we begin. The first
one is that we are working under the rules of the Appearance of
Fairness which was explained to us last time, but that is that
whatever needs to be said to the Commissioners needs to be said
in this forum and not outside, because we will ask the
Commissioners report back and things get confusing. So, say what
you have to say to, us tonight. The second thing is that there
should be a list going around. . .a sign-up list. Has it been
around? And has everyone who wanted to speak signed?
Fred Satterstrom: Has everyone had an opportunity to sign this?
Chair Martinez: If you are interested in getting any additional
mailings as we go along, we also use that list for people who want
to get minutes of the proceedings and that sort of thing. So, you
can indicate whether you want to speak. (unclear voices) Elmira
would you like to make a comment.
9
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
Elmira Forner: At the last meeting there were two people in the
audience, Cindy McReynolds and Dale Dodrill had asked me to get
them information. Cindy had asked for information on why her child
had to go to a school in Federal Way when she was in Kent, and Mr.
Dodrill had asked for information on how the boundaries were
formed. And I actually got information from the state and did send
that to them in the mail with a correspondence, but it only had to
do with school formation and why their kids went to a certain
school district.
Chair Martinez: Now we would like to hear from the public. The
first one is Jane Koler.
Jane Koler: Good evening Commissioner Martinez and members of the
Planning Commission. I am Jane Koler and represent Kentview
Properties, Inc. My address is 18th Floor, Pacific Building,
Seattle 98104. At the hearings which you last conducted about the
rezone process you stated that you had adopted a very generalized
approach to the rezone process. And I think that it is important
to clarify that when you are engaged in a planning process or a
legislative process, such as amending your comprehensive plan, it
is perfectly permissible to have a generalized sort of process
where you don't delve into a site-by-site analysis of the
properties you are going to rezone. However, in a rezone process
Washington law obliges you to do a very intensive site-by-site
analysis of the properties which are going to be rezoned. Under
Washington law a rezone process, whether its an area-wide rezone
or a site-specific rezone, is a quasi-judicial proceeding.
Washington law is very, very protective of the rights of individual
property owners. And because of that they say even if you are
rezoning, oh gosh, there are cases. . .let's see, Woodcrest involves
500 acres, they say that is an area-wide rezone and its quasi-
judicial proceedings. There is a case involving 900 acres. the
Washington courts say yes, that is a quasi-judicial proceeding.
In some jurisdictions. . . in some other states area-wide rezones are
legislative proceedings, but not in Washington. So I think. . .by
virtue of the fact that a rezone proceeding is characterized as a
quasi-judicial proceeding, you have to accord the property owner
certain due process protection. And those protection include a
quasi-judicial hearing before the zoning classification of property
is changed. Now quasi-judicial proceeding. . .hearing is basically
a hearing where the property owner has notice, a full opportunity
to present all evidence bearing on the rezone, an opportunity to
cross examine opponents of the rezone or proponents of the rezone,
whatever his position is, and a full opportunity to be notified of
the date on which this proceeding will take place and the
opportunity to have the decision maker to enter written findings
and conclusions that specifically support that rezone or the denial
10
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
of that rezone. Because a rezone in Washington is a quasi-
judicial proceeding even when it is an area-wide rezone, it is
imperative that the Planning Commission, when you are going to
rezone property, accord the property owner a full quasi-judicial
hearing. And consider very carefully legal requirements imposed
by Washington law and by the Kent Municipal Code on the rezone
process. Before a property can be rezoned in Washington and in
Kent, certain legal requirements have to be met. In fact the Kent
Municipal Code actually has more rezone requirements than
Washington law. And you have to meet both sets of these
requirements. In the Kent Municipal Code the requirements are
codified at Section 15. 09, and the Washington legal requirements
are that the proponent of the rezone has the burden of proof. That
means that the proponent has to come forward with all kinds of
evidence showing that the rezone is justified. There is
presumption of validity accorded to the present zoning status of
property. So if you are rezoning property, it is a really big
deal. You've got to come in and you've got to show that
circumstances have substantially changed at the site and in the
area of the site and that the present zoning classification of the
property is no longer justified because of a substantial change in
circumstances. You've also got to show that the rezone is in the
public interest, you've got to show that the rezone is of the
particular parcel of property is in compliance with SEPA. Then
the City has to enter findings and conclusions specifically
supporting the rezone of the particular parcel of property. And
you've got to give the property owner a quasi-judicial hearing.
Kent Zoning Code also is very, very protective of the right of
individual property owners. The reason that Kent has created the
office of hearing examiner is to inject more due process into the
administrative land use regulatory process. The ordinance which
creates the office of hearing examiner states that the hearing
examiner is to provide and I quote from the ordinance a greater of
due process in land use regulatory hearings. And the ordinance
also says the purpose of the office of hearing examiner is to
separate land use policy formulation from the land use
administrative process. Now the land use administrative process
is when you apply specific provisions of the zoning text to
specific parcels of property. So, we are dealing now when you are
sitting and contemplating making a recommendation about map
amendments, you are performing a land use regulatory function. Now
the hearing examiner ordinance and the ordinance which creates the
Planning Commission and defines your authority states that the
planning process should be separated from the administrative
process. So the way the City of Kent is set up the Planning
Commission, it envisioned that this body would be considering
policy changes and making planning decision, but that a separate
body would implement these policies and apply them to specific
11
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
parcels of property by doing map amendments, and that office is the
hearing examiner, which performs administrative functions. There
is a problem with this present process.
