Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 11/25/1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 25, 1991 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Faust at 7:00 p.m. , November 25, 1991, in the Kent City Hall, Chambers West. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Faust, Chair Linda Martinez, Vice Chair Gwen Dahle Christopher Grant Albert Haylor Edward Heineman, Jr. Kent Morrill Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Greenstreet APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 28 , 1991 MINUTES It was MOVED and SECONDED that the minutes of the October 28, 1991 be approved as presented. Motion carried. NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS: Mr. Harris mentioned that the City Council and Council Committee will be meeting on December 3, 1991. Mr. Harris commented there are no issues that would specifically relate to the Planning Commission; mainly, just items relating to the Planning Department. SHORELINE VARIANCE RIVER DISTRIBUTION CENTER #SMV-91-3 A request for a variance from the Shoreline Master Program General Use Regulation that prohibits the removal of any trees within the 200 foot shoreline area of the Green River having a caliper of four inches or greater. Carol Proud, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. She reiterated the request. Ms. Proud commented a copy of the Hearing Examiner's Findings, Conclusion and Decision has been given to each Planning Commissioner. Ms. Proud pointed out that the Hearing Examiner, at a previous shoreline hearing, informed City staff that the City's shoreline program states that requests for a substantial development permit would be heard prior to a request for a shoreline variance. She stated the Hearing Examiner approved the substantial development permit to construct the storm detention facility with conditions. Ms. Proud showed some view foils Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 depicting the 1) storm water detention system and 2) the location of the site as well as zoning of surrounding uses and site. A video of the site was shown. Ms. Proud lectured on the State rules and regulations that govern shoreline areas. She briefly mentioned the criteria that is used in reviewing a shoreline variance. Ms. Proud stated the City staff is recommending approval with two conditions. Mr. Ward asked if the replacement trees would be of a similar size of the ones rifted. Ms. Proud responded the trees are just replacement trees. Chair Faust if the trees were basically cottonwoods? Ms. Proud commented yes. The applicant submitted a detailed tree plan identifying 95 percent of the trees and the majority are cottonwoods and maples. Ms. Proud stated that at the development meeting usually the type of tree is determined. Mr. Grant asked if this development would encumber the Interurban Trail. Ms. Proud replied negatively. She displayed a view foil showing the location of the interurban trail in conjunction with the location of the property. Ms. Dahle requested how would the public get to the river. Ms. Proud stated that the Shoreline Master Program requires that for every 1,000 liner feet that a public access be provided by the proponent of the project. This proposal has in excess of 1, 000 feet; so there will be access and the location would be determined later. It could possibly be on 262nd, on the west side of the property. Will Wolfert, Director of Planning Services, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. , 18215 72nd Avenue S. , Kent 98032, presented a large display depicting the retention system. Mr. Wolfert stated there are about 18 trees which would be removed because they are in direct conflict with the biofiltration swale and detention ponds. There are six cottonwood and three cherry trees among the trees that would be removed. The large strand of trees at the northwest corner of the site will be retained. The largest tree that will be removed is about 36-inches in caliper; the remaining trees are about 4 to 12 inches in caliper. 2 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Mr. Wolfert expounded on the State Is environmental requirements for the project. Mr. Wolfert stated the applicant agreed with the staff's findings and recommendation. Mr. Wolfert gave a brief explanation of a biofiltration swale. He addressed the City's criteria for a shoreline variance. Bart Brynestad, applicant, 23409 NE 19th, Redmond, commented the proposal was revised, at the Planning Department's request, to preserve as many trees as possible on site. Chair Faust if there were any questions. There were none. It was MOVED and SECONDED that the public hearing be closed. MOTION carried. After a short discussion, it was MOVED and SECONDED that the Planning Commission APPROVE the shoreline variance with the conditions as listed on page 9 of the staff report. MOTION carried. VERBATIM MINUTES CONTINUED HEARING ON THE KENT DOWNTOWN PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM #ZCA-90-6 Chair Faust: And now the moment you've all been waiting for. We are re-opening. . .we are not re-opening the hearing but we are certainly continuing with the discussion among the Planning Commissioners. A. .whatever it's called. . . Ward: Kent Downtown. . . Faust: The Kent Downtown Plan Implementation Program. Is it my imagination that it gets longer every month, the title? Ward: I think they change it every time. . . Faust: O.k. , when last we left this issue we had closed the public hearings and toddled off to bed and we are here tonight to begin our deliberations on this matter. Before we begin doing that I would like to ask staff, anyway, if they have any additional information to bring before us tonight. Jim Harris: Yes, I think Fred Satterstrom would like to say a few words. Faust: Go ahead, Fred. Fred Satterstrom: Um, for the record, again, my name is Fred Satterstrom, I 'm Planning Manager in the Planning Department, and I don't mean to catch the Planning Commission off guard this evening but I wanted to begin the meeting by kind of throwing you a little bit of a curve ball. I wanted to make a proposal to you 3 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 that I hope you won't refuse. On behalf of the City Administration Department and the Planning Department, we would like to request that the Planning Commission postpone your deliberations and final recommendation on downtown zoning specifically to your meeting on February 24. That would be your regular meeting in February, 1992. That's approximately three months from today. This will allow the staff. . .City planning staff and the City Administration and it's, perhaps, it's committee on downtown zoning, to come up with a single integrated zoning proposal for the downtown area. The Planning Department has met recently with representatives from the Mayor's Office and they concur with this strategy. Alana McIalwain from the Administration is here tonight. She can speak to this if you have any question from or for City administration. We don't necessarily need 90 days to come up with this proposal. The reason why we are asking that this come up in February is that a very important item and that is the Wetlands Ordinance should probably be dealt with first since we have a pending March 1 deadline with the State in terms of sending them a completed ordinance. The issue of wetlands is bound to be controversial; very likely that it may go more than one hearing but, in any case, I believe if we're making good progress on the wetlands ordinance in view of the State, they shouldn't come back hard on the City of Kent. That is the reason why we're asking for the February date in light of January. Also, and we realize that any revised proposal to you, no matter who it is by, but certainly in this case would require another notification of all parties of record. Certainly we would want to get any revised proposal out to those people who have been religiously giving of their Monday nights for the past several months, in terms of following this, the opportunity to read it and comment on it before it comes to you in February. You've