Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 01/28/1986 r . KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 28, 1986 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Raymond Ward at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 28, 1986, in the Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Raymond Ward, Chairman James Byrne, Vice Chairman Robert Anderson Robert Badger Richard Foslin Chuck Lambert Nancy Rudy COMMISSION-MEMBER 'ABSENT: Jill Spier PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: • James P. Harris, Planning Director James Hansen, Principal Planner Fred Satterstrom, Project Planner Ed Heiser, Assistant Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary CITY STAFF PRESENT: Ken Morris, Transportation Engineer APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Lambert MOVED that FOR NOVEMBER 26, 1985 the minutes of the November 26, 1985, Planning Commission meeting be approved as presented. Com- missioner Badger SECONDED the 4 motion. Motion carried. Chairman Ward explained that the meeting was a public hearing on the East Hill Plan. The public would be able to address the chair regarding the issue. He asked for those wishing to speak to sign on the sign-up sheet. Ten minutes would be allowed for each presentation. The Commission would consider the presentations made before they make their recommendation to the City Council . First, the staff report would be presented by the Kent Planning Department. Then the public would be asked for their comments. i Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 1986 EAST HILL PLAN (Verbatim Minutes) Satterstrom: If you recall , about a year ago the City Council passed Resolu- tion 1040. In that resolution they adopted some comprehensive plan and some zoning changes for the 104th and 240th intersection up in the City of Kent in the East Hill area. In that resolution they described another area, that being the area that is under consideration this evening at 256th and 104th , that they would also like to look at in terms of commercial expansion. There- fore, subsequent to that resolution the Planning Department staff began a study of the commercial potential in terms of expanding the commercial area at 256th and 104th. The way in which we are going to go this evening in terms of making a staff presentation is that Ed Heiser, who is the project planner on this commercial expansion study, will give some background to the study in terms of what things we found out exist out there, some trends in the area and will get into some of the alternatives in terms of expanding the commercial area. He will show a video tape, what is that, about 20 minutes, Ed, about a 20-minute video tape that shows each of the commercial . . . .what we call the candidate-commercial sites. They are candidate because they are considered as a possible site for expansion in the study. There are about 13 of them, and it will briefly go through each one of those sites showing you what they look like from certain vantage points along the street. That video tape will then be followed by Ken Morris ' presentation on the traffic impacts of each of the five alternatives in the staff report. Ed will have a concluding remark on the staff' s recommendation. To help answer what this meeting is about, it is about changes to the comprehensive plan map. It does not deal directly with zoning. Zoning is a separate matter and would very likely come at a later date either by initiative by the City or petitioning of each property owner that might be affected. But bear in mind that this hearing this eveninq is not on the issue of zoning. It is on the issue of making changes to the City' s Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map. The Plan Map, for those of you who are not familiar, is a rather generalized statement of what the City .i would like to see the land use out in the East Hill area be in the next ten or fifteen -year horizon. Zoning on the other hand really has the force and effect of law and regulates the development and the use of property. So, ,lust bear in mind that we are ,lust talking about that gen- eral designation that goes on the land in terms of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, not the zoning, although the two definitely are related. With that I will turn it over to Ed. Heiser: Thank you Fred. I 'd like to first say that the document that was passed out tonight, that the Commissioners all have a copy of, was prepared by the Planning Department and the Engineering Department in 1985. It includes the background information that supports the Planning Department' s recommenda- tion. I 'd first like to talk about the land use survey that the Planning Department did. The Planning Department surveyed the land use in the study area in May of 1985 and there is a summary of that land use survey on page • 10 of the yellow report. Also, I have an overhead that I am going to throw up for reference. -2- a 3 i Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 1986 This table represents a synopsis of the land use survey that the Planning Department did in May of 1985 and it separates the different categories into the City of Kent as opposed to the King County area. The area that we are really concerned about is the area that is designated for community retail . As shown here, community retail . . .the only land that is community retail happens to be in the City of Kent. It is generally near the intersection of 256th and 104th. We have calculated that there are about 109.5 acres (110 acres) of land that is slated for community retail use right now. Of that approximately 110 acres, roughly 24 remains vacant at this time(23.8)• ' So, according to the survey done oy the Planning Department, about 20 percent of the land that is designated for community retail use in this study area remains vacant and available for development. The next thing I 'd like to talk about has to do with the consumption rate of land, commercial land that is, in the general study area. The Planning Depart- ment established a consumption rate of commercially-designated land in the ' study area since 1973 and is documented in the report in the yellow book that they have before you. This was done by adding the number of permits issued per commercial buildings within the study area since 1973 in the column on the left and then comparing that to the acreages developed in each year. We ended up with an annual total of 28 permits issued for commercial develop- ment in the study area since 1973, and the acreages involved was a little over 46 acres. By taking that figure and dividing it by the number of permits issued, • we came up with an average of 3.7 acres per year. The Planning Department maintains that this is an average figure to be used in considering the average consumption of commercially-designated land in the study area since 1973. As I just told you, we did a land use survey in May of last year and determined that there are 24 acres of commercially-designated land at the present time. If you take that 24-acre total and divide it by this 3. 7 acre-per-year-figure, that adds up to about 6 to 7 years of commercial land available for development. Now I 'd just like to talk about the candidate sites just briefly. I ' ll show you some graphics prepared by Libby Hudson of our office. This is the map of the candidate site as identified bythe Planning Department. It is also in the yellow booklet. As shown on the map, the Planning Department has identified {i 13 sites that have been reviewed in the document for commercial expansion. The sites range from portions of the site, for example, sites H and I near the lower-left-hand portion of the map here are actually portions of map which are , portions of larger acreages, whereas a site like J for example might include six or seven properties. So when we refer to these sites as candidate-commer- cial sites, they might include a number of different parcels. The staff has identified five different alternatives that the Planning Commission might consider. Commissioner's voice. , Ed, excuse me. That 's at an angle_ towards us. Can the people back in that direction see that O.K. • Heiser: That may be a little difficult. I ' ll move it so that everyone can see. Commissioner ' s voice: We can refer to the book. -3- Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 1986 Commissioner's voice: Turn it more for the audience. We have a map. Heiser: 104th Avenue SE is right here. It intersects with 256th here where Kent Kangley comes off at an angle. SE 254th Street . (unclear) . . . Alternative #1 is identified by the staff as a no action alternative, which means at this time that we might suggest that the Planning Commission consider no additional expansion of the commercial base, that we have 24 acres of commer- cially-designated land at the _present time, and there may not be any need to expand at the present time. Alternative #2 would add approximately 19 acres of commercially-designated land to the commercial base. As I said, there are already 24 acres that are designated for commercial use. Alternative #2 would add an additional 19 acres that would be included in parcels G, L and M. This alternative would broaden the commercial base along 260th Street and 108th Avenue SE, which coincides with the new busi- ness bypass route that has been established by the City in the past year. As I said before, Alternative #l , if we added nothing to the commercial base that would allow for a six to seven year supply of commercial land. . . Alternative #2 would provide about 11 and one-half year horizon, so we would have approximately 11 and one-half years based on the consumption rate identified by the staff. . Alternative #3 would add 25.6 acres of land to the base of 24 acres that are currently available for commercial development. Alternative #3 would add lands along 100th Place SE down to 264th. . .SE 264th Street on parcels G, H, I and J. This would allow for about a 13.3-year horizon, about 13 years of commercial development. Alternative #4 represents the largest of the scenarios that would expand the commercial base. It would expand the commercial base by about 58.5 acres, including sites E and F to the north, and a combinations of Alternatives #2 and #3, including sites G, H, I, J, L and M. This scenario would provide for about a 22-year horizon. Chairman Ward: How many acres was that. . .58.5? Heiser: Yes. Alternative #5 was the last alternative identified by the staff. It is quite different from the others in that it does not propose a no-action alternative, nor does it propose an expansion of the commercial base. This alternative is different in that it proposes a lessening of the intensity of land uses in the study area as a whole. Basically, what this one does is. . . it takes the 24 acres of commercial land that we have identified as being vacant but designated for commercial use, it takes those acreages. . .changes the designation from community retail to office. In addition to that, it takes all the lands that are designated for multifamily, 12-24 units per acre, would reclassify them to • multifamily, 7-12 units per acre, so that is a lessening of the density permitted at least by the Comprehensive Plan. -4- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 One other change that is more site specific. Just south of 260th between SE 260th and SE 264th to the east of 100th Place SE there is a triangular- _shaped piece of ground gust east of Mill Creek Park Canyon that is presently designated for office use. That will be reclassified to multifamily, 12 units per acre, maximum. So as I said, that one is quite different. Each of the five alternatives have different vehicular t,^ip generation _figures._ _ Each of these alternatives is evaluated in the report by Ken Morris. Ken will have another chance to talk about those, but before we get into the transporta- tion figures, I 'd like