Chair Martinez: Can I ask a question. I seems that you may be
arguing with the wrong people, and it may be well stated that you
want this on the record; however, we have been directed by the City
Council, who also looks at the hearing examiner's proceedings and
we have also had it researched by the City Attorney, as I
understand it, before we were directed to do that. And I don't
know whether you're right or wrong. I do know what our task is,
though.
Jane Koler: For the record, since we have been deprived of a
hearing before a hearing examiner, which your zoning code states
you have a right to if you have property which is being rezoned,
I 'd like to state some specific problems which I see with ordinance
2796 which interests the Planning Commission in this specific
instance with the function of performing a regulatory function.
It states that the Planning Commission when implementing a rezone
which involves the municipal policy of reducing the density of
multifamily development that the Planning Commission rather than
the hearing examiner will consider such rezone decisions, such map
amendments. It is contrary to law due process is what we are
dealing with to accord citizens in most circumstances with the
right to a hearing before the hearing examiner before their
property rights are changed, and then to single out one specific
instance in which you say well, this is a different kind of rezone.
It still involves a rezone, it still involves a map amendment, but
we are changing the process right now. For these hearings the
Planning Commission is going to conduct the hearings, you are not
going to be given opportunity to come in and present a bunch of
evidence, cross examine the city. It's a different proceeding.
It offends due process to do that. You have to accord equal
process for similar types of activities. So for map amendments you
can't say in some situations we're going to accord citizens a right
to have a hearing before the hearing examiner, and in this one
specific instance we're abandoning that procedure. We are ignoring
the zoning code. We're ignoring the provisions in the ordinance
creating the office of hearing examiner. We're ignoring the
provisions in the ordinance creating the Planning Commission which
state that the planning function and the regulatory function should
be separate, and we're going ahead and enact this new procedure
which provides for a sort of different process. So there's a
constitutional problem with that ordinance which has directed you
to hear amendments concerning map amendments, and it is contrary
to other provisions of the municipal code. Because this rezone
significantly affects the owners of Kentview Properties and
12
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
significantly changes their property rights, their development
rights, they are requesting officially that they be accorded a
hearing before the hearing examiner and to have the hearing
examiner consider this rezone. So as part of the record tonight
I 'd like the record to reflect this official request we are making
to the city. There are a few other considerations I think that
must be considered, and one of those is affordable housing.
Everybody. . .when you read the papers you see the rising cost of
single family housing is a great concern. And certainly a lot of
people in other years who would purchase single family housing are
forced to live in multifamily housing. And there is a strong
concern that there be affordable multifamily housing. The City of
Kent beginning, oh gosh I guess, in about (unclear) has radically
reduced the amount of property that is available for multifamily
development. They rezoned a lot of property along the Green River
for agricultural use, which was a holding zone for more intense
future development, including multifamily development. That
property no longer is available. Now you are reducing the density
which is allowed in multifamily zones, and I think that all of
these decisions are going to create a sort of, I guess a fancy
bedroom community without much affordable multifamily housing. So
it is important to remember that when you rezone property, there
is a public interest in having. . .you have to show that it serves
the public interest. Certainly there is a strong public interest
in having affordable multifamily housing available. Also, there
is a lot of talk about not being sufficient, you know there are
transportation problems and that sort of thing. Whenever a
developer does a development, you always can impose mitigation
through SEPA on that developer and have them provide infrastructure
improvements that are necessary. Kentview Properties is very
concerned about this process and about having their density reduced
simply because they are very close to the landfill site, and that
will perhaps be a hardship on their abilities to develop the
property, will make it more expensive, and they are certainly
interested in having the maximum amount of density that they can
at that site. Does, anyone have any questions?
Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I do. You have these procedural
concerns about the staff recommended site-specific alternatives
for multifamily properties, do you have the same procedural
objections to the text reduction which is an across-the-board
reduction multifamily by 20 percent, irregardless of site
characteristics.
Jane Koler: Okay. The text reduction. . .I haven't looked at that
specifically. . .the Planning Commission does have the authority to
enact text amendments. You don't have the authority under the
zoning code to enact map amendments. If the text amendment amends
13
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
the zoning map, then it seems to me that we are dealing with
something that is tantamount to a map amendment.
Commissioner Unhlar-Heffner: A text reduction, as I understand
it, is simply following the ordinance which instructs the Planning
Department to reduce across-the-board multifamily housing by 20
percent. So it is not looking at site characteristics.
Jane Koler: I think that is. . .really when you get into that sort
of text amendment it is really tantamount to amending the zoning
map.
Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: So you would see that as amending
the. . .