been through a great deal of delay on this, been through a great deal of procedure on this. Some of it. . .a little bit unusual for all of us involved and I apologize for the curve ball tonight but I do believe that the next 60 to 90 days could be. . .could be, you know, dealt with in a constructive debate with Administration and the Planning Department taking the issues that have been presented to you and, at least, coming back after discussing those issues and giving you a singular proposal. Anyway, I put that before you tonight as a proposal and hope that you would discuss it. Tracy Faust: Fred, I 'm reminded of the story of the fisherman and the flounder where the fisherman caught a magic flounder and upon the condition that he release the flounder, the flounder granted him a wish. He kept on wishing for a larger and larger house and each time the flounder granted him a larger and larger house but it grew more and more annoyed with him and the last time he went down to the sea to ask this flounder for, I think, to make him King of the Universe or something, the flounder finally just got a little fed up and said presto, zingo you're back where you started and he 4 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 was back being a fisherman again. I sort of feel like the Planning Commission is the flounder here. Although you aren't the same fisherman whose been asking for a just a little bit more time. Fellow Commissioners, comments? Gwen Dahle: Madam Chair. I also have a reason to postpone. I've been trying for three months to get my version of the downtown plan before this committee and I haven't been able to do so yet, so I 'd like to go along with this delay. Faust: Gwen, what version? Dahle: I've been trying to tell you for three months. The. . .one of the things is the R1 up here on the hill. I just don't understand why we are making R1 on one side of the street and R1 on the other side of the street and right in between the middle of them there we're having downtown commercial and they're all residential houses. I 'd like to discuss that. I 'd like to have an issue on that. And, there's another issue down here that I'd like some protection for the churches and what have you from. . .from. . .not the Downtown Commercial but the light manufacturing and we haven't discussed any of those things yet. Faust: Great. Thank you, Gwen. Any other comments, Commissioners. Male Voice: Madam Chair. I have noted as I suppose all of us have, that while there are significant differences between the two proposals there are also significant areas of agreement and I think it's an excellent idea to try to pull these view points closer together. Ray Ward: Madam Chair. Faust: Ed reached for the mike. . .I mean Al reached for the mike first there, Ray. Ward: Go ahead. Albert Haylor: Go ahead, Ray. Ward: Well, um, like Fred used the key word. The key word here is integration and it sounds as though we need a lot of integration in the plan and because there's a number of plans pending, so because of that key word, I would certainly encourage us to delay until the February date in order to consider all the alternatives and all the possibilities regarding the Downtown Plan. Faust: Al? 5 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Haylor: I favor waiting until. . .giving this additional time till February, but I would also like to also caution and maybe warn all the interesting parties and so forth, that I think, I can't speak for the rest of the Commissioners, but I 'm running out of patience very quickly on this thing and I'd like to get it done and out of the way. So, I think when February comes and another delay comes about that's. . .we could end up more than just back to square one, but this policy could end up just dying of old age. Another reason why I wouldn't mind seeing this postponed, I got an awful cold tonight but I would go along with the extra time. Linda Martinez: Madam Chair? Faust: Yes, Linda. Martinez: I see no reason to be hasty about all of this. It took us a long time to get where we're going. . .where we are and it's going to take a long time to figure it out. But, one thing that I think Ray said is that we can. . .that we should have a plan that considers all the alternatives. I suspect we will not get that kind of a plan. I will suspect that we will get one plan that where all of the rough edges have been smoothed out. And, I think, that. .that. . .that one of the things that perhaps those of you who are trying to do that smoothing should perhaps realize where some of us, at least, on the Commission, are coming from and that is we may not agree with either of these plans. You haven't exactly asked us. And, um, I 'm not sure, I have not polled my fellow Commissioners, I don't know if your view of. . .of beautiful downtown Kent has anything to do with our view. And, that may be either a pleasant or a nasty surprise to you when it actually gets to us. Faust: Which is a wonderful segue into what I was about to suggest and that is that it looks like perhaps the sense of this Committee is. . .this Commission is that we grant the delay and I think we need to get that out of the way procedurally. But that after we do that, that we give you a piece of our mind, that we, politely, that we tell you where we're going because we were all prepared tonight to begin deliberating this and perhaps this is the time, then, for us to talk about what our vision is of downtown and to talk perhaps about some of the specifics of the plans and all the recommendations that we've heard and give you a sense of where we're going. We're not going to be voting tonight or even trying to reach consensus tonight, but I think this is a good opportunity for us to tell you all what we see. So, first of all I would entertain a motion, albeit unwillingly, to table this matter for the next three months for continuing the discussion. Dahle• So moved. 6 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Ward: Second. Faust: It,s been moved and seconded that we hold off until our February public hearing before we continue deliberations on this plan. Any discussion? Haylor: Madam Chairman. Before we vote on this matter, I would like to make it clear to staff and everyone else that the night of this meeting, this will be the only item on the agenda. I don't want to be. . .have to go through a small hearing, so forth, before we really get to this. So we can focus. . .I think we're going to have to focus on. . .on this item. Faust: Jim, what's the possibility of that? Harris: Give us the direction and we will do it. Faust: Fine. Martinez: Madam Chair. One procedural question and that is do we. . .do we re-open then. . . .we closed the hearing. I don't exactly know how we. . .do we end that one and start another one. - Harris: No, you got to table it essentially. Martinez: O.k. , but to get testimony back on the table, re-open it. Harris• Yes. Ward• Umhum. Dahle: I have one question too for the Staff. Does this proposal that you're talking about. . .does it include the comments that have been made by the audience when they spoke to us during the past three months. Are you taking those ideas into consideration also. Satterstrom: We do have a recorded record of all of those comments that have been made and they may, indeed, form, in addition to whatever the Planning Commission tonight may give us in terms of direction, would help to form the framework of any proposal that comes back to you. I guess we now have the advantage of, excuse me, not only the staffs input but that of the Committee, the testimony at the public hearings, as well as anything that the Planning Commission directs us to do tonight. Dahle: That's my question. 