to show a video that was shot that surveys each of the sites so that the Planning Commissioners and the public can get a better idea of what we are looking at besides just looking at maps or books or what have you. We will take a look at the video screen. Lambert: Before you do that can we ask you a couple of questions. Was it taken into consideration in the relationship between the consumption of commer- cial zone as to population growth? I believe the City of Kent has grown in leaps and bounds since about 1980. According to page 4 in our little yellow book, the Soos Creek population growth shows that by 1990. . . in ten years it will pretty close to double. That' s just Soos Creek. And if you read this morning' s paper, the development taking place on James Street of 2400 units will increase the population by about 7,000 people, which will be about the size of what. . .Ellensburg. Would 24 acres handle the commercial zoning needed • to handle a city of 7,000 people, which we are going to get. Not only that, being in the apartment business I happen to know that there are several more thousand units under consideration for the immediate area. The south of Renton. . . I know within the City of Kent itself there are probably 1 ,600 to 1 ,800 more units besides the 2,400 that Centron is building. I am ,lust wonder- ing if you'd look at the consumption of commercial property since 1980, it is six acres per year. I am wondering if we designate 58 acres if we are just kind of spinning our wheels and if we ought to look down the road a little farther and take into consideration the population. Heiser: You've asked a long question. In answer to it the Planning Depart- ment is taking a look at population growth and is referenced in the report only as an indicator that the area is truly going to grow. Lambert: I believe it was published a week or two ago that the State of Washing- ton 's population will grow by 1 .7 million by the year 1996, which the major portion of that will be on the I-5 corridor, which King County will get the lion' s share. There isn't a lot of ways to go. They can 't go much farther west or east because of transportation. It looks like we are kind of stuck with the growth. I think we ought to have a controlled growth that we will be proud of rather than end up with spot zoning here and there. I_f we don' t zone enough, and then we have to jump around a bit. Heiser: You do make a good point. But the point of this study is that we are looking at a controlled area, it is a 2.5 mile study area. I wouldn't suggest • that even 58 additional acres of commercial land could support the 103,000 forecasted for the Soos Creek plateau. We are taking a look at one area that -5- Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 1986 happens to be one commercial area among several . Also, in answer to your question, I think that the expansion of the commercial area is tied to the transportation system. They are inextricably tied together and there is no way that we can get around that. That is something that I hope Ken Morris will be able to help answer the questions on that. If I might, I 'd like to show the video. Now the audio that you will hear are the sounds of cars and street noises and that sort of thing. I ' ll try to talk through the video to tell you what sues we are looking at that time and the streets and the points of view. Chairman Ward: O.K. If the audience doesn't mind, we will move down to the section where they are. Harris: I 'd like to make the comment that this is the first time that the Planning Department has ever done a video. We intend to do videos for our presentations from now on, This is an experiment but from the reaction we got from the Commission last week, we think that it will be well worth it. Voice: Is it x-rated? Harris: We would like input on this kind of thing. You and others following you will be viewing these kinds of things. Heiser: I have a map up here that just shows candidate-commercial sites. I realize that everyone won' t be able to see it. It may be possible for those with books to look through the books. I will be referring to different sites throughout the video, so it might be helpful to have that book in hand. Voice: Where do you get a book? Heiser: Unfortunately we don't have any copies left. The copies that we had have been distributed throughout the audience. Now this is the first in a series of shots that takes a look at Site A. Site A is located on the south . . . SE 248th Street just west of 104th Avenue SE. Looking down 248th here. . .the site is generally flat but it does kind of dove- tail off to the southwest. A two-story office building was built on this site last year, and the developer intends to build a twin to the building herein the foreground sometime in the future. Now I am kind of panning to the east looking at Site B here. It is a single-family home at the corner. Site B is on the south side of 248th east of 104th. Right now Site B is no more than a horse pasture for the most part. . .the topography is generally rolling away from 104th Avenue SE. There are some significant trees along the street front. There are two single-family homes on this site and there are also a number of out buildings. This is looking to the south here. There is a home beyond all these trees along this driveway. This is again looking to the west . . . Site A and the new office building built. Site C is to the south of A. Site C includes three single-family homes, one of which has been converted into a • real estate office this past year or so. The (unclear) begins fairly flat at the street level and trails off towards the west and drops about five or ten -6- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 feet. Moving towards the east, you see the horse pasture on Site A. I am going to pan the camera around to take a look at Site D at this point. Site D is also a horse pasture. There are some out buildings. There is a single-family home. It is a red home that doesn't show up too well on this video. The ground is about eight to ten feet above the surface of 104th. Directly to the south. This is a series of shots of Site E which is just on the west side of 104th. Site E 1 includes a couple of single-family homes. For the most part it is undeveloped. It is generally wooded and slopes down from the level of 104th down towards the Kent Meridian High School baseball diamonds which. . . (unclear) familiar with. This is the beginning of a series of shots showing the Benson Business Park. This is a business park that has been built recently, last year or so. It is a two-building office complex. A third building is also proposed to be constructed at some time in the future. Just to south of the Benson Business Park happens to be a two-story office building known as the Burns and Ells Building. Due east here are the Lake Villa Condominiums. South of the Burns and Ells Building and the Benson Business Park there is another Building built several years ago. I would maintain that the (unclear) office building, the Benson Business Park and the two-story brick building built at 248th and 104th shows a trend toward office construction. These shots were taken in hopes of showing that trend. Now we jump to a series of properties to the south, the south half of the quadrant. This is Site G which is just south of SE_260th Street and just east of (unclear) Place SE. The site is on the left of the road here. (unclear) . . .parking lots in the foreground. Sites are basically • grassy, field grass is the predominant vegetation here. There are a number of large trees that could be worked into the development as well . Generally speak- ing the ground is flat and level . There is Mount Rainier in the background. You can ,lust barely see it. This is looking along the new business bypass route, Crow Road. It comes up to meet SE 260th. It is intended to divert traffic from Canyon Drive up the business bypass route to SE 260th, but to meet 104th (unclear) . . .to meet 108th and then back out to Kent Kangley. Site G is on the right side of the picture in the foreground on the right side of the road. In the picture Site G goes down to meet the end of the improved sidewalk, the end of the improved roadway. At the right on the other side of the street is the upper reaches of the Mill Creek Canyon. This is a shot showing sites H and I together taken from SE 264th Street. I am looking north at this point. There is a row of evergreen trees along 100th Place SE on Site H. Site I remains rela- tively without vegetation, mostly field grasses and brambles. . .flat, level , right at street grade. It also intersects with 104th here. This is the inter- section of 104th SE and SE 264th looking east here. In the background you can just barely see the tops of the Kent Hill Plaza Building or group of buildings { I should say. There are a couple of single-family homes at the end of the road. This is Site J. (Unclear) . . .264th Street to the east of 104th SE. There are a number of single-family homes. I want to point that there is stream that goes across the center of Site J. There are a lot of field grasses, native 1, trees, again single-family homes. It is basically rural in character at the present time. In the report we talk about a stream cutting across the property. The stream is going to make the development of this site more difficult than a conventional piece of property without the stream. This is Site K north of • SE 264th and west of 108th. . This is 108th here looking north. The property -7- 3 w Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 is on the right-hand side of the road. . . (unclear) included in Site K only shown as a reference here. . . . (unclear) rural to character, two-lane road, gravel shoulders. There are a number of single-family homes along that stretch. The land to south left of the street here happens to be within King County. It is next to a blueberry farm and is kind of a marshy area. This is looking south on 108th. We are looking at Site L. Site L is basically undeveloped. There happens to be an old barn which you see here. There is also a single-family home which exists just off SE 260th and west of 108th Avenue SE. The picture doesn't show it real well . Looking north here at 108th. . .The right-hand side of the road SE 260th we see Site L. Basically it is a pasture that is undeveloped. It is relatively flat generally at the level of the street. Notice that as the camera pans around here you will be able to see that it is directly adjacent to Kent Hill Plaza that was developed here in 1983-84. This is looking west on SE 260th. It happens to be the new business bypass route established by the City recently. There is a barn there in the background. Now as the camera swings around we will take a look at Site M to the left of SE 260th. Site M is a little over seven acres in size and includes the area in the foreground to the left. Again, directly adjacent to Kent Hill Plaza on the left. Take a _side look. It kind of rolls away from Kent Kangley, which is to the back of the site where the trees are. It meets 260th here. Also significant to note is the size of the cedar tree growth. It would be the southeast corner of the site. This is looking at Site M from Kent Kangley. Adjacent—to the Village Green apartments there happens to be four single-family homes along Kent . Kangley in a row. These were built several years ago. That ends the shots of the different sites. Now we have Just a few shots of the vehicular conges- tion. This is midday at 104th and 256th. There is quite a lot of traffic at this (unclear) . It was Just before 11 , 10:30 or 11 . Looking to the south . . . here the new Exxon service station. I believe it is an Exxon station. Kent___.