Jane Koler: Whenever you change development rights, there is a
long line of cases stating that you've got to have a hearing,
because the property owner has been paying taxes, he's purchased
the price in reliance on zoning classification. So when those
rights are changed, he has to have the opportunity to come forward
and present all the evidence that he wishes to.
Commissioner Forner: You're not questioning the hearing, you're
just questioning us acting as a hearing. . .
Jane Koler: I 'm questioning not having a hearing before the
hearing examiner.
Commissioner Forner: But this is a hearing.
Jane Koler: But this is different than when you can come in with
experts and you can spend as much time as you need to, like cross
examining the members of the city that are presenting conclusions,
like. . .there are some very interesting conclusions of this whole
rezone proposition.
Commissioner Forner: So you are questioning this as acting as a. . .
Jane Koler: Quasi-judicial hearing.
Commissioner Forner: I have one more question. You mentioned an
RCW at the beginning. Do you have the number of that RCW that you
quoted. . .the state
Jane Koler: The state requirements on the rezone process. You
find the state requirements are articulated in cases beginning with
Parkridge v Seattle. Let me get you the citation. . .Do you want the
citation for these.
14
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14 , 1989
Commissioner Forner: What general topic would it be under.
Jane Koler: lt's 89 Washington 2nd page 444. I have it over at
my seat. I can correct that. This is an area I understand that
the city justifies as being a legislative proceeding on the basis
that it is an area-wide rezone. Woodcrest Investors is a court of
appeals case, and it very squarely addresses the issue of whether
a rezone which covers an area is a quasi-judicial proceeding, and
the conclusion of that case is yes. And I can also. . .I'll just
give you a note that has the citations. Then the city has also
said that this is legislative, because the zoning amendments. . .the
map amendments were initiated by the city. But Barry v Kitsap
County addresses this issue in its annexation zoning. It is city
initiated, and it is even initial zoning which is being imposed on
property which is being annexed into the city. And the court very
clearly says because specific property rights are more affected
than the rights of the populace at large, we've got to consider
this a quasi-judicial proceeding. It just seems that these
proceedings are so protracted. They'll be at the Planning
Commission and then they will go on to Council, and I think it
makes good sense to do it right because it is affecting property
owners ' rights, so why not have hearings before hearing examiners.
Or else if you want it before the Planning Commission, I think
there is a problem with having a Planning Commission hearing simply
because your Planning Commission ordinance and your hearing
ordinance are so emphatic about separating the planning and zoning
functions, the planning and administrative functions, that I think
that is a real problem the way Ordinance 2796 combines those
functions.
Commissioner Forner: Probably this is rhetoric, but you say that
the Planning Commission cannot act as a quasi-judicial committee
in this hearing.
Jane Koler: The way your ordinances are set up, like in some
cities Planning Commissions do perform. . .they do conduct quasi-
judicial administrative hearings. In Kent you happen to have set
your ordinances up so that the Planning Commission performs
planning functions, policy-making functions, and then the hearing
examiner performs administrative functions. Then when you think
about it, it makes good sense because policy decisions everybody
is all fired up about and they want to see them implemented
straight across the board. Hearing examiner has a little bit more
distance from the planning process and he is able to say, well now,
is it fair to apply this policy in this situation. Let's consider
all the characteristics of this particular property and balance
those against the city's need to apply these new policies. And it
can work the opposite way. . . the property owner can be saying yeah,
15
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
yeah I want my property to be rezoned, and the hearing examiner can
be balancing and say wait, this is what the comprehensive plan says
about this area. This is what the city's planning objectives are
for this area and balancing them with interest.
Commissioner Forner: But apparently the municipal code says that
we could, otherwise we wouldn't have been given this job. So you
think the state. . .
Jane Koler: No, not the state, the city impermissible enacted
Ordinance 2796. That's the ordinance which entrusts you with
performing this quasi-judicial function. I think that in doing
that, you know, first of all there's a problem with having
different processes for a map amendment. For saying to most of
the citizens in Kent, yes, if you want a map amendment, you get to
have a hearing before the hearing examiner, which usually those
hearings last two or three hours. Then to say but if the rezone
consider. . . if the map amendment pertains to the reduction of
multifamily density, then you have to go before the Planning
Commission, everybody is going to be given 10 minutes to speak and
that's your fair hearing. So there are inherent problems with the
task that you have been asked to perform, because you are not
considering all the characteristics of all the individual
properties. That would be too tough. I think that's why Kent
divided the planning functions from the administrative functions.
Commissioner Forner: We'll have to go back to the legislative body
and ask if we are legal.
Chair Martinez: We have, actually.
Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: Just one more question. You are
representing which property owners.
Jane Koler: Kentview Properties, Inc. Kentview Properties Inc. ,
they own the Kent Highlands site.
Commissioner Uhlar Heffner: That's Multifamily Area Two.
Jane Koler: Yes. And because this is adjacent, the property they
own is adjacent to the Kent Highlands, they are very concerned with
having a decision maker consider all the complexities there are at
this site rather than just have sort of a generalized approach to
map amendments in this case.