7 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Faust• Yes. Christopher Grant: As a suggestion, the public hearing would be on February 24. I 'd like to see whatever is being proposed at a workshop level prior to that meeting. Satterstrom: That would be no problem. We would handle it like we would a staff report coming to the Planning Commission where that would be headed towards hearing and we'd have to have some sort of a workshop or public meeting on this to brief you on it prior to the hearing. Faust: Any other comments or concerns, Commissioners, before we vote on this. Ward• Question. Faust: I think, no, Kent. . .Kent was moving his mike around. Kent Morrill: Yeah, I think. . .I 'm really pleased with this because I think its really important for this City to proceed with caution for the decision we're about to make in reference to the zoning. I 'd like staff, Fred, if at all possible, could you check into one thing that I became a little bit familiar with and I 'm not too sure of what the answer is, but there is some question that if we're to take any existing residential and to make that commercial that those individuals, whomever own the property or plan to purchase properties for residential, are not eligible for mortgages and I 'd like to see, I know Fannie Mae, for one, will not finance any residential for. . . if it is zoned commercial and that could affect some of these potential residential homes that want to remain as residents. Faust: Right. Well, I have a feeling that we're going to be giving Fred an earful as soon as we finish voting on this because these are the sorts of things, especially the sorts of things that Gwen was bringing up, that I think that staff needs to know as they go back and begin trying to weave some things together. So, if there aren't any more specific concerns or questions about the motion on the table, I 'd like to hear somebody call for the question. Ward• I just did. Faust• Did you. Ward: Yeah. 8 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Faust: O.k. Ray says that he's called for the question. All those in favor of tabling our discussion and vote on the Downtown Plan, please signify by saying Aye. AYE. All those in favor, Nay. And the aye's have it and the Downtown Plan Commission discussion and voting will be continued. . .has been tabled and will be continued on February 24, 1992. Haylor: Madam Chair. Faust: Yes, Al. Haylor: I would. . . .I would like to have you, as Chair, direct the staff to: One. . . is prepare this. .Downtown Plan revision for us for the workshop preceding the meeting in February and, second, making sure that the hearing in February will be the only thing on the agenda for that evening. Faust: Thank you, Al. Fred, I assume, because you are frantically scribbling away that that has been duly noted. Satterstrom: It has. Faust: Thank you. I don't want this to run until midnight obviously, Commissioners, but I think the time has come for us to talk to staff and to the Downtown Committee and to the audience as well because we've been hearing a lot about what they want and what their vision is and I think that now it's time for us to begin talking about our vision. We aren't voting tonight, but the time has come for us to begin sharing our thoughts about that. And, I 'd like, first of all. . . I eventually I'd like for us to get into the specifics. I had asked you to look at page 49 of the original Planning Department document because it had the summary of recommended actions and I figured that that would be a very good outline for us to follow. And, I still think that it is even in our discussions tonight where we're providing feedback and input. But before we do that, I'd like to ask you, if you would, to share your individual visions of downtown. Gwen? Dahle: Well, I 've been very concerned about people living downtown and since the heart of any city are the people that live in it, I think we need to be careful that we don't eliminate homes and apartments and what have you from the downtown core area. And, I 'm afraid some of the things that have been written in, the regulations that have been put in, are so limited as to drive people away from the downtown area rather than encourage them to live here. It's like, I was raised by an aunt and uncle, and in the 1960 's when my uncle died my aunt came to live in Kent and she lived in downtown Kent for about three months and then she decided she was going back home because this town rolled up the sidewalks 9 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 at five o'clock and put them in and there was nothing for any human being to do in the downtown Kent after five o'clock in the afternoon and I 'm interested in seeing that these things are taken care of. Faust: Thank you, Gwen. Would anyone else like to share their vision of downtown. Linda Martinez: Why not. I guess there's. . . .there's one thing that I don't want the town to be and that's Bellevue. I live in Kent because I have avoided the Bellevue's of the world my entire life. I live in Kent because I can get for my family what I want here. I live in Kent because I find that I. . .that it suits the kind of a person I am. It's neither terribly urban, nor is it terribly small town but it gives me, in a sense. . .some sense the. . .the best of both of those. I have no problem with us becoming more urbanized in the downtown core area. In fact, I think its a wise idea. I would like to see. . .I would like to see it. . . .actually I'd like to see more people living in the downtown including multifamily dwellings. I have a huge concern about, however, us becoming a large, metropolitan area because I have no idea. . .no conception at this moment how in the heck we will move people in and out of that same kind of an urban area. I could see if it. . . if it were happening close. . . if our downtown or new downtown were closer to the freeway it might be. . .and where we had something. . .railroad running there or something, but all of South King County already goes through downtown Kent and I can't imagine more people coming here. And, I guess, the other thing I want to make sure is when we get all done, that Kent still is a place that is liveable. That I don't walk through corridor. . . . .tall, tall corridors of buildings, I don't get raped, I don't get mugged and I can say hello to my neighbors and the folks downtown will still know me, at least some of them. Faust: Thank you, Linda. Would anyone else like to share their vision of downtown Kent? Ed Heineman: Um, I might say just a few words. I pretty much have the same kind of hope or vision for Kent that Linda has. And, it's the same kind of place, more or less, I want to live in. I think we do need to encourage people to live in or very near the downtown area. But, from what I can see, the only residential future that downtown Kent has is multifamily. That we should encourage that to whatever extend that we can. That the single. . .we're not going to have new single-family homes built in this area and the ones that are presently existing, most of them are not in very good shape and many of the people who own those homes have no intention of 10 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 upgrading them, that they are looking forward to developing for other uses. . .commercial, possibly multifamily residential. I think we need to work to improve our retail/commercial facilities in downtown Kent and to expand and develop multifamily residential and while we're doing that, of course, we're going to have to work hard on the traffic problem. How to get people through Kent, how to get people into Kent. We're going to have to integrate that with, as I hope, rail rapid transit which, I think, we're very well suited for with two operating railroad lines within the downtown area and well, that's really just about the way that I see it. Faust: Thank you, Ed. Ray. Ward: I 'm pretty much in agreement with most of the Commissioners who have spoken so far. We do need a much higher density of liveable spaces within downtown. I would encourage multifamily zoning of a greater extent so that people live within a close proximity to the downtown area. Since we have reduced the density in the outlying areas to a great degree on either hill and that should result in the fact that they should be closer to downtown. I think that development is necessary, perhaps not necessarily right downtown per se since there are some, and a great number of people who are interested in seeing some portions of