-- Hill Plaza to south. Turn around and you can see the Y where Kent Kangley intersects with 256th. . .a real bottleneck. These are some shots of new develop- ment in the area. This is the East Hill Shopping Center that includes Johnnys, probably one of the major tenants up there. About 85,000 square feet of land that was a shopping center that was renovated in 1983 or 4. Rax Roast Beef. . . out in front. These are some shots of the Kent Hill Plaza. There are a number of major tenants here. Albertsons has a big store up here. Looking to the south here across vacant parcels which they intend to develop in the future. A number of smaller tenants here. There 's a Giant T Drug Store, Pioneer Pie restaurant. These are some examples of new development in the area. . .: I only took shots along 104th. There are several other developments that have happened in the general area. The point is that all these new developments are attract- ing more and more vehicles. The streets are already congested. . .more commercial . . . (unclear) . .should consider what it will do to the traffic system. This is an automotive supply. This is Kent Hill Plaza, Sears, Great Clothes, fabric store. Hansen: There are three pads left on the Kent Hill Plaza site for possibly restaurants and commercial buildings. • Heiser: Yes, apparently there is about 30,000 square feet of more-commercial - buildings that they intend to wild at this site. That will bring it up to -8- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 nearly 300,000 square feet of commercial land. To the north of 256th are some of the older commercial buildings. . . (unclear ) . . .Fabricland. This shopping center is north of 256th and east of 104th. Rainier Bank, north of that Skippers, Burger King, (unclear) real estate office. Looking to the east here, there are several smaller tenants, commercial buildings. This is the last series of shots. It shows a little better what the afternoon traffic periods are like. These shots were taken looking east on 256th Street at the inter- section of 104th. It was taken from about the Kent Terrace Apartments which are across from the Kent Meridian High School . With the series of street lights we tend to get a backup, especially in the afternoon peaks. . peak _ hour traffic all the folks are going to their homes out east of Kent. They have to travel through this corridor. The only other corridor would be at 240th. These shots were taken yesterday when it was a clear afternoon. You don' t get the full appreciation of the congestion by looking at these shots. This is looking to the west along Canyon Drive where the cars are starting to slow down and back up because of the congestion. This was taken at 4:30- 5:00 yesterday. That' s the end of the video show. Now that the Planning Commission has convened back at their seats I 'd like to introduce Ken Morris who would like to speak just a little bit about traffic, give us a little bit more about the traffic system. Morris: Thank you. As you are probably all aware of now, there is definitely • traffic congestion problem on East Hill . It' s not obvious from the video. I hope our analysis can shed some light on that. Basically the analysis that I did on the traffic congestion was based on each alternative presented by the Planning Department under each of the land use scenarios. As a basis for com- parison, I included in the analysis the existing traffic volumes on the street system as it is presently. I ' ve also included total short-range and long-range improvements of the Crow Road bypass improvement that Ed mentioned previously, which is a bypass route along Crow Road of 97th Place to SE 260th going through the intersection of 104th Avenue SE over to 108th Avenue Avenue SE and connects into Kent Kangley. This is a planned bypass route for commuters in the afternoon period and is not used extensively yet. We are planning, though, to make further improvements to the bypass to encourage commuter traffic. Also, we mentioned SE 248th Street improvements which would be ultimately a three-lane section and there would be a signal at SE 248th and 104th Avenue SE which would help traffic flow north of the area. Also, the section from 240th to 256th will be improved to a five-lane section along 104th. That is a project with the state which we will be participating in this year. Also included in my analysis. . . Chairman Ward: Pardon me a moment. goes eveyone understand what area he is talking about? Rudy: I have a couple of questions. Where exactly is this bypass? Morris: Why don't I show you on the map. • Numerous voices: (unclear) -9- Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 1986 Harris: Let these people up here do the presentation. Shouts from the audience disrupt something terrible. Morris: You can't see the junction of Canyon Drive here, but the junction is in about this area. Proceeds along Crow Road to SE 260th Street, through this intersection 104th over to 108th and then back to Kent Kangley. Lambert: It takes off there by French Field, Nancy, and goes along the west side of Kent Terrace, the new complex across from Kent Meridian. Is there any consideration of that possibly being one-way eastbound? Morris: We haven't considered it at this point mainly because some of the apartment dwellers in the Kent Terrace Apartments probably prefer to have two- way float traffic there. Lambert: But they can't exit onto Crow Road. . .onto Canyon to go westbound on Canyon. i Morris: That is correct. Lambert: (unclear) . . .They might have to accept that if that would alleviate the traffic in any way, shape or form. • Morris: Are you thinking one way eastbound? Lambert: One way eastbound. Morris: Right. I guess that is a possibility that we could consider; however, all of our improvements show it as a three-lane section with a left-turn lane. Lambert: Three-lane eastbound. Rudy: Did you say that 104th is about to become five lanes? Morris: Yes. Right now there is a five-lane section at the intersection of 104th and 256th, also at 240th and 104th. Then it goes down to two-lane road as you could see on the video. The plans are to improve that to five lane all the way through this year. The design is complete. We are waiting for funding from the State, so that is pending funding. From all signals we are getting from the State, that will be funded. Are there any other questions? Byrne: You also said that 248th will become a three-lane turn lane type of thing going across 104th. Morris: This is very preliminary planning on our part. We are considering making that sort of a commuter bypass during the A.M. period serving as a north bypass where commuters coming from the east could use that coming into Canyon Drive at about 94th Avenue. • Badger: Are there any other changes anticipated on 248th. -10- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 Byrne: Where will they pick up 248th for your westbound flow? Morris: Probably about 116th. Byrne: So there' s no smooth flow off the major arterial on to it, they would have to make a right and a left or something like that. Crow Road is a natural off shot. Badger: Did you suggest to us earlier in a study meeting that there might be changes on 248th west of 104th. . .some distance to the west. Morris: Yes. There would also be three-lane section. Badger: Would it intersect Canyon Drive in any other manner than it does right now? Morris: There is a possibility that we could extend 248th from 94th Avenue to connect into Canyon Drive, which would make a smooth transition. Lambert: By a three lane, do you mean a center lane would be two-way left turn? Morris: Yes, two-way left turn lane. • Ward: Do you have any ideas as to what percentage of the traffic this would relieve from the (unclear) once these improvements would be made? Morris: If all those improvements are made which we consider short range type transportation improvements, it would still only keep congestion at a minimum given the amount of development we are looking at. If we stayed with the current land use plan 23.8 acres of commercial land, we could only help to keep the congestion at about the same level with these improvements. Ward: That's taking into consideration increase in population and the period of time it would take to build these roads. Morris: Right, and possibly even more congestion due to development outside the City, in King County. Badger: Before you go any further, of the traffic that goes through the inter- section at 104th and 256th, is there a rough feeling in your mind as to how much of that traffic is Kent-city generated traffic as opposed to traffic going to and from the east out on the plateau. Is there any feeling. . . Morris: I would say probably the commuter traffic going outside the City limits, just a guess, would be probably 60 percent at this point. Badger: Of whatever figures you tell us. • Morris: Right. So considerable amount of the traffic is commuter traffic, and of course the worst congestion problems is during the A.M. commute and the P. M. commute. Any other questions before I continue? The long-range solution -11- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 we feel is the building of another fast-west arterial corridor, that's SE 272nd- 277th extension which is (unclear) that extends from 132nd Avenue SE down into the valley. .connects into 277th. This would relieve considerable amount of the traffic coming from the Soos Creek Plateau, approximately 20 to 25,000 commuters, by the year 2000 is what it could carry. Badger: I beg your pardon. Could you say that again. Morris: 20 to 25,000 commuters is what it is projected to carry by the year 2000 if it was built. Rudy: When would it be built? Morris: We have it incorporated it into our transportation plan at the current time and we are working to get it incorporated into the regional transportation plan which is administered by the Puget Sound Council of Governments. If we are successful in doing that, there is a possibility that we can get state and federal funding for the project. I would anticipate, though, it could be as much as ten years before we could see construction of that project. Byrne: When we talk commuter, are we talking in time frames 7-9 4-6 in the evening, or do we talk 20-25,000 people during that 2-hour period, or all-day traffic. Are we pumping it into the commuter hours whatever they may be. • Morris: The commuter hours would be about 10 to 15 percent of that figure. Byrne: And we talk vehicle trip, we don't talk people. We are talking about commuting vehicles, not commuters. Morris: Yes. If there were increased ride sharing or transit usage, that number would go down. Lambert : Is there an (unclear). . . down on 256th? Morris: Yes. On 256th only? Lambert: Well , that area. Like on Canyon Drive. Morris: Coming up Canyon Drive, 30,000 vehicles per day. We've seen as much as 5,200 vehicles go through the intersection at 104th and 256th in one hour period. That is what we call Level of Service E, which is at capacity. Badger: That is at capacity on the five lanes presently built now. Morris: That is correct. jLambert: You can't put a whole bunch of lanes up there, can you? • Byrne: On the new corridor would we just be handling attrition as opposed to alleviating some of this problem in another ten years. -12- a Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 Morris: That is true in a sense. We are creating additional capacity just to either keep traffic congestion at current levels, maybe a little bit better ; temporarily, but then eventually development catches up to the transporta- tion system and would be at the same level of congestion again. i Badger: Do you have a figure in here now of what would happen if_this existing thing were just left alone . . .how much increase there would be in a period of time. . .if it were just built out the way it is now. Morris: If the 23.8 acres of commercial is built out with the rest of the land use, yes that is included in Alternative #1 , and there is considerable conges- tion. Of course, I think that quite a few of the facilities are at level of service E or F, which is at or over capacity. So