Commissioner Greenstreet: Approximately three years ago or so,
remember Kent Highlands sponsored a large contingent before the
Planning Commission and they had engineers, lawyers, experts that
16
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
had done landfills from San Francisco, up the coast, U of W, and
so they recognized the Planning Commission back then, and addressed
them as so. . . about six so-called experts, and I didn't hear the
statements that you are making then.
Jane Koler: I can't comment on what they said then.
Commissioner Greenstreet: All I am saying is that the Kent
Highlands was the owner of that property and he had a very large,
almost a community such as the Lakes that he was envisioning, and
so they recognized the Planning Commission back then. I am just
putting that in. You are making your statements and just
remembered this owner before had approached this body in a
different way.
Jane Koler: I guess I have very strong feelings about this. I
have been involved with a zoning appeal of part of the Kent
Highlands property, and if your zoning code provides for a
procedure, it makes a lot of sense to go with that procedure,
because why spend the city's time and money on an expensive appeal
process, and why spend the property owner's time and money. There
is better stuff to be doing with money than grinding through the
Washington court systems.
Commissioner Greenstreet: One question I guess I 'd have is asking
Fred if we can just follow through on the procedures that we've
been going through on this and she can address this in another way.
Chair Martinez: As I understand it, we have already addressed that
with. . .the Council addressed that before it came to us. Is that
correct?
Fred Satterstrom: You can stay closer, Jane. Perhaps something
I say will spur some thought on your part. For the record I am
Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager in the Planning Department. I
want to have the Planning Commission rest assured that the City
staff and the City' Council have reviewed the ordinance that Ms.
Koler has cited to you that authorizes the Planning Commission to
hold hearings on this zoning matter. Our city attorney basically
drafted the ordinance that directs the Planning Commission to hold
these hearings. The City feels, the administration feels that the
process it has directed the Planning Commission to do is in fact
a legal one. It is not unprecedented either. We have done the
same process of having the Planning Commission hold the public
hearings on zoning six or seven years ago in conjunction with the
agricultural zoning on the west and south sides of the Green River.
We did it also in conjunction with the subarea study up on East
Hill where the Planning Commission rezoned a number of commercial
17
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
properties out there. Ms. Koler has suggested that perhaps a
separate hearing be done on. each separate piece of property, and
really were that the ideal situation, I think . . .or if that were
feasible, then perhaps we could do that. If we fully analyzed 744
vacant and underdeveloped parcels, and were we to hold individual
hearings on each one of those individual parcels which are
scattered throughout the city in all of the three subareas, we'd
be here until doomsday holdings hearings in front of the hearing
examiner. The Council directed the Planning Commission to do this
study for good reason, and that is because you have a broader, more
general approach to these matters. The city believes it is a
legislative type of process and one that would designate the
Planning Commission to hold the hearings on. So we can look at it
through that broader prospective. So I would urge the Planning
Commission not to spend too much time on whether or not this
process is legal or illegal. The simple matter of it is that the
administration would not have directed the Planning Commission to
do it if it didn't think it was the proper process.
Commissioner Forner: Still one question. Is there a possibility
of it being challenged individually for constitutionality over a
technicality.
Fred Satterstrom: Certainly. I think the opportunity to challenge
this action on a number of grounds is available. I don't want to
play lawyer here but I leave that to Jane and the attorneys, but
I suspect that a number of property owners may in this process be
concerned enough certainly to at least hire attorneys to look at
it. And the possibility of a lawsuit on this as well as countless
other matters that the Commission may deal with are always
susceptible to lawsuits.
Jane Koler: Those sites that you were talking to me about,
Parkridge is 89 Washington 2d 454, that reiterates all the basic
legal requirements imposed on rezones. Woodcrest Investments v
Skagit County 39 Washington App 622 addresses the issue of whether
an area-wide rezone is legislative or quasi-judicial proceedings
and concludes that it is a quasi-judicial proceeding. I can't ask
you to analyze the legal merits of whether you should be conducting
these hearings. I am convinced that there are significant problems
with this present process, Ordinance #2796. I would like to
request either a hearing before the Planning Commission, a full
hearing where we can present a bunch of witnesses and cross examine
the city's witnesses, because we are entitled to a quasi-judicial
hearing. There is no doubt about that. Thank you very much for
your patience.
18
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
Chair Martinez: Thank you. The next person who has signed up to
speak is Kim Wise.
Karey Wise: For the record my name is Karey Wise, K A R E Y, and
whether it is Karey or Kim, either way I'm he. My address is 26841
Downing Avenue South. I come to this meeting a little bit cold and
with quite a bit of tunnel vision tonight. My own concerns deal
with parcel SF6. I 've been told that the access for that
development is going to be going directly in front of a
school. . .the only ingress and egress for that parcel will be
directly through a school zone. The main purpose of my being up
here is to request the Planning Council to take a very careful look
at the vehicle trips back and forth in front of that school in
considering the increased density.
Chair Martinez: If we go along with the recommendations that have
been made tonight by the Planning Department, the density
recommendations will not change in single family plot 6. That is
the new recommendation that has been brought to us by the
department.
Karey Wise: Thank you.