the downtown historically or otherwise basically preserved. But, I would go so far as to encourage this development in the peripheral area of downtown and there's plenty of space to do that. I quite agree with Linda's statement in the sense that Kent is the place that I chose to live and I chose to live there because it was Kent and not say a Bellevue or a hybrid some other city across the country. But rather it has a potential of development and growth and I would like to see it viably do that and one of the ways that I feel as though it can do that (unclear) is by some sense of growth and development. And, it can, it can. . . .because cities in my guesstimation do one of two things--they either grow or they die. It' s like. . . it's like the shark in the ocean who is a peripheral feeding moving machine. If he stops he dies. If a city stops growing then they go the opposite way. I would like to see this be a planned and controlled growth. That's why I 'm trying to protect in this Commission. But by the same token, the growth pattern has to be there. The transportation, perhaps, we' ll try to solve as other cities have tried to solve it and possibly be just as unsuccessful as most cities have been. But, hopefully, we will. . .will try additional forms and not just talk about them. That. . .and there's many forms of transportation can. . .that can move people in and out and one speaker, one Commissioner, spoke earlier, stated the fact that most people move through here anyway and whether this growth will generate a greater movement of people, it's not a question mark 11 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 because this is a. . . .this is a transient through type of a place, come in for nine hours to work type of a place in the first place. And it could possibly continue to be that. Faust: Thanks, Ray. Kent, did you want to say something else? Kent Morrill: Yeah. I guess I disagree and maybe that's why they have different individuals on the Commission because we have different points of view on different subjects and I think that right now there's. . . .I would not like to see additional multifamily units in the downtown area. I'd like to see a shot in the arm for the retail community. I'd like to see some of the concessions given to developers once the infrastructure's caught up so we can take and rejuvenate the downtown core area and make it into a more attractive, a drawing card for individuals to come to do their shopping in Kent and right now we really don't have the big ticket drawers in Kent that's going to encourage that and I think that's one of the only salvations for Kent is if we can take and make some concessions for developers, but also keep in consideration some of the traffic patterns, the parking and put together a real comprehensive plan that would encourage some of the new construction in Kent. Faust• Al? Havlor: Are you looking at me to say something. Faust: I 'm inviting you. Havlor: You're inviting me, well, that's nice. I 'm one of the few Commissioners that don't live in Kent, live on the outskirts of Kent. I 've lived out there for better than twenty years and some time I have a. . . .we've been going over this revitalization of downtown Kent it seems like for the twenty years that I 've been here. To me, downtown Kent is East Hill Kent. We get down here, we shop once in a while down here at J. C. Penneys and do a few other things, but, it still, to my downtown Kent is the East Hill. And I feel in a way like Kent does. When it comes to multifamily buildings and so forth and residents, we have them out there on the East Hill of Kent and people do, like they do in residential homes, they get into their car and they drive to the shopping centers. Sometime you do need something to pull them in. If you put more residential homes down here, multifamily, whatever, they're probably just going to get in their cars and drive to Southcenter or to the new shopping center down in Auburn. I don't know. Sometimes, I think, the only answer if you're going. . .you know, to keep people within your own community, is like they do in Europe and the price of gasoline to a point where people can't use it, they have to stay home. So, I don't know what the answers are. 12 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 I 'm kind of hoping that maybe we can come up with something here, you know, with everyone discussing it and kicking it around, maybe we will. Kent is a good area to, I think, raise children and so forth. I raised three here and I 'm very proud of them. The school system is good. I think. . .I think people do take pride here. Whether changing all the zoning and so forth will make it better, I don't know yet. Faust: Thanks, Al. Chris. Christopher Grant: Thank you, Madam Chair. My view point may be perhaps too laissez faire for most of the Commissioners, but I would say that as Commissioners, I think we're being asked to provide zoning that will allow development to happen. Not necessarily to dictate what that particular development will be. I think that business people know business best and the business people will likely tell us what kind of businesses can grow and survive here in Kent, what their requirements will be. I think people in the residential concern, they will tell us what they need. Do they need single family, do they need multifamily? I think we will hear from them. We have been hearing from them. My view point isn't so fixed. I 've heard from over the months now, lots of input where we've seen, like Mr. Leiper who's here this evening, he's got an exciting view of downtown Kent. I don't know exactly how that would ever come to pass, in the next ten years even, as he is so aggressive and the funds to make a Kent like that may be beyond our grasp. I would hope that by February 24 or the week or two there before that anybody who is putting together another downtown plan for us to look at, will somehow tell us how these different things will be funded. We're in a City right now that's struggling with a budget that's $6 million behind. Assume for a second that you're going to put a jail in downtown Kent and I can see the associated roads and parking and sewers and electrical and everything that will go with that. Who's going to pay for that? I hope the proposals that come in here will somehow address, you know, who's going to pay for these different things. I assume the City of Kent or councilmanic bonds or. . .there's different ways to fund things. I would hope that someone will address that because I think the people in this City have no interest in any new taxes. Not in an economy like we've got. What's the timetable on this. I know that there's, you know, from Mr. Ramos who's made a very eloquent presentation here earlier, there seems to be a sense of urgency to get things going now. And if it would help stimulate the economy around here, I think I'd feel like, yeah, let's stimulate things now. Let's provide the zoning that's needed. But whatever is provided, who's going to pay for it, how are we going to do it? Those are my concerns. So much my view point of downtown Kent, what it should be like, what it 13 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 should look like. I think the public's telling us that right now. How it will be funded is the question that I've got. Thank you. Gust: Thank you, Chris. I 'd like to ask you all a specific question. We've been looking at various zoning maps of the downtown area. I think we've gotten at least two different versions so far, maybe three and I know that Gwen's real concerned about one particular part of that zoning map. I 'd like to specific. . .and I think it's real important that the people who are going back and putting their heads together get some specific ideas and I 'd like very much to get your input on that and maybe three or four other things real fast. But looking back at the various maps that you've been given and you might as well start with the one that's in the Planning Department's January, 1991 version. Oh, dear, on page 14 there's the existing downtown zoning and on page 16 is it, and on