it will be even worse than what we have right now. Badger: If we did nothing. Morris: To do nothing. . .alternative as far as transportation improvements says that we are going to have gridlock eventually. Lambert: Assume for a second that we would recommend that the Comprehensive Plan be changed to include more commercial . How do you feel about requiring developers to develop roadways as part of their building permit process. . . • if they. . .provide the roads to. . .instead of making the taxpayers pay the burden, the developer...to develop the roads to support his property. Do you thing that would be a working plan? Morris: We are doing this some at the present time, mostly in the industrial areas. That is sort of a catch 22 situation. The developer pays for a certain amount of capacity which his development uses, and so he is creating the addi- tional capacity, but then he is using it up. It will be hard to convince the developer to provide more capacity that he is going to use. Lambert: Then it would behoove both sides of the street to be zoned the same to put the burden on both sides of the street so you have them for the entire street. To have it zoned for commercial business and the other side MRM. . . _ or leave it as it is_ so that it couldn't be developed. That way only half of the street would be developed if the developer was doing it. So it would behoove you to recommend both sides of the street to be zoned. Right. Morris: I guess I don't fully follow you. Lambert: One side of the street. . .just the east side of the street. . .were zoned and leave the existing zone on the other side of the street, then that developer wouldn 't be required to develop both sides. But if both sides were developed, and as they were developed the streets put in. . .or agree to an LID if one was brought up. • Morris: I see what you are saying now. We do that in some situations where new streets go in. . .development on this side does have street improvements and -13- i Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 the development does not have street improvements. . .which doesn't fully solve the capacity problem. It may provide enough capacity for those developments_..A but eventually the capacity will be used up. Ward: So you are right back at square #1 , aren't you saying. Morris: Basically that is it. Assessing developers for only the capacity they are going to use is sort of a catch 22 situation. Satterstrom: May I make a suggestion, Ray. That is if there aren't any pressing questions, to try to expedite Ken' s presentation so that we can get to the staff recommendation so we can hear . . . Ward: What the public has to say. Well taken. Any other questions. Are you finished? Now we get staff recommendations. Heiser: It will take five minutes or so. Ward: Great. Heiser: for the record I am Ed Heiser, Kent Planning Department. The recommen- dation again is contained in the yellow booklet that you have before you. It starts on page 41 . We summarized five different scenarios that have a different • impact on the transportation system which Ken has evaluated for us in the docu- ment. Based on the existing land use patterns and trip generation figures and so on is outlined in the document. The Planning Department is recommending ! Alternative #1 at this point. I 'd just like to put the map up for reference. Alternative #1 , of course, is the scenario that has also been labeled as a no action alternative, which doesn 't exactly mean that because there are 24 vacant acres of commercially-designated land at the present time. At least on a land consumption rate of about3.5 to 4 acres per year, that would average out to about 6 or 7 year supply of commercial land. If the Commission is considering expanding the commercial base, we would recommend Alternative #2. I ' ll put that map up. Alternative #2 is a little bit different in that it expands the commercial base by about 19 acres. In combination with the vacant 24 acres that we already have, that would give us about 11 .5 to 12 year supply of commercially- designated land for expansion in this general area. The staff is only recom- mending that this scenario be adopted by the Planning Commission, recommended to the Council if certain conditions are met and they are outlined on page 44 of the document. They talk about street improvements generally. Number 1 , that the City Council shall direct the Public Works Department to coordinate transportation planning efforts with the Puget Sound Council of Governments to insure the adoption of SE 272nd/SE 277th Street corridor to the Council of Governments Regional Transportation Plan. By doing this, this will • increase the potential for this arterial to receive federal funding. -14- Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 1986 The second thing . . . the Council directed the Public Works Department to coordinate transportation planning efforts with the State Department of Trans- portation to classify the SE 272nd/SE 277th Street corridor as a state route with limited access. This designation would increase the potential for this arterial to receive funding from the state. The third thing. . .that the Council provide_ funding to insure that preliminary engineering and design work can be initiated by the City. Furthermore, that the City Council give SE 272nd/SE 277th Street corridor priority when develop- ing the City's Six -Year Street Program. By doing these things, what we are insuring is that the potentialfor this street, this additional arterial, to receive number 1 , federal funding, number 2, state funding, and also the City of Kent is going to contribute towards design work, preliminary design work of the street. That is what we need to get the street underway. This option again gives us about 11 .5 years horizon, about 11 .5 years of expansion within the study area. That coincides generally with the figure Ken was talking about, about the existing transportation system and the fact that even with the street improvements planned by the Public Works Department at the present time, gener- allyspeaking a lot of the intersections up that way are going to be at or over capacity in about ten years, roughly speaking. So that is the recommendation of the Planning Department. If you have any questions, I ' ll try to answer them. Ward: Are there any questions? Badger: I 'm still having a problem with the table on page 10. On the table on_ page 10 iT is assume rom EFe year-T973--toT3 a85 n—d-t� resu ing consumes rate figure you use in your conclusion statements. If you take the years 1973 through 1979 and total them together and divide by the 7 years, you only have a consumption of 1 .43 acres per years. If you total from 1980 through 1985, you have a consumption rate of 36 acres divided by 6 years is 6 acres per year. Since the immediate 5 or 6 years are more important in my mind that the past 13 as a total , I would recommend that staff consider a consumption rate of more like 6 acres per year. That even includes the year 1982 in which there was no land consumption. Heiser: It is important to note that the table listed does reflect peaks and valleys of economic development, and that during that 1982 year, for example, that was a crunch. . .when the economic times weren 't good and building wasn 't happening. After that time , 1983-84, there was a swing upward. That is when the Kent Hill Plaza was built, the East Hill Shopping Center was renovated. It might be that we have reached a peak and that we are leveling off now. There are a lot of different ways of looking at it is the point that I am trying to make. The way it was put together represents an average. Since 1973 in the study area all the commercial permits for construction within the study area represents an average. You could argue it as high or low. But for the purposes of discussion we suggest that this is an average figure. • Lambert: Why was '73 picked. -15- T i Kent Planning Commission Minutes . January 28, 1986 Heiser: That happened to be the adoption of the present Zoning Code. So development that has occurred since 1973 is consistent under one zoning code since that time. I guess we could have gone before that. Lambert: Do you think that the increase in building over the next 5 to 10 years will increase the demand for commercial building? Heiser: That is a good question. I would again suggest that we are looking at only one area amongst many. Lambert: Where is the growth going to be? Heiser: Well , generally speaking the local cities are going to have to pro- vide services for the plateau areas. Lambert: But the biggest growth will be up on East Hill . Heiser: Residential growth? As predicted by the Council of Governments, yes. Byrne: Right now do we have anybody proposing to develop the already commercially-zoned 24 acres. Right now it is still open. Nobody is trying to get into that right now. Heiser: I take that back. There has been one proposal in the past year to develop an expansion of the shopping center where Fabricland is, and there is a dry cleaner up there and a furniture store and so on. So it could be a small expansion of that renovation. Other than that, I know of none. Badger: You said, though, earlier today that in the East Hill Plaza area they are going to develop 30 or 40,000 more square feet. Heiser: That is considered as developed land for this purpose. The acreage has already been taken into consideration. Rudy: Do you figure the year in which they start construction or the year they file the plan for it. Heiser: No, actually the year the permit was issued. So if the permit was issued in '83 for Kent Hill Plaza and they took a year to build it, it would only be considered only in terms of this table for the year that this permit was issued. Rudy: And some they haven't even built yet. Heiser: Well , no. (unclear) three paths additionally. . . Rudy: Is there apparent. . . for a faster consumption of land in the next 5 years? • Heiser: I don't think so. Based on past consumption rates, taking a look at the supply that we have, I feel that we have enough commercially designated-land at -16- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 this time. We need not consider expanding primarily based on the congestion of the traffic system. We are at or near capacity at several of the inter- sections within the study area. Ward: This is still a plan. Are you saying that we shouldn' t even plan for that? That we should only plan for. . .eleven years down the road. A plan is a plan is a plan. . . (unclear) . . .maybe next five years and come back and change that plan. But it is a heck of a thing if we don't plan for it now. Heiser That' s true. Harris: May I add one thing here. I think we are all working. . .we tend to look at 256th and 104th as the only place in the world, at least on the East Hill at least, that has commercial . Now Covington is opening up, and that is the natural , normal thing to have happen. And I think you will see King County finally take on this responsibility and begin to zone areas in and around residential areas east of Kent (unclear) . . . four corners begin to take up this slack. Now one of the important things I think is to look at, and we probably haven't done that well enough here, is the economic viability of the new shops that are built in any one area. We have ,lust seen Flakey Jakes go out of business on East Hill . Maybe we should be looking at the health of the new shopping center, or the new units that go into the place, especially when new competition comes in. What we are saying here is that • 256th and 104th isn 't the whale universe as far as potential land for commer- cial . There is Petrovitsky and 108th, and 108th and 208th near Panther Lake, and there is 240th, which is James, and 104th, and then you start at 132nd and Kent Kangley, then you go on out toward Covington. We have a number of areas that have a potential for some expansion. So when we talk