Chair Martinez: Thank you for your concern. Patricia Rommick,
unless I 've mispronounced it badly.
Patricia Rommick: No, I didn't want to speak.
Chair Martinez: Are there any other people who have signed up to
speak tonight. Then I will entertain a motion to close the public
hearing.
Commissioner Greenstreet: So moved.
Elmira Forner: Second.
Chair Martinez: Discussion. All in favor.
Commissioners: Aye
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence)
Chair Martinez: We have several things before us that we need to
discuss. How would you like to start.
Commissioner Greenstreet: The proposal made by the staff as far
as multifamily and not addressing single family. . .I am personally
in agreement that it would speed up the process of the West, East
19
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
and Valley Floor as an overall way to deal with this. It looks
like it would be better for us getting through this and then review
the single family, *because that seems to be the burden that we have
in this. . .West Hill especially. I'm sure we'll run into it on the
East Hill. So I have no problems with that recommendation.
Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I would agree with that. I would like
to see some recommendations from the Single Family Housing
Committee before we take up the issue of single family housing.
Commissioner Forner: I still have the concern, even though I 've
been assured that the purpose of this is not to trade off
apartments for single family, but I still have some concerns about
availability and affordability of single houses if they don't deal
with it.
Chair Martinez: However, do you think that we may be mixing apples
and oranges here to the point where we would never actually make
it through the process.
Commissioner Forner: That's probably true.
Chair Martinez: That's a concern of mine that we get through the
process. . .
Commissioner Forner: That we deal with one issue at a time.
Chair Martinez: Yes. They aren't going to get any smaller without
it. And they will either be built on it at a higher density only
if we make sure it comes to us again.
Commissioner Greenstreet: I make a move that we accept the
recommendation. . .
Chair Martinez: With the exclusion of the single family
consideration.
Commissioner Greenstreet: Correct.
Chair Martinez: Which recommendation. . .we have actually four
before us.
Commissioner Greenstreet: Well, it did include adding the 5000
zoning change to the plan, but it is not using it in a single
family review.
20
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
Chair Martinez: Okay. We have no action, we have site specific
reduction, text reduction, or the other which doesn't exactly apply
to the West Hill. So which does your motion speak to.
Commissioner Greenstreet: I didn't realize that this had to deal
with these alternative plans.
Commissioner Forner: We were just discussing whether to deal only
with multifamily housing. We weren't discussing which. . .
Chair Martinez: I thought you were making a motion to. . .
Commissioner Greenstreet: No, I wasn't.
Chair Martinez: I'm sorry, I misunderstood. Would you repeat;your
motion again.
Commissioner Greenstreet: The motion was at the original start of
the hearing was staff made a recommendation that we limit our
review to multifamily reduction and the creation of the 5000 lot
size. Isn't that correct?
Dan Stroh: Yes
Chair Martinez: Just to the multifamily
Dan Stroh: (Unclear)
Commissioner Forner: I second that motion.
Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: They did bring up the single family
overlay zone that they would like to have that considered as well
as the R5.
Commissioner Greenstreet: Maybe I should have that clarified
because I 'm not sure. . . (unclear) .
Stephen Clifton: Stephen Clifton, Kent Planning Department. What
we are asking for is only the review of the three multifamily areas
and recommendation on those. We are asking for the single family
designated overlay area to be approved. We are asking that the R1-
5 zoning classification not be approved at this time and to wait
for the East Hill hearing instead. We are asking for the text
reduction for the West Hill Comp Plan as is stated in the back of
the report and the comp plan changes in regard to the three
multifamily areas.
21
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
Commissioner Greenstreet: I'm going to table my motion just
because it is more complicated.
Chair Martinez: Will you move to table it?
Commissioner Greenstreet: The overlay, are we addressing WH-12?
Chair Martinez: Just a moment. Let me get a second on the tabling
before we go any further.
Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I second that.
Chair Martinez: Now where am I. Now you would like to discuss.
Commissioner Greenstreet: Yes, I just want to clarify it. I
didn't know it was going to be . . . one whole. . .on one motion to
decide the whole thing. That was not my intent.
Chair Martinez: Why don't you make the motion that you intend.
Commissioner Greenstreet: If that's the proper procedure to do it
in bits and pieces.
Chair Martinez: We can decide.
Commissioner Greenstreet: That's fine. My intent to move that we
just address the multifamily, that we create the 5000 lot size
(unclear) for the single family homes in multifamily-zoned areas.
Those are the two things that I thought were the starting blocks.
Stephen Clifton: Then in addition to that you do want to make sure
that the comp plan reflects the zoning changes which are taking
place. In other words, if you are changing Multifamily Area One
from MRM to MRG, that area would need to be MF24 or 12-24 units an
acre. MRG zoning is 16 units an acre; therefore, it falls within
that range and so therefore that's why you need to identify that
as being MF24.
Commissioner Forner: Isn't that a technicality that goes along
with the change?
Stephen Clifton: Well, you want the comp plan and the zoning plan
to reflect each other and to make sure that. . .
Commissioner Greenstreet: That they are in tune with each other.