page 16 is, oops, on page 16 is, I've been told, is the proposed downtown zoning and I think also in some of the materials that we've gotten from the Downtown Committee, there' s yet another zoning proposal. What do you all think? How do you all feel about. . .about the rezones that have been proposed for downtown? Maybe Gwen you'd like to start off since you had a specific concern about one part of that. Dahle: Yes, I'm concerned about the residential houses that are on Kennebeck in that area that surrounds the Kent Senior Center. Now, we had people in here that asked us what we were going to do with their homes and that's all there is in that. . . in that, I suppose it's two and a half block area one way and one block the other. The only thing there, besides R1 is the Senior Citizen Center. Across Smith Street on the other side and east of Kennebeck is R1. Across the street and south of, what is it, Titus, it's also R1. But that same area, where all these houses are, has been proposed to be commercial and I simply do not understand that. I have gone around and asked if there's any commercial speculation going on and I have been told no. No one's heard of any. So why do we want to change those homes into a commercial when everybody else in the whole area is R1? All we're doing is raising the taxes of those elderly people that live there and I can't see any purposes in doing it. Those houses are, for the most part, not falling down. They are pretty well taken care of and I 'm concerned about that. I'm also concerned about. . .behind the school now, I. . .I understand the school is not going to be activated very much longer down here, but there are churches and schools and everything else in downtown Kent and I 'm interested in not having factories behind them. . .that there's a buffer zone between them and none of our maps show that, especially the latest ones we've got don't show that. And then Al was saying about. . .about the price of gasoline. Well, that may be one more reason why people would want to live downtown 14 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 so they're close to rail transportation and what have you if the gasoline price gets so high they can't afford to live anywhere else. Faust: Thank you, Gwen. Anyone else on the issue of the zones, how many zones, and where should they be drawn. We've heard lots and lots of comments on that. Ed. . . Heineman: Gwen, the area south of the Senior Center, according to the map that. . .there's a series of three maps in the alternate downtown proposal and the first one, starting on page 6 of that, if you have it. . . Faust: That's the one with the purple cover. Heineman: Yeah, o.k. It has all of the. . . it says that all of that area to the south of the Senior Center is now zoned MRH, High Density Multifamily, which is certainly not what is existing there and. . . Dahle: Right, but this is not the. . .this is not the last one we got. The last map we have has down there Downtown Commercial and that's what came out of the Mayor's Committee. Heineman: O.k. , Downtown Commercial, but, either that or the MU, which was the staff proposal for that particular area, would allow pretty much the same thing, wouldn't it? Or am I missing something? Dahle: I think you're missing something. I think that if we go with these, we're raising property values there, which raises taxes and all those people are in R1 homes, are elderly people. Heineman: Yes, but they're being taxed, I don't know how they're being taxed, but if they are presently zoned MRH, then they're. . .then the. . .they at least potentially, are not being zoned as single-family residents. Dahle: But, they should be. Heineman: Being taxed, maybe they should be. Dahle: That's what I 'm getting at, they should be. Heineman: You feel, then, that they should be. . .that that zoning should be reversed to R1. Dahle: That's right. 15 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Heineman• O.k. Ward: Can anyone answer the question. . .are you taxed by the usage or are you taxed by the zoning? Harris: You're taxed by the usage. That is a State law of taxes. . . Ward: So they're still taxed R1, regardless of what the zoning change is, they're taxed accordingly. Dahle: Well, that's not the impression that I got from the people that were here talking. They said they wanted to know what their taxes were going to be. Ward: Yeah, well they didn't know. Faust: They should talk with Jim. What do you all think about the categories that have been proposed? Some brand new zoning categories have been proposed. . .DIM, DCE, MU, what do you all think of those? Al, were you about to say something? Haylor: Yes. Madam Chairman, I. . .this past week I was going through a lot of this material and I came across a letter that was presented to this Commission back during the hearing from Pete Curran and he got me thinking about, you know, what do we want downtown retail type to be. I think it's come down to between two choices, really. There's one that's basically a Southcenter type of thing where you have a lot of big shops and big stores and this type of deal or like Pete was. .reference to. . .was a village type atmosphere where a small core of small businesses and where. . .where its more or less the owner is the proprietor and he works there, its his life or the. . . . Ward: Like a incubator, you're thinking, is that word. H or: Right. And, I think, . . . Ward: The point of all incubators have failed throughout the County, the incubators have failed. Ha or: But, I think, that's the theme we're looking at. The two type of communities, downtown areas that we're looking at. I haven't made my mind up which one would be best or which would be my vision of what Kent would be. But I think that's what we're down to really, between those two. To me it is. Heineman: I think we need to think not only about what we would like to see, but what it is most likely. . .the probability of what 16 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 we would see. And, I believe that if, if Kent does successfully, I was going to say rejuvenate, but its already been somewhat rejuvenated. If the downtown area continues to progress and expand, I think what the most likely scenario is, is something somewhere between Pete Curran's village and downtown Bellevue. I can't visualize us, in our lifetime, of ever seeing anything like downtown Bellevue and, on the other hand, I don't think Kent's going to make it as a village with a huge area around it. Dahle: Madam, Chair. Faust: Yes. Dahle: I think if you're going to have multifamily units down here you have to provide them with the necessary stores and grocery stores and shopping stores for clothing and what have you to maintain them down here and I 've lived here 35 years and 35 years ago we had more stores in downtown Kent than we have now. A lot more. So we're doing something wrong and we need to do something down here to encourage people to live here and encourage store owners to come back. Faust: Well, would anyone like to specifically address the question that I 'd raised a few minutes ago about what do you think about all of these new zoning designations? Martinez: I sort of like the idea of. . .I 'm going to call it mixed use, but DCE almost. . .almost was the same in the. . . in the core areas except that I. . .I do have concerns about. . .about what was Downtown Kent. I don't know what it's going to become, but the part, what I call downtown Kent which is Meeker Street and First Avenue and around in there and I like the idea of protecting that to some extent and I don't know that there's any way to. . .and that may be counterproductive. I don't know, I. . .I 'd like to see the arguments on both sides. But we may not be able to protect it and have anything else happen in the downtown area. I don't know. But it appeals to me as we've been talking about this to do some kind of protection somewhat like the original downtown zoning which did some protection kinds of things in the DC zone. Reducing the number of zones and. . .and introducing the. . .the DLM, the GC, those seem reasonable to me. I 'm not as comfortable with DLM at this moment as I, but. . . Faust: How about the rest of you. Ray? Ward: Yeah. I just have a question for Linda. Protect it from what? Martinez: I guess just to. . .to make sure. . . 