about expand- ing this up to a total of 50 some acres or whatever, we are doing that in the context of many other areas on East Hill that also may expand. Byrne: Do we have commercially-designated property in the plan around 240th and 104th. . . Harris: We just did that the year before. Byrne: Fred Meyer. . .The East Hill Plan also encompasses 208th and 108th. Harris: Yes. Byrne: That probably has some undeveloped commercial land, too. Lambert Wouldn't it be better to have commercial available within the city confines of Kent and take advantage of the tax structure rather than having the Kent citizens go to Covington to shop and lose the sales tax and the services and also the employment for the City of Kent? Harris: If we were one of the poorer communities in the state, Kent is probably . the fifth or sixth wealthiest community per capita in the State of Washington, so I don 't think we are in a point where we are hurting desperately for that tax revenue. I -17- i Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 Lambert: No, but we could be. Harris: You don't want to get into that battle where you are fighting other areas for it. I think that we have to take into consideration what Ken Morris talked about tonight, that is that you expand your land use base and increase the density, you' ve got a disaster occurring in transportation. You are not going to have people who want to goup there and shop. They are not going to be able to get up there. They will go to the more outlying areas, and the developers understand that. The land is less costly and they get the zoninq, and people will want to go out to those areas because it is not too congested. Byrne: But by the same token all we are doing is recommending changes to the plan, we are not changing the zoning. Harris: The zoning would follow. Don't think it would take long for that to happen. Lambert: Well , if we get 4,000 more apartments inside the City limits of Kent in the next ten years, we are going to have disaster of traffic. . . Harris: We also have quite a shopping area down in the valley area where much of your new residential development, the Lakes and other areas are being developed, so we are still not in isolation with commercial up on East Hill . There is • downtown Kent, there is the Meeker strip, there is Central Avenue, there are lot of areas around that are commercial . Byrne: Maybe downtown will become a natural magnet. Harris: Downtown will expand at some point. It is natural for it to happen. P Byrne: It would make a lot of people happy. Ward: It needs to. Any further questions? Anderson: Yes, I have a question for Ken Morris. . . . (unclear) East Hill comparing the way the Comprehensive Plan looks, I am wondering if you have a feel for the difference between what the traffic impacts could be if that was office space, which in my view would contribute substantially to the peak hour flow, because those people would be going back and forth to work and using those same streets as opposed to commercial where people have the. . . Ward: Are we still recording? (Numerous indistinguishable voices) Ward: O.K. Could you go ahead and restate your question. Anderson: I think I can do better this time, anyway. I 'm glad that wasn't on tape. What is the relative impact of office versus commercial or some other zoning in that area, even residential if it is multifamily, would • generate a lot of trips during the peak hours of traffic. You break it down to that fine a line to see what it is like at those hours, and if so. . .even -18- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 though there is more traffic on an average daily basis, maybe with commercial , there would be less, perhaps, or maybe equal , during the peak hour. Morris: I think you brought up a very valid point. Office development does generate less traffic than commercial-type development, and also it provides a place of employment rather than a place for shopping--a different type of trip. A commuter that lives in the area may possibly have a short work trip to that office, if they work in the same area. However, the chances of that happening are random, basically. The average trip length for commuters is typically 20 minutes in this region. Some people have speculated that it would be better if people located close to their employment, but people don' t always do that for different reasons. Maybe they have kids in school and they like a particular school district, various reasons. Maybe they like a particular residential area. So they wouldn' t necessarily locate near the office where they work. Those commuters may come from areas, but we do take that into account. Anderson: So, office would say there would be less peak flow because there are fewer people. . .you're saying that more people would be driving to Safeway fighting the homebound traffic, or whatever, than they would from the office on the same parcel of land. If it were office versus Safeway, how many trips would you have between 4 and 6 o'clock. • Morris: Basically, when we do the trip generation, we take a generation rate for office which is less density than a shopping trip, say to Safeway. Now the time in which those trips occur may vary. Typically, not everyone does their shopping during the peak hours. Very few people do. So it is something you do have to take into account. Shopping trips may occur earlier or later than the peak hour, and we try to incorporate that into our trip generation model . Does that answer your question. Anderson• Yes. Ward: If there are no further questions, could we take a break and then we will come back and hear what the public has to say. Ten minutes. Let ' s take ten. (9: 10 p.m. ) Ward: Now we have the good side of the story, the public side. I ' ll call off the names and those who are still here and respond will have ten minutes to make your presentation. The first person' s name on the list is Mora, M 0 R A. Could you possibly for a point of reference show w_h_ere you are located in- rela- tionship to the proposed alternate. --� Enrique Mora: Yes, my property is part of this F. Voice: Could you turn that a little bit so that we could see. Thank you. Mora: My name is Enrique P. Mora, and my address is 19800 Pacific Highway South, • Seattle, 98188. I am speaking on behalf of myself and partner, (name unclear) . I just wanted to make a couple of points of how we feel about it. In the -19- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 population expansion that is happening out here with creating a lot of apart- ments and a lot of people coming in, it creates demand for commercial , but, unfortunately, it does not create the same demand for offices. It creates a demand for services more than for offices. We designed an office park on that property about five years ago. We went in for the building process and everything else. The market didn ' t allow us to proceed with an office develop- ment, because there was not a market, and ever since that time we have been advertising the property and haven ' t got any demand to warrant an investment to go with an office development. Nevertheless, we had a request for a restau- rant from the front portion of our property which leads us to believe the demand is always for retail . Number 2, that corridor there is a heavy traffic corridor going north getting close to the King County border line. This heavy traffic is good for commercial , not necessarily for office buildings. The report from page 10, I also noticed and agree with Mr. Lambert and Mr. Badger, shows three plus acres. All those years the true fact is that the last five years is where the biggest amount of acres was consumed. That works pretty much all the way through. The years to come will be a little bit faster because the population is going to grow faster even more than it did the last 20 years. So there is - going to be more demand, therefore the 24 acres of the designated now as commer- cial is going to be absorbed pretty fast. By limiting the commercial zoning to small amounts also creates a kind of monopoly and limitation of choice for developing. So the developer wants to develop some commercial , he really has very little choice but to go to some of these other areas out here where there • is more traffic. So, I think it would be good for the City to rezone that for commercial . The point that I wanted to make is by rezoning to commercial there is still a possibility that people will want to use it for mixed use, office. So why not let the market really be the one to dictate the combination it should be instead of limiting. . .all it can be here is office. That ' s the way we feel about it. If you do a commercial and there is some demand for office, you can do a commercial and do some office, too. Another point is that the City would also benefit. . .more from commercial than from office. . .not only from the real estate taxes but from the sales tax, which Mr. Badger pointed out. I think that is about it, all I have to say. Thank you very much. Ward: Thank you. Mora: One more thing. My partner and I intend to apply in the near future for a rezone. We are working on it right now. So, probably in the next two to three months we will come in for an application for a rezone, which would be contrary to what the comprehensive plan is right now. So that is what we have pending. . .to see if the comprehensive plan change would make it a little easier. It makes more sense to develop that as commercial than office. Rudy: Mr. Mora, you own all property F. Mora: I don't know who owns all of F or part of F. I am not sure. I know there is a part here that we do not own. We own most of F. • Badger: How many acres. -20- i Kent Planning Commission Minutes January 28, 1986 Mora: About 5.5 or 5.8. Lambert: Undeveloped. Mora: Undeveloped, yes. Rudy: What do you plan to put in there if you apply for a rezone? Mora: A retail business and office, both. Rudy: To lease, or do you have a specific one in mine. Mora: We don' t know yet. Nowadays you have to make a lot of ground work i and preparation before you can get , , ,before you_ can get the building permit process. It takes such a long time that you almost have to look a year ahead. It is hard to say what is going to happen in the next year. Maybe the next year change and then what we have done we have to put on the back burner for another year. That is our intention right now since we have _ had these plans for the last five years for an office park which is what we M intended to do an (unclear) thousand feet. We have the plans, engineering and 't everything done and Just couldn 't make it fly. 1 Ward: The next person to speak is Elkins . Steven P. Elkins: My name is Steve Elkins. I am an architect in the area. I represent my client, Benson Business Park, and also it is the fact that the other 2 acres or acre and three quarters on F. There is a plan if I may borrow one of your. . . Lambert: Could we get that overhead moved so we can see, please. Thank you. Elkins: We worked on this plan for quite some time, have been in front of J, the hearing examiner, Council , on our proposal and brought our project here 1 two and one-half years ago, originally starting it. At that time we had in mind that the property has been and was zoned 0 which is professional office type use. In the zoning book presently written there is a section there that allows for office zone to have a 50 percent portion of the land under w conditional use application to become used for retail usage. We applied for that usage some year and one half ago. At the time when the problem . . . + Comprehensive Plans and what they do and how they relate to zoning and don 't relate to zoning, whatever, they seem to be a springboard . . . always the Comprehensive Plan is the springboard you have to be in compliance with or in favor of or the Planning Commission uses that as a good leverage of what the projected growth is in the area and that type of