(Unclear) . . .nothing drastic there.
22
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
Stephen Clifton: You are just making sure that the two are
compatible.
Commissioner Greenstreet: Okay. I have no problem with that. So
part of the motion is that the comp plan and this plan are
compatible or reflect one another.
Stephen Clifton: In addition to that you would also want to
address the single family designated area overlay district.
Commissioner Greenstreet: See now we are getting in (unclear)
where we are not. . .I don't totally understand. When you say the
single family overlay, now am I getting off the beaten path.
James Harris: Perhaps that needs to be explained. I am supposed
to be up on this stuff and I 'm a little bit confused, too. I think
what we need to do is go through one step at a time. For instance,
we are asking that multifamily only be approved and we are not
dealing with any sites specific single family. Two, we are
asking. . .and I think we are asking 5000 text amendment to also be
included, although I heard someone say that maybe that could be put
off until the East Hill hearing. Three, we are discussing also a
large overlay that designates where single family areas will be on
West Hill. In other words there will be a line drawn around and
this is a single family neighborhood for West Hill.
Stephen Clifton: Right. You can turn to page WH-49 and that
shows the single family designated area concept.
James Harris: The other thing is to bring the comp plan into sync
with the thing we are doing also, or the other should be in line.
Chair Martinez: Can't we do them one at a time so there is no
confusion about what we are doing.
James Harris: Yes, we're giving an overview of what we are doing.
Chair Martinez: By the way, I 'd like to go back in the
minute. . .just a second. We had a move to table and I had a second.
Did I have a vote on it?
Voice: No
Chair Martinez: I apologize. We should vote on that so that is
clear in the record.
Commissioner Forner: When you table a motion, (unclear) bring it
up again. . .
23
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
Chair Martinez: But we need to vote on it. All in favor.
Commissioners: Aye.
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) Thank you. Now you wanted
to make a motion.
Commissioner Greenstreet: The third time's a charm. We are going
to go out on number 1, number 2, number 3, number 4 and make a
motion on each one and approve it.
Chair Martinez: That would probably be the way I would recommend
whatever way you make the motion, we'll see what we think.
Commissioner Greenstreet: That would be my intent. The motion is
that we just move on the multifamily development sites to disallow
the single family problem and separate them and concentrate on
single family.
Chair Martinez: Is there a second to that?
Commissioner Forner: Now you're just talking West Hill. Let's
make sure we understand that.
Chair Martinez: Is there discussion? All in favor.
Commissioners: Aye
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) Do you want to consider this
before you go on to any other motion, which I think would be an
excellent idea, because then you will know what you are making a
motion on.
Voices: Sure
Chair Martinez: We have three alternatives in front of us. We
have no action, we have sites specific reduction, and we have the
text reduction. What is your pleasure?
Commissioner Forner: We are legal to go site specific.
Chair Martinez: We have been told we are and we will act that way
until we are told differently.
Commissioner Forner: If this is just for the multifamily that we
are talking about text reduction.
Chair Martinez: Yes. We are talking about. . . (unclear) or no
action.
24
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
Commissioner Forner: That means that everybody does the same
Chair Martinez: Twenty percent reduction across the board.
Commissioner Forner: I move that we adopt the text reduction for
the multifamily zones on West Hill.
Commissioner Greenstreet: Now just let me review for a second.
Chair Martinez: Is there a second.
Anne Biteman: I'll second that.
Chair Martinez : Now the text reduction will be 20 percent across
the board for all sites zoned multifamily.
Commissioner Greenstreet: Now I 'm looking at Multifamily Area 1,
2 and 3 proposed zoning change on WH-19.
Chair Martinez: Okay, I'm looking at 18.
Commissioner Greenstreet: And when you are looking at that
(unclear) . . .text.
Chair Martinez: No, that is site specific.
Commissioner Greenstreet: Site specific. And the same when I look
at WH-22, that's site specific also.
Chair Martinez: That's correct.
Commissioner Greenstreet: Okay. I guess my question is why do
you prefer text to sites specific.
Commissioner Forner: Because it is more equitable. Everybody
reduces 20 percent and you then don't get into the hassle of saying
you have made me do 'more and why did you make this one reduce more
than that one. Everybody is treated equally. Reduce it 20 percent
across the board. . .all multifamily.
Chair Martinez: I would hasten to remind you that this is why we
have it back because the Council disagreed with us (unclear) .
Commissioner Forner: And you don't get into the individual
differences of why one would have to reduce more than the other.
Commissioner Greenstreet: I know when we were doing it, basically
the theme of most of the people that we've heard is that they are
25
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
trying to establish the quality of their neighborhood, and site
specific seems to be more in tune with the neighborhood which is
single family. Because there isn't on the West Hill that much
multifamily, and so to have a less density is really into the flow
of things than to be concentrated. We've heard everything from
moratorium where there is no building and less traffic, less
crowded schools. . .everything points to less dense from everything
we've heard. . .other than affordable housing. That's the only
argument I've heard for more density. In (unclear) multifamily
intent, I think the affordable housing Kent has done its share.