17 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Ward: From progressing? Martinez: Well, maybe, you see that's, yes, that may be possible. We may not be able to grow with downtown without hurting the sod, so to speak and. . .and destroying what was downtown which I 'm. . . Ward: But you see, you like the authentic, historical county-town look. Martinez: Yes. There is some value to history. There is some value to continuity. . . Ward: If its good history, but its no value if it's bad. Martinez: Yes there is. I've a lot of horse boots in my background. But, for example, I think that we took two of our most beautiful buildings and covered them up with a relatively ugly building. The building next door. I'm not sure that that was progress, precisely. Ward: You're saying our new highrise is a. . . Martinez: Looks like a box to me. But. .but that' s my own prejudice. I'm. . .I 'm not an aesthetic planner here. But. . .but it seems to me that perhaps we will loose Kent in building Kent if we're not very careful. Ward: Umhum. Yeah, just a brief comment then on. . .on the multi. . . .on the zonings at the downtown area. I pretty well agree with most of the changes that are proposed currently. I just believe that there shouldn't be quite as much restriction on height limitations. I believe that there should not be as much restriction on multifamily in the area. I believe that. . .that we should, whether we're providing protective area and. . .and develop around the outskirts per se, develop in the sense of building and bulldozers coming in (unclear) is that we should do everything possible to encourage a developer with a plan and with money to be able to come in there and make it as viable for him as possible with as many segments of our society, administration and city and county, and say its cooperating to make it a viable type enterprise. And. . .and. . . .and. . . .and in truth that's what' s going to happen anyway. The economy and the development community to a great degree will determine to what degree of success and/or failure so far as the development is concerned. The economy determines most of the things in our lives. Hopefully, we can. . . we can guide that to some degree and if your interest is to protect a certain segment of the City and allow the rest of it to develop or to restrict develop, then by the same token then that's when we need to exercise our. . .our rights and privileges and what you that 18 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 we have in this Commission and (unclear) . But, but. . .I quite agree with most of them. And, I'm sure there will be more forthcoming within the next few weeks or so and by February 24, since this is the day that Armageddon's coming then (unclear) we' ll have something. Faust: Ed, I think you were about to speak as well. Heineman: Yes, I wanted to say something about you are already referring specifically to the zoning maps, but we're really considering two things. Not only what. . .how this pie gets divided up, but what is said as regards what a particular zone means and that's where we're rather far apart. As far as the map itself, there's very little difference between plan 1 and plan 2 except that plan 2 lumps this into one unit called DCE. The rest of it, DIM and the R1-7 .2 are virtually identical in the two plans. What we need to get a consensus on is how restrictive do we need to make this proposed zoning. Faust: Well, actually, that leads into a real interest. . .a couple of other things that I would like some input from you all and Fred is, I hope you've got enough paper there, Fred. I'd like to talk about the building height issue because that's come up a lot and I'd also like to talk with you about the pedestrian plan because that also seems to be woven into some of the comments you're making tonight. So, would anyone like to talk about how they feel about, first of all, the intensely volatile issue of building height or, if you wish to avoid that one, how you feel about the pedestrian plan which Linda, you know, really was skirting when she was talking about the sort of user friendly downtown. So, anybody. Maybe Al since I have this terrible feeling that he's going to go home and nurse his cold soon. Haylor: I 'm on my way out the door right now. Faust: Give us your final comments. Havlor: My final comment. Well, Madam Chairman, way I feel right now about. .about what's happened over the last few months and so forth is that both the Planning Department and the Administration and a few other individuals and groups have basically used us to hammer out a deal which will be coming in February. So, I'm going to see the deal before I 'm going to make any decisions and, hopefully, I think it should work out beneficial, I think, for the City. Faust: Any parting comments on height restrictions, on pedestrian overlays, zoning, vision? 19 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Haylor: No, I just want to look at the compromise and see what. . .what it's going to come up with. Faust: Good enough. Ha or: Thank you. Faust: Take care of yourself. There's no public hearing in December, Al, but we do have a workshop, second Monday. Ha or: Goodnight. Faust: Goodnight. Gwen, you look like you're about ready to say something. Dahle: Well, I was, but I changed my mind. Faust: Right. Would anyone else like to talk about height restrictions, pedestrian overlay? Heineman: I 'm willing to tackle the hight restriction. Faust: Take a whack at it, Ed. Heineman: Actually, I prefer, would prefer, I think, to minimize any restrictions on height. I think the height of buildings will be somewhat self-regulating by economics, at least in the reasonably near term. We may get four story buildings. More likely not. We certainly won't get any ten story buildings not. . .not with the kind of soil that we have in the valley here. Not that it's technically impossible to build them, but it's economically ridiculous. Faust: What about minimum height restrictions because the Planning Department has proposed a minimum two-story height restriction. What do you think about that, Ed? Heineman: All right. I like the idea on new construction of the two-story minimum because, as has been said, the land, the amount of available land we have here is limited and the land is precious and I don't think, at this point, we need any more single-story buildings in the core Kent area. Faust: Well, Kent, you have been strangely silent over there. Do you have any comments about building height or about making, perhaps, the core downtown area very much pedestrian oriented? Kent Morrill: Well, I don't know about, excuse me, Madam Chair. . . 20 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Faust: That's o.k. , call me Tracy. Morrill: O.k. I don't have any comments right now to make in reference to the pedestrian traffic. I do about the automobile traffic. I'd like to see us reconsider how some of the streets are laid out in downtown Kent. We've got some crazy curves that I don't know if they really need to be there and maybe once we get the downtown core area put together a little bit more attractive to the customer, maybe we could devise the traffic to maybe flow through Kent instead of bypassing it. Faust: Good. On that pedestrian, sort of making, at least the downtown area--the central downtown area-- more pedestrian oriented, how wide an area, maybe I should ask Linda this. Linda, for the television audience, how wide an area do you foresee being. . .being part of a pedestrian-oriented city? Martinez: Good question. It honestly depends on where the City ends up being. It's conceivable to me that the city city, the ones with tall, tall buildings and parking structures and stuff may not develop down here at all. It may be closer to where public transportation can get in and out to it. If that's the case, that' s where I would want to be able to walk. So. . .Sol