thing. What happened is that we came in with the idea to develop our property, we have two or three buildings up now, to use a portion of the property office building, because that is what it is zoned for. We wanted to use 50 percent of the development for retail use. At that time we went through the procedure of • conditional use permit, brought it up and whatever. We had used on us at W that time, that ' s just when the (unclear) with Fred Meyer and stuff came about -21- e _3 n Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 and was told that the intent and the idea was to develop an office corridor , down through the Benson, 104th. Therefore that meant strictly or the idea or intent or the leverage used was to be only office use period. That was imposed upon us plus the traffic problem of office and generated and what was happening along the Benson. Since that time the Benson now and is slated and my client has received letters and is participating in the widening of the Benson costwise. This is supposed to help alleviate a little bit of the congestion of the traffic. We all know the problem of 256th and Kent Kangley. a We are trying to say here and give you a quick scenario is . . .this portion here under plan, one of the alternates. . .2 to do this or in #4 to do a portion of G, L, E and F. It makes sense since this is congested area and to have any relieving of this would constitute some other means of either this by pass working better. People in this area have only two ways to go, either Crow Road as you are coming up 256th, or Kent Kangley. You wouldn't come up this road and head north down 104th to the Benson. Traffic up here and the flow through here has a way of generating . . .relieving. . .also along 240th (unclear) . . . is a good corridor for relieving traffic. We have in mind the portions up to the north. . .the extension of Fred Meyers, also traffic plan 1 (unclear) . . .would be a logical corridor, especially with the Benson, the improve- ments, people along here are already having to put in their money for this property. This makes sense either for commercial or do it as office, but allow, if you are going to do that, this is zoned office corridor or whatever, • to have retail associated with it. Then you can limit a portion of the retail which they say generates more traffic which I have a problem with, too, and use that portion of the strip for office associated retail . That way you can either change the percentage, or as you are coming in for conditional use you could limit the amount of usage for retail associated with that and you don 't have to open it all up for commercial use. But don't make it strictly offices only or impose comprehensive plans from the north on what is happening on that development. I feel that retail use seeks its own level . If people know that at five o'clock the Safeway store is going to be ,lammed, I 'm going to have a tough time in and out and up and down in the traffic there, I have a tendency to shop at 3:00 or after the peak hours. Office use, however, has a tendency to use normal office hours, 8:00 in the morning and 5:00 at night . . .you tend to come during the peak hours. Retail doesn 't normally generate that way, or at least you would have a hard time convincing my wife that at 5:00 she has to go ) there, because that is where all the other traffic is. She has to stop by there either after work or whatever. She will find a more convenient time to shop for the retail . So I think the retail use is viable at that time. In closing J I would have to say the combination of alternates here is tough the way they J are combined. Maybe relook or reissue some of the areas or some of the different ideas might be looked at rather than just the alternates the way a they are laid out. Right now there is no emphasis for this area other than being combined with others. Why can't that stand alone or this be looked at as an expansion to the north where traffic seems to alleviate itself toward an orderly area and go out here and out that way. So I would propose and like to consider E and F or at least F to become commercial , or if it is office for the office to be opened up for retail use as well . • Rudy: Can you give an example of office-associated retail . -22 a s Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 Elkins: Yes. In the zoning ordinance I have the section that is 15.04. 150 under C, it is under Conditional Use. It is not an outright conditional use• You have permitted uses, and the Planning staff can better explain it than I. You are allowed certain outright uses in certain zoning. For office zone, professional offices are one. Conditional use is where you would come and either prove a need or come in front of the hearing examiner and state a need. It' s designated under conditional use under 4 under retail sales area, and it states that as a planned development where at least fifty percent of total developmentis for office use, what it is saying is that you could develop retail within the office space as long as the retail does not exceed fifty percent of the development. But it allows a mix of the two. Rudy: You are not associating this with any office or professional use of the building, such as a pharmacy in a medical building. Elkins: Our present building is a three-phase building. It was designed so that one of the buildings themselves, the ones in front which have the more exposure, could become retail use. Towards the back, with less exposure for professional office building, would become its own individual office building space, either in a one or two-story type. Rudy: You didn't have any particular type of retail in mind. • Elkins: No, not at this particular time, but there are limits as well in that type of use for the retail use that you are allowed. That is also in that sec- tion there. You are not allowed bowling alleys and outdoor theaters, that type of thing. They are more types of uses like florist. . . Lambert: Sandwich shop. Elkins: Right. That would be associated with light retail or commercial use. Something that you would have associated with a grocery store. . . like they have at Johnny' s and at Albertsons. Rudy: Minimarts? Elkins: Minimarts are one, I think, that are in there. But they don't allow gas. Ward: So, what you are proposing is that there should be an Alternative #6 that only includes the northerly suggested developments. Elkins: That is correct. Or open, if you are going to leave it the same, one thing that you could do is use the City' s Alternate #1 if you wanted to, and those spaces that are . . .properties that are designated professional or 0 zoning, that could open it up so that you could have retail usage for those areas as spelled out for conditional use and not hamper those from being able to develop under that usage. We were prevented from being able • to turn ours into retail use. Therefore we have to use all our buildings on that site for office use. We have two of them built right now, and we -23- F Kent Planning Commission Minutes . January 28, 1986 have a hard time getting the office usage tenant in there for those buildings that stand vacant. We have and always did, even at the offset; have the ability and have clients available for retail space. We have a list of those_ who_ would love to get in there for retail . Ward: It is preventing you from developing the way you had planned. - Elkins: That is correct. Ward: You made the investment. Elkins: That is right. And we have another building that the pads are already poured for. If we turned it to retail, we could fill it today. Anderson: I have a question. Would limited commercial relieve that. There is a zoning that is limited commercial office. Are you familiar with that? Would that help? Elkins: Yes, that would help. But what I am trying to do is not necessarily to go in and rezone an area, but open up the zoning that is already there. . .make it more viable within that area, then you still have the constraints. You still will be able to keep a certain portion office which it is now, but you can in- troduce the retail too and keep control of it. I am not saying that you neces- sarily have to open it all up for heavy retail use. Anderson: We don' t have any control , of course, over the zoning, but as you stated when you started, it probably is a stepping stone, whatever the Com- prehensive Plan says. I don't know if you have ever tried to get a rezone or a conditional use or whatever, but it always is based on and your criteria is subject to what the master plan conditions are. Sometimes they weigh more heavily than at other -times. Byrne: You designed these buildings with the idea that they could be used for retail . Elkins: That is correct. Byrne: Even though at the time you designed and built them the zoning was office. Elkins: That is correct. Byrne: So you were hoping down the line you would be able to get a zoning change to accommodate your design and what you plan on putting on that property. Elkins: We applied for a conditional use and went through that process even before we built. • Byrne: So you did know at that time that you had strictly office zoning. Elkins: Well , typically. . . -24- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 Byrne: Well , did you or didn't you? Elkins: Well , yes. But office space and the way. . .I 've done quite a few buildings in Kent and have been around for years and known by several people here. Usually a conditional use for an office space, and history is shown, it is pretty much granted, almost outright. It is not that difficult to get it. Byrne: You still did it on anticipation. Elkins : Yes, obviously. If it were granted outright, we would have no need for. . . Badger: You asked us to consider that area around you as an individual area. Did you realize that the square outlined there is what the City Council gave to us to consider the entire area within that square. Elkins: As F. Badger: The whnle square that you see ua there is what the City- Council asked us to look at at this particular time. Elkins: Correct. That is one of the other elements. That is. . .what I am say- ing is that unfortunately E and F and what is up there is an alternate by itself. This is _connected with either the rest of this or. . . (unclear) . _ Lambert: The whole area is connected. That is what the City Council wants us to look at. That whole. . . inside the square. Elkins: Yes, I realize that. What I am saying. . .maybe we need an alternate (unclear) to consider a portion up here as a better chance of less congestion and taking a . . . (unclear) down here. Why not give another option. Ward: Any further questions? Lambert: I have one. We have all kinds of options. We don't have to abide by one of those four.for our recommendations. We can have Alternate #14 if we want to . We could include the entire square. Elkins: I am suggesting that we look for that. . . Lambert: Alternate 14. Elkins: At least I am proposing the sixth one. Maybe someone else has seven, eight or nine. Ward: Thanks a lot. All right. The next person is Kato. Going once, going twice. It will go to Crandall . • Evelyn Crandall : I 'm still here. -25- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 Crandall : I am Evelyn Crandall , and I live at 24920 104th Avenue SE. I am up in the same corner that everybody else is. I am ,lust a little bit north of the Benson Business Center right here in D. Now I think I might be all in (unclear) . I 'm not sure. I 'm 4.5 acres , now that the front has been taken for the highway. We feel quite sure that that is going to go through, and we are going to have to pay our money on the LID to put in additional , which is quite a sum. Now in the picture I was the big red house and I 'm the horse pasture. Now we are keeping that for horse pasture. A friend of ours has horses and keeps them there on this land. It isn't just horse pasture, it is kind of an investment for us. We have