The community has done its share. . .the schools, the roads and
everybody that has to deal with that problem are feeling that the
community is doing more than its share.
Commissioner Forner: We're just talking about the West Hill now.
Commissioner Greenstreet: Right. I'm on the West Hill traffic
and schools.
Commissioner Forner: So you recommend that we go more than 20
percent. Is that not enough?
Commissioner Greenstreet: Looking at the sites specific plan and
looking at the density there and I feel that is more acceptable.
Chair Martinez: You feel it is more acceptable because it reduces
density more or for other reasons.
Commissioner Greenstreet: That is one of the reasons because of
the way it affects the whole community. . .overcrowded schools, hour-
late bussing.
Commissioner Forner: But it doesn't reduce it more, does it.
Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: It does. Text reduction achieves an
overall reduction of 3600 units and the sites specific achieves
35. I'm sorry you are right.
Commissioner Forner: But that was including single family.
Commissioner Uhlar Heffner: But that is broken out separately.
Chair Martinez: But if you look at the totals, one of them. . . is
this correct, staff. . .there is about 85 more units. . . (unclear) two
more here, nine more there and 40 more there. . .about 50 more in the
sites specific for the reduction. Is that correct?
26
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
Dan Stroh: There are more reductions for the West Hill area for
these three areas that would be put into effect with the sites
specific reduction. Because we are going from Multifamily Area 1,
we are going from the current MRM zoning, Medium Density, down to
Garden Density, that's 23 down to 16. Straight 20 percent would
be 23 down to 19. MF Area 2 in West Hill we are recommending going
from MRM, Medium Density, down to MRG, again 23 units per acre down
to 16. Area 3 MRH, High Density, recommending all the way down to
Garden Density, that's 40 down to 16. In this particular area it
is a greater reduction. The city totals. . .when you look at the
city totals of course, our end result was to find different ways
of achieving the bottom line 20 percent. So you might take more
off in one area and less off somewhere else, but it was all juggled
to produce a bottom line 20 percent impact. So that is why the
city totals look the same. In this particular case the sites
specific will take a little more than 20 percent off West Hill.
Commissioner Forner: And the other thing, I would rather have the
West Hill have more apartments than the East Hill, because they are
closer to transportation, they are closer to the infrastructure
rather than having to provide more services and part of the
infrastructure further out in the rural area. I think good
planning promotes higher densities nearer public transportation and
facilities.
Commissioner Greenstreet: But that's just a philosophy. You can
talk to one group of people. . .planners and they can say that at
this intersection concentrate your people. You can get another
group of planners and they at this intersection there will be more
people stopped at a traffic light, interacting and everything
should be built off so that there is more view, more light because
there is so many people there and things are built away from it.
So you can get two groups of people saying two different ways to
build. I'm not saying either one is right, but in this situation
I happen to lean toward less. When I review East it might not be
site specific. on the overall plan and for the good of the
community West Hill', East Hill, Valley Floor, this plan I think is
the best for the West Hill. If it's good for the West Hill, then
I think it would be good for all of Kent. If West Hill reduces,
I 'm not saying add the people to East Hill. I'm not saying that
at all. I 'm looking at it strictly at the planning of West Hill,
a quality community. And for those people, the schools, that
traffic, I think it's the best approach.
Commissioner Forner: I disagree.
Chair Martinez: The thing that has been uppermost in my mind when
I 've been looking at this are things such as. . .transportation is
27
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
already in all three of these areas where we are talking about text
reduction at level E and F. And you may say that there are
transportation sites there, but in fact they are almost to capacity
at the present time. Simply by going with the sites specific, it
would seem to me that. . .I have to admit in the overall city, the
West Hill is not going to bear the brunt of (unclear) multifamily.
It seems to me that we need to take into consideration that with
an even hand these same kinds of factors as we are going to look
at the West Hill and at the Valley in that these people are almost
at gridlock. They have no sidewalks, in many cases there are other
parts of the infrastructure that don't exist up there.
Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I guess I can see where adopting the
text reduction across the board is the most equitable and easiest
way of accomplishing this; however, you don't have the options for
going from the multifamily to residential zoning with an across-
the-board 20 percent reduction. I think that is probably
appropriate in some cases. We don't have that being brought up on
the West Hill, but we do with the East Hill and the Valley Floor.
And I guess I 'd like to see that option made available. And I do
like the fact that with the sites specific recommendations, the
staff did make an attempt to look at impacts with transportation
and impacts on the schools and utilities. Where with an across-
the-board reduction you don't get that (unclear) analysis. So I
guess I would favor the sites specific alternatives for the West
Hill multifamily. Looking at those options rather than across-
the-board text reduction.
Chair Martinez: Anne, do you have anything you want to add.
Commissioner Biteman: I guess (unclear) I'm not for more
apartments on the West Hill, but we have to have them, I guess.
So I would like to have the most amount of reduction.
Chair Martinez: Is there a call for the question.
Commissioner Greenstreet: What's the motion?
Chair Martinez: The motion before us is to accept the
recommendation of the text reduction, which is an across-the-board
20 percent reduction in the three multifamily areas that we are
looking at.