I 'm not. . .I'm not. . .I don't. . .I guess at this moment not knowing what I'm talking about, never stopped me before, but it seems to me that where we need to have the pedestrian-intensive development or design standards, if you will, is where we want pedestrians to be and. . .and by that I mean, if you're going to go back and forth to office buildings, you want to have a pass. You want to have parks. You want to have places that make it so you can get there so people don't get into their car to go one block. And I think that that all has to do with how we. . .how we think about what's going to happen down here. . .what kind of design standards we ultimately impose on all of this downtown area. I didn't answer the question. I'm still thinking about it. Ward: Umhum. Are you suggesting by that statement that we. . .that we require of the developing community, certain pedestrian-oriented areas? Martinez: Yes. Ward• Umhum. Faust: Every time we get talking on this subject, I sort of think of looking in a mirror, standing behind a mirror and looking into endless mirrors and what we've done is just depressed the fool out of me thinking about whether we're going to determine where the 21 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 pedestrian areas ought to be or whether they're going to determine where we ought to be. . .so. . . . Dahle: I have one question. Faust: Sure, Gwen. Dahle: In talking about the parking and what have you and being pedestrian-oriented, we just put a new library down here. It's only one-story tall, by the way. . . Faust: A very tall story. Dahle: Yeah. And the people that are going to be using that library are coming from East Hill and all over, so there's going to have to be parking down here for them. There certainly is going to have to be parking for people who are going to live down here. So, maybe we have this area, downtown commercial area, too big. Maybe it should only be two blocks wide and four blocks, which is what I would say was as far as I want to walk, but. . . Fa st: Well, what do. . . .what do you think, Gwen, about the various parking proposals that have been put before us? Dahle: I haven't been too thrilled with any of them, especially the City's philosophy, putting up this new building over here and parking for the City and they took the only downtown parking area that we had on this side to do it. I wasn't happy with that. I don't think there's been an awful lot of thought put into parking downtown. Faust: Well, let's see. I think that the City's proposal, at this point I may be getting things confused, somebody's proposal was to limit on-street parking and move it behind buildings. I think that another proposal said no, let them park where they please. Somebody else, well, let's put them all into a very large garage. Dahle: I think maybe you're going to have to put some underground parking down here if you're going to have residences or multifamily units and what have you. There just isn't enough room for all the parking lots and . . . Faust: Do you think that the. . .early on it was suggested that there be one parking stall somewhere for each multifamily unit. Does that sound about right to you. Dahle: One and one and a half. Ward: No, one and an eighth isn't it by Code isn't it? 22 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Faust: I think for downtown they were doing it to just one. . . Ward: What, just one per. . .per unit. Faust: I think so. Ward: I thought you were talking about (unclear) . Male Voice: Fifty units this one place. Ward• Umhum. Faust: What about setbacks? The City propo. . . .the Planning Department proposed 20 feet as a setback so that there would not just be buildings up to the sidewalks or up to the road and the Committee first said no setbacks whatsoever, build out to the property line and I think their last proposal was a maximum setback of ten feet. Ward• Ted feet. Faust: But, how do you all feel about setbacks? Ward: I think they should be just as varied as those two indicators indicate. That it should be. . .that's one possible restriction that could be. . . .could be mellowed to a great degree. Because, again, that's. . .that's an inducement and/or an encouragement for someone to build if they don't have. . .have a fantastic amount of restrictions in the area of setbacks. Faust: Well, do you think there ought to be any setbacks? Ward• Hmm? Faust: Do you think there ought to be any setback restrictions? Ward: It could be a stated setback, but by the same token, it could be compromised out as a. . . .as a gratuity for doing something else and so you have it, but by the same token if they add a tree, whether its a trash tree or not, then maybe you should get rid of it. . .something like that. Faust: I guess my concern about zero setbacks, especially facing the front of the building, is that it's not very pedestrian friendly at all and I 'd really rather see some sorts of setbacks. Lauri? Lauri Anderson: I know its not very appropriate for me to interject at this point, but there's been quite a bit of confusion 23 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 over the setback issue and I think we need to clarify that the staff proposal does not to recommend a 20 foot setback in the downtown. That's a misconception (unclear) . . . . Faust: Why don't you. . .wait, why don't you get on up to the mike and put this on the record. Anderson: I 've called the newspaper and a number of people on this issue. So, once and for all, I ' 11. . .I' ll get it straight. This is Lauri Anderson with the Planning Department. Just to clarify the setback issue. We were not recommending a setback in those core areas. We were recommending a maximum setback so that we, too, were proposing that buildings should, hopefully, find their way close to the sidewalk. That's all. Faust: Great. Thank you, Lauri, I appreciate that. Ward: You wrote that newspaper article. Anderson: (Unclear) . Dahle: The only place, Madam Chair, the only place I can see where we would really want to watch out what kind of a setback requirement we put in is in light. . . . is in the light manufacturing and where trucks come in. If you're only going to allow them ten feet, they aren't going to get a truck in there and turned around. So, it seems to me we need to vary a little. . . .be a little bit more restrictive downtown and not so much in the outlying area. Faust: How about design review? I 'm sorry there was a murmur down at the other end. Heineman: Madam Chair? Faust• Yes, Ed. Heineman: I wanted to interject a little bit into that about the setback thing. For only for my own personal experience, I don't think setback is. . . is nearly as important in creating a pedestrian friendly environment as is the type of buildings and other amenities in the area and so I think the setback thing is a non- issue. Faust: How about administrative design review? That was also something that was brought up in the proposals. Ward: I 'm a strong proponent of design review. I think design is one of the things that. . .that accomplishes a lot of the things that many people have objection to so far as any type of building within 24 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 the City whether it's multifamily and commercial buildings by the same token it's again, I. . .we have just proposed something that was. . .I think is very good in that kind of respect and I think that limit, perhaps it could be extended to a commercial type of building which would be a start in the right direction. Faust: Anyone else? Anybody else have a feeling about administrative design review for the downtown area and if so, should it just be for a certain area, maybe the teensy core area? Should it be for the whole thing? Should it be for a particular types of uses? What do you think? Gwen? Dahle: I think it's important to have design review where you have a lot of multifamily dwellings and we've got Fort Kent here already and we don't need any more of those. But, when you're talking about right downtown commercial, I don't know if you can really do an awful lot of restriction on design