been there for 35 years. I have spent half my life at the corner down there at 104th and 256th that everybody is talking about. But watched it grow. And it just seams to me .. . .I 'd like to say. . .we don't want to be just a road from one place to another. It is a pretty good piece of property. It could be lots of things there. It is zoned office now. . . . I kind of believe it should develop a little bit in addition to just office. There is enough land to be very attractive development. And I am speaking not only of. . .well this is the center, but. . . it is open, all this horse pasture and all of this up there. It could be a nice development and I think it is nice that there is that much land up there. There isn't much. . . they spoke of it as single family dwellings, but it is mostly all investment. Our house on our property and one house across the street. . . I believe we are the only people who own the property and are living on it. All the rest of it is investment property and the houses are rented. And there is one of • them across the street, I think it is probably in E, so run down now that the wind is blowing through the front door and windows. The people who used to own it kind of wish that somebody would kind of burn it down. So this is my point. I don' t think that we should. . .with all this traffic. . . I don't think that we should be ,lust a corridor, especially when we are going to be five lane. We could be a very nice part of the community up there, and be developed, and we say. . .we are City taxes, and I think that is about all I want to say. But I would like it. . . it' s office, as you heard, the office isn 't really being rented. The other big office that is across here that was just built, it isn't completely rented either. So maybe it is possible that there should be an additional part there. So think about that recommen- dation 14. Thank you. Byrne: May I ask you a question before you leave. Crandall • Yes. Byrne: You opened your statement with it being horse pasture and you would like it to stay that way. Crandall : I don't mean it to stay that way. It is just being used there because we still live there, probably will . It' s an investment for us now. But we have been there for years and years. Byrne: So you feel that by us changing it and allowing it to go retail that • it could enhance your future. -26- i Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 Crandall : Yes. Byrne: You may want to sell it. Crandall : We would sell it. We won't be there long. We won't be able to afford to live on it. I don't know if we will be able to pay the LID. Badger: Have you been actively approached yet by anyone wishing your property? Crandall : We had been approached a couple of years ago by someone wanting to purchase it, and we talked about it, but they didn't want to pay for it in a way that would have been advantageous to us taxwise, and so then we said that we will live on it a little longer. We have a nice house and horse pasture. . . homing pigeons. Ward: Thanks a lot. The next person is Bower. Correct me if I don't pronounce your name right. Solveig Bower: It' s not easy. Nobody pronounces it right so that is O.K. I 'm Solveig Bower, and I 'm a part of Evelyn 's horse pasture. I 'm right next to 248th . .and the Benson Highway. x Voice: So, ynu' ll be. . . • Bower: Yes, 248th and the Benson Highway. Ward: So that's Parcel B, first on the map . Bower: I don't have a great deal to add to what- Evelyn- has said. I agree with everything she has said. I do not live there. Also I do have a rental on that property. I did live in that area a good number of years, and . . . on and on. . . to where we felt in the end we are going to see this be something other than single family dwelling. I think that Evelyn and I have always talked about . . . together we have a pretty good parcel of land that should be able to develop into something. I would go further, that we leave it open to something other than office. Maybe we will get someone who wants to put something really nice up there on the corner of 248th and the Benson Highway that you can all look at when you drive by on the new road. That's about all I have to say. Lambert: How much ground do you have? Bower: Short of three acres. Lambert: Is your first name a common spelling? 4 Bower: S o 1 v e i g. Byrne: Was there a house on your property that recently burned down? • Bower: Yes, on the corner. -27- Kent Planning Commission Minutes A • January 28, 1986 Ward: Lucille Chubb. I guess she is gone. Then I guess we go to Potter. Jon Potter: Good evening. My name is Jon Potter. I am a planning consultant with R,W, Thorpe and Associates, and we represent some property owners on the property that is designated as M. I might add that this is one. There will be two sites designated by the Planning staff as having moderate to high acceptability or compatibility for retail use. I hate to rehash a lot of things that have been discussed already, but I would like to summarize my view of what the issues are and some conclusions I 've drawn, which are similar to what staff has done in terms of their views. I 'd like to commend staff on a well-written report. It seemed that there are three issues that surfaced in my review, and that was, first of all is there a demand for vacant commercial land, and secondly, if there is a demand, where is the most suitable place to locate that redesignated commercial land, and third, how do you deal with the traffic problems. To begin with, it seems that everyone has touched on some problems or assumptions within the report on consumption rate. The report shows that there is enough surplus vacant land to last up to a little over six years. And this was one of the things that was brought up earlier, it is more reflective of a poor economy. In the last couple of years, if you look at the consumption rate, the six-year period would be reduced to two, three or four years. If you look at 1983 and 1984 consumption rates, it could be absorbed in a matter of one year. So, I think that obviously there is a demand for vacant commercial land. The second issue is . . . is it suitable _ for the location. Reviewing the staff report there are approximately five of the six sites north of 256th Street that were characterized as having an overall evaluation, tnat is, based on natural constraints, accessibility, visual access and a number of other criteria. Six of the seven sites south of 256th were characterized as having moderate and high overall evaluation. It would seem reasonable that at least to begin with you would focus on the property south of 256th based on staff ' s input. I think an additional criteria that would be important to consider would be the assemblage of parcels, and what assemblage would make a contiguous, definable district rather than running into the potential perception of spot zoning or adding to the possi- bility of a highway commercial strip. What I would suggest, using the streets of 256th, 264th, Crow Road and 108th, within the parcels of G, H, I, J, K, L and M, and that is basically this area here, as setting the stage or defining a commercial area that is defined. . .has boundaries that are defined which you would avoid running a risk of people coming back in the near term, anyway, and asking for rezone requests or comp plan amendments based on an area that isn' t really defined as commercial area. That would equate to Alternative #4 minus the two parcels north of 256th, and I am not saying that those parcels shouldn't be considered as well , but based on the evaluation by the staff, the parcel south of 256th seems more compatible for retail use. Now you really run into the quagmire, and that is traffic problems. You are going to be confronted with some traffic problems whether you allow more commercial growth or not. That is a given. What I suggest is that you go ahead and amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow for commercial uses, but require individual property owners. . .or collectively. . . to come before you with rezone requests based on • mitigations which would improve the service to an acceptable level . Now King County has an ordinance, and I understand that Snohomish uses this ordinance, and they have been used successfully. We have worked in King County. I have -28- E Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 forgotten the ordinance number, but I am sure that staff could check with Gary Samek or Bill Hoffman, King County Traffic Engineer and Planner, to present those (unclear) ordinances before you. You not only are encouraging traffic improvements, but you are encouraging it from the private sector. So, improvements might occur here prior to time lines given by capital improve- ment programs or transportation improvements programs by the City, state and county. Traffic lights might be installed at private developers' initiative because they can get a rezone. Or it can be initiated through SEPA review. I am not saying that ordinance is the only way. . .as a development proposal comes before the City, through the environmental checklist you could determine that the proposed mitigation would improve the level of service to a certain point, which would be acceptable, and therefore it would be presumably per- mitted. Those are two different options that are available to you. Byrne: When we were taling about traffic problems, we were talking about con- gestion. Jim brought up that a lot of the stuff they have in Covington and so on and so forth. Do you honestly think that by putting in some traffic lights and turn lanes would alleviate the problem that is going to be there, as opposed to getting up those new corridors. Of course you can 't ask your developer to drop billions of dollars to make 272nd or 277th give us an east- west corridor that is needed or. . . (unclear) Potter: There are examples where it has happened depending on the size of the • development. If you have an assemblage of land that could be developed as either a large development which could afford these improvements, I think that could happen. We worked on a project in King County down on the Benson Highway where the level of service was shown at level of service E, and a developer, it happened to be a small developer, it was a large daycare outfit, agreed to restripe Benson Highway. That combined with some state improvements on the intersection is increasing the level of service so that they complied with the King County ordinance which restricts rezones and subdivisions on the level of service that is D or worse. Now I 'm not saying that by doing this you are not going to have traffic problems. What we are talking about is. . . Byrne: Commitment on the part. . . Potter: Commitment on the part of the private sector to help address the problems. That is not to say that they will be totally alleviated, but at least you are getting both the private and public sectors trying to address it together. Badger: I 'd like to ask three combined questions. You say you represent private parcel M. Do you represent an acre, two or three. Potter: I believe it is seven acres. Badger: You represent seven acres. And you feel that it should o to commer- cial zoning in that particular parcel . • Potter: I do. It appears that the staff's evaluation . .. if commercial is deemed appropriate in this area, that would be one of the sites. e s Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 Badger: The second part of my question is, your suggestion is the whole area south be sort of a regional shopping center or something of that nature? Is that what you are saying? Potter: I 'm not suggesting uses, no. Badger: Concentration of_retail uses. . . Potter: A concentration . . . almost a defined district. Badger: Thirdly, on your analysis of that particular piece of property, M, where will the retail customers come to support whatever business would go on your seven-acre parcel . Potter: That particular parcel fronts on two sides by the bypass road. That's another point. If you have commercial uses along that bypass road, it is going to encourage people to use that bypass road and would lessen some of the traffic along the areas that are most congested. Badger: Again, would the potential retail customers for that property be generated within that square you see on the map, or would they come from east of that square or west or south or north? What is your analysis? • Potter: I have not done a distribution analysis, and I can't really tell you quantitatively. I would venture to guess that if you did have a regional shop- ping center, obviously you would have people drawn to it. My experience on community shopping areas or neighborhood shopping centers, particularly neigh- borhood, you are drawing from existing traffic. And if you have people who are commuting along thisroute, there is a certain proportion, and I can 't say how much, and maybe staff has already looked at that analysis, but some of that traffic isn't generated . . . it is existing traffic, and it is convenience oriented or maybe something more than that as well . But generally that type of retail use is not a traffic generator from afar. Lambert: I have a question. Do you represent a developer or a landowner. Potter: I represent a landowner. Lambert: Is that landowner a developer? Potter: You ' ll have to ask them. They are here tonight. Lambert: O.K. I was ,lust wondering if they have done this in other areas, or if this is the first venture. Potter: That I can't tell you. You'd have to ask them. Regardless, though, I think it is important to look at. . .what we are talking about is Comprehensive Plan. They may have a developer or they may be developers themselves. • Lambert: What I was getting at is there something specific—say this is changed, that will be going in there. -30- r Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 Potter: I can't tell you. But based on the information that I have available, I think it is just a matter of a few years before you see development ,lust based on the absorption rate. Lambert: I agree. I just wondered if something was in the immediate future. Ward: Any further questions, then. Potter: Thanks for your consideration. Ward: McGatlin. Joy McGatlin: I 'm Joy McGatlin, M c G a t 1 i n, 25420 142 SE Kent. I am one of the property owners that he was talking about. We own a piece coming right here. Ward: Are you a developer now? You're not. O.K. Go ahead. Joy McGatlin: Mr. and Mrs. (unclear) has a piece right next to us. . . (unclear) , and then Shirley is down here in the corner. She has lived there quite a few years. . . (unclear) . . . What I see and what happened to us is that we owned the property before this bypass road was put in. In fact, we have two assessments on our property. And I am speaking for the Liens and ourselves, the biggest • portion through here. Where we are paying LID for where this road was (unclear), and then when they came through to do the bypass, and maybe a lot of people don't know this, but it wasn 't paid for by the taxpayers, it was paid for by these property owners. . .right in here. . .that front. We owe a very large assessment on that. My understanding of that road, and I (unclear) was that this would be a bypass road and would take a lot of traffic off. I ' ve lived here for 20 years. I know what this traffic is. I ' ve seen it all build up. Now we have this beautiful road with landscaping and sidewalks and trees and nobody uses it. I really can 't see why you poured all the money into it and we can' t get the traffic to use it. Now I 've talked to the City a lot on that, and they are telling me . . . well , we have a stop light here and something has to be done here. And then . . . (unclear) and then they bought out the sheriff ' s station and whatever they had to do, and I drive it all the time. You come around . . . (unclear) . . .you have to stop here to get through. But as I understand it, this would go on through, they would actually have to stop here. And it is just not being used. All this money is down the drain. Seems pretty stupid to me. I 've also looked at . . . and argue this point with a lot of people, that office and multifamily. . . I watched a lot of multifamily go up down the road from us. . . actually produces more traffic at peak hours than commercial would. I live here. I drive down there. I don' t go shopping and leave my house at 4:30 to go down and buy groceries or go to Great Clothes or any of those places. If I was in an office building, I wouldn 't stay until 6:30 just to beat the traffic. I would go home at the normal hours. I . . . understand that too well . I look at the people living in all the apartment houses around there. Not a lot of them stay home. They are working somewhere, • and I take it that they are working at normal working hours. A few of them may have a mother that stays home. A lot of them have two people who go to work. I think that is the majority of it. So to me the multifamily and the -31- J w Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 office would throw more on the peak hours than commercial would. I just live here. I just look at what is going on. Ward: I have a question for you. What do you want us to do with. . .what would you like to see us recommend. McGatlin: I think this whole area should grow into commercial area. . .not the office area. We do have an office building across the street from us. This property was zoned office when we bought about five years ago. And we also looked at the whole piece in here, Mr. and Mrs. Lien especially. . . like I said, they have been here a long time. . . doing something officewise. Nobody would go for it. I don't know how they got the office building across the street, monetarily. They must have had some backing that can stand vacancies. There is no way we could put a building up there and have vacancies in it. It wouldn't work. And we couldn 't get people to come in there, you know, officewise. I guess it took somebody smarter. We have been approached by people that would come in there with commercial . But they sure don' t. . .but we can ' t get anybody to do something officewise on it. And Mr. and Mrs. Lien are ready to move. They have lived there a long enough. You know, they are paying their LID. Not to say that we are the only one that got it. They also. . .Mr. and Mrs. Grube who' s been there fora long time,too, they also . . . (unclear) with the same amount of LID. I know that they can't afford to (unclear) in any way, shape of form. 0 Badger: May I ask you about the property that fronts on 256th there in M. Was that property level with 256th before this recent road widening. . . I 'm sorry , . . Kent Kangley. . . Was that property level with Kent Kangley in the front entrance off Kent Kangley before; and is if sl;iTT-TeveT? McGatlin: O.K. Mr. and Mrs. Lien's are here. I think you may drive down a little bit. I 'm not sure, not too much. Then in the corner of ours there is a little tiny hole, at this level , and then this is a real estate office • • . this is a real estate office in their level . Was it level before? I can't say. Badger: I just wondered if they changed the grade when they improved the street. McGatlin: No, not all that much. This road is lower. And the property just naturally flows that way. Maybe, to answer your question, there are utilities on both of them, so part of the (unclear) would go this way, and part would go that way. Ward: Any further questions? Lambert: Basically, what you are saying. . .we got socked with an assessment. Let us develop the property . • McGatlin: Another thing though, the road. . .why not use it. What did we do it for? -32- t Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 McGatlin: Well , we could if it were developed. The way I understand it, the City wants these lots and that would put the traffic on there. At least that would take care of this problem. And to develop it, they want the developers to pay for it those (unclear) . So to get done it would be used. You know, I don' t like to just throw money away. Ward: You want to see your money used. McGatlin: If I were just a taxpayer, I like to see my money used. It's a little bit heavier than that. Ward: Any other questions? All right. Thanks a lot. Mel Kleweno: I ' ll save you. Ward: How do you pronounce it. Kleweno: Kleweno, Mel Kleweno. I am an attorney representing the property owners on parcel J. . .a majority of the property owners. My office address is 213 Fourth Avenue South, Kent. I 'd like to address just several things that I hope are not too repetitious. So far we have ignored the elephant in the living room, as far as my clients are concerned. If there is any serious consideration Alternative #5, I 'd like to hear it now so that we can address the elephant. If there isn 't, I ' ll ignore the elephant and we will go on. Alternative #5, as you recall , would be a reclassification on the comprehensive land planning map where quite a bit of the property in the area that we are talking about would be reclassified to MRM or multifamily in a lesser density. So if there is any real consideration amongst the members of the Planning Commission, I 'd like to hear it now and address it. If not, I 'd like to move on. Going once, going twice. . . I ' ll move on. All right. But if there is any concern, they or myself would like to address it. I think several valid points have been made by prior speakers, so I am not going to belabor them. I 'd like to bring up a couple of things, though. I think that you should give some very serious consideration when looking at poten- tial commercial in. . . (unclear) . . . looking at larger parcels of property. One of the things that I am sure that you are aware of with the development which is in this area. . .to me it is a fairly attractive development. I think it is attractive because it was a large parcel of p-operty and they were able to deal with this large parcel of property. They were able to put in the berms or whatever that was necessary by the City here, and then you have a large parcel of parking area. And then quite a ways off the main arterial you have the commercial development. . . . (unclear) . . .be a small parcel of property which you currently zoned within this particular study area. It would be diffi- cult to put in that type of development which I again classify in my own way of thinking as a more desirable type of commercial development rather than working with smaller parcels of property where you drive in right off the street into the parking lot of the 7-11 or whatever it is. To me that smacks of Highway 99, Lynnwood and some of those areas. In looking at your consideration • you are going to be saying yes we think there should be more commercial , I would like you to take into account that I think that looking at larger parcels of property makes sense, whether they be in this area or down here. -33- a Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 I happen to think that this is probably the more favorable of the area that is south of 256th and south of Kent Kangley. This particular area to be looked at is potential commercial, What you do have there. If you do have _larger parcels of property, some of them under common ownership, I think H and I are under common ownership, is that right. . .J is not under common ownership, but it at least has some fairly good-sized parcels of property. The lady that just spoke said that (unclear) M had a couple of large ownerships and the people were compatible with maybe selling to an end user, thenyou would have a larger parcel of property. One of the other things that I think should be taken into consideration is that if there was additional commercial development south of 260th, then you would naturally draw people, I think, onto 260th to get to that commercial . I guess I would argue a little bit . . . one of the