Commissioner Forner: We didn't get a second on it.
Chair Martinez: Yes, we did. Anne Biteman seconded it. All in
favor.
28
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
Commissioners: Aye (Commissioners Forner and Biteman)
Chair Martinez: Opposed.
Commissioners: Nay (Commissioners Greenstreet, Uhlar-Heffner)
Chair Martinez: I 'm looking for another motion then.
Commissioner Greenstreet: I move that we accept the site specific
reduction for West Hill.
Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I second that.
Chair Martinez: Is there further discussion.
Commissioner Forner: Call for the question.
Chair Martinez: All in favor.
Commissioners: Aye (Greenstreet, Martinez, Uhlar-Heffner, Biteman)
Chair Martinez: Opposed.
Commissioner Forner: Nay
Chair Martinez: So that is our recommendation on the density
reduction alternative. The next thing to consider is the new
zoning.
Commissioner Greenstreet: Where in the text could that be found
exactly.
Dan Stroh: If I may lead you to pages WH-47 and WH-48, at the end
of the report are listed out the four actions that staff was
proposing to be done as part of the review tonight. We still would
be proposing that all four of those be accomplished tonight with
the exception of course of the single family areas in item 4 zoning
map amendments. We would continue to propose that items 1, West
Hill Subarea Plan text amendments be made. These are needed to
bring some of the text in the subarea plan for West into
conformance with the recently passed housing element in the city's
general comprehensive plan. Item 2, Subarea and Comprehensive Plan
Map Amendments, what these do is they do make the zoning and the
comprehensive plan maps consistent for the West Hill Area. It also
includes the creation of the single family designated area overlay
which we continue to feel would be an appropriate action even
without taking the specific zoning action on the single family
sites. It is designed to really protect the area, basically the
area that is of the single family character on West Hill. The
29
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
third action on page WH-48 is the zoning code amendment creating
the R1-5 district. The Commission could take or could not take
that action tonight. We don't need it for Area 1, 2 or 3, but that
would be up to you whether or not you want to move on that tonight.
Then, of course, the zoning map amendments which, having decided
on the specific way of doing the zoning map amendments with the
site specific analysis, you've already partially moved on that one.
Chair Martinez: What is the pleasure of the Commission.
Commissioner Greenstreet: I move we create a new zoning district,
R1-5.
Chair Martinez: Is there a second.
Commissioner Forner: Are you talking about number 3, create a R1-
5.
Chair Martinez: Is there a second. It dies for want of a second.
Commissioner Greenstreet: Okay, number 2. Isn't that the single
family area. I move we accept the recommendation #2 there. . .single
family designated area which is shown on map 49, WH-49.
Chair Martinez: Are you moving to amend the West Hill Plan Map to
create single family designated area overlay and to amend the West
Hill Plan Map for implementation to site specific
recommendation. . .to multifamily area MF03?
Commissioner Greenstreet: Yes.
Chair Martinez: Is there a second.
Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I second that motion.
Chair Martinez: Is there discussion. And we all understand that
nothing (unclear) I don't know where that is going to be yet. Is
there any discussion on this.
Commissioner Forner: We've already done part of it. All we are
doing is saying is do we accept the overlay where the single
families are. Call for the question
Chair Martinez: All in favor.
Commissioners: Aye
30
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) Thank you. We have to amend
the West Hill Subarea Plan which we have not done.
Commissioner Greenstreet: Which is number 1.
Chair Martinez: That changes the housing element and the public
facilities and services (unclear) .
Commissioner Forner: I move we amend the West Hill Subarea Plan
test as proposed in number 1 on page WH-47.
Chair Martinez: Is there a second to that?
Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I second that.
Chair Martinez: Is there discussion?
Commissioner Forner: Call for the question.
Chair Martinez: All in favor.
Commissioners: Aye
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) The last thing we really have
to do is make the zoning map amendment to go along with the motion
that we want to go with the sites specific recommendation.
Commissioner Forner: But we don't have to amend it for single
family, we only have to amend it for multifamily.
Chair Martinez: That is correct.
Commissioner Forner: I move we amend the zoning map for
multifamily areas MF01, 02 , and 03 .
Commissioner Greenstreet: I second.
Chair Martinez: Okay. Is there further discussion? Question.
All in favor.
Commissioners: Aye
Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) Motion carried.
Dan Stroh: For clarification of that motion. . .was to amend the
zoning map consistent with the item 4 in the staff report which
was from the current designations of MRM, MRM and MRH respectively
to MRG for all three areas.
31
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
August 14, 1989
Chair Martinez: It is designated on WH-48 in the last paragraph
on that page. We have a motion that was tabled and we need to
bring (unclear)
Commissioner Forner: How do we get rid of it?
Chair Martinez: How do we get rid of it. Don't you bring it up
and kill it?
Commissioner Greenstreet: Do you need me to withdraw my motion?
I withdraw my motion to accept . . .my tabled motion.
Chair Martinez: Thank you. I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
(End of Verbatim Minutes)
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Forner MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner
Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was
adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jam s P. Harris, Secretary
32