review. They're already there. . .the buildings are already there. And we certainly aren't going to tell them to tear them down, so? Faust: Oh, but what about new structures? Dahle: Well, I suppose they should. . .you could say they might be coordinated with the rest of the surrounding area, it's difficult to set. . . its difficult to tell people how they can build on their own property when there isn't very much property down here that's buildable. It' s already taken. It's already covered, the areas in downtown. I think Mr. Bogard had a great presentation down here, but at the time he was talking I couldn't see where he was going to use all of these. In the downtown core area, there wasn't any space for him to build down here. Faust: Chris, you've been thoughtfully and quietly sitting there flipping though things. How would you like to say a few words on the administrative review or any of the above topics. Grant: Any of the above. I was just reviewing the Mayor's Advisory Committee Downtown Planning Alternatives, the purple one here, and maybe some clarification would help me out on this. Page 11 of this document says, it lists the final. . .points seven, eight and nine of alternative zoning recommendations, development plan review, below that administrative design review, it says development plan review. . .adopt development plan review as interim downtown review process until City Administration develops special review process. And then under Administration Design Review it says eliminate any mandatory design criteria or design administrative process. . .administrative design review. Now, we currently have that on our books, right? There is administrative 25 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 design review? So this recommendation anyway is to eliminate whatever we have on our books? Faust: Let's let Jim answer that question. Harris: We will be coming back to the City Council with an ordinance that will create what we had the public hearing on so we would have some design criteria for multifamily. Grant: Strictly multifamily, though, right? Harris: Multifamily, yes. Grant: Yeah. But as it relates to non-multifamily, is there anything on our books right now that's a design review? So there's nothing to eliminate then. Harris: Well, they're asking you to eliminate anything to do with multifamily design review. Faust: I thought that I'd asked for some clarification from Mr. Ramos last month and he had clarified that they did not mean to do away with design review of multifamily. But I ' ll go back and review my notes. I 'm sorry, Chris, I interrupted. Grant: Yeah. How does administrative design review differ from the development plan review? Mr. Harris, can you shed any light on that one for me? Harris: Maybe Fred or someone else. Satterstrom: I 'm not sure. . .excuse me. . .I don't have. . .can I take a look at that please? Grant• Sure. Satterstrom: Actually, I could take a shot at trying to determine what is being said in here, but I guess I 'd much rather defer to the member. . .the head of the Committee, I think. . . Grant: Mr. Ramos, want to handle that one? Satterstrom: Raul, would you like to handle that? They're talking about the development plan review process versus the administrative design review process, is that right, Chris? Grant: That's correct. Ward: What page is that on? 26 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Faust: You know we might be able to save ourselves all a lot of time and avoid putting poor Raul on the spot, on page 18, if you'll look on page 18 of the purple document, sideways, there's actually an explanation. First column: development review, plan review, is an administrative review, the primary purpose of which is to define, etc. , and you can read it and then administrative review is below it. Ward: It gives a comparison between them both. Faust: So there we go. Grant: Raul, thank you. Faust: I wouldn't want to have to define them. At any rate, having read that, Chris, do you still have some more questions about the difference? Grant: I 'm not through reading it yet. Ward• (Unclear) Grant: Create a committee. Plan review. Faust: And remember, Chris, that what we're doing right now is not opening up any sort of public hearing and asking for clarification only to the extent that is absolutely necessary. Mostly we're. . . this is our opportunity to tell these folks where we're going and what we're thinking. Grant: Well, let's go back to what Ray was saying. I think. . . Faust: Can we allow Mr. Ramos to sit down? Let him off the hook? Grant: The. . . I think administrative design review is a good thing, that we should have it and whether it be multifamily or commercial, irregardless that design review is important for the citizens of Kent. As Gwen pointed out, we don't need more Fort Kents here. I think for the most part, though, the development community is going to come in with probably pretty good buildings. I mean who would want to build a bad building here and expect it to be occupied. But, why not review it, huh? Ward: What did you say, Linda? Martinez: Can we put that on our list. Grant: Yeah, put that on the list. But, development plan review, I'm trying to see how they differ, existing. 27 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Faust: I think that probably the difference there, Chris, is that the staff proposal is that the Planning Department continue to apply the process they've been using and that the Downtown Committee wishes a committee, another committee appointed by the Mayor that will have that as a task. We visited this with the express authority to grant discretionary exceptions from SEPA and it's my understanding that they can't do that, but I 'm not sure. But, it seems to me that we talked about this in a workshop a couple of months ago and actually, already hashed this particular one out, at least I thought we had, and decided that we'd rather this continue to be something that was done by staff rather than creating a committee that would handle this. I've a recollection of that. Grant: Was that as it related to MRM only? Faust: It was related to the Downtown Plan altogether. Ward: Pardon me. I think one of the key statements in the description of what a development plan review is, is that it's. . .the purpose in which it says is to define and describe the needs of a particular site. In other words, it's a recommendation by staff as to what is needed for this site as compared to what goes on this site and how it should be built. And that comes from. . . from. . .basically comes from staff. On this site we need a gambling casino as compared to a school and a library and that's the relative difference. Because that's why they call it a development. Dahle: I have a question, Madam Chair. aust• Yes. ah e: Are these compromises that are going to be going on in the next couple of months involve any of these things we're discussing right now? Faust: I sincerely hope so. Ward• Umhum. ahle: Are they? Those comprises will be in there? Good. Whispering took place here. Martinez: Madam Chair? Faust• Yes? 28 Kent Planning Commission November 25, 1991 Martinez: May I make a motion? Could I make a motion that adjourn and. . .and I'm not trying to be facetious, but I think that. . .that we have. . .each of us had an opportunity to say something that has more or less weight as we have thought well about it or less well and certainly the discussion that we're going to have. . .the true discussion, will take place in relationship to a document we ultimately end up with. I sort of would like to end it now before we start doing a discussion that we're going to have do again. Morrill: Second. Faust: Its been MOVED and SECONDED. . .do you mind if I shorten your motion to adjourn. Seconded and thirded. Any discussion? Oh, did you call for the question? All those in favor of adjourning, please say aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. This is adjourned and it's actually not adjourned, it's simply continued, but the meeting. Maybe we need, Jim, do we need to do both? Respectfully submitted, 971444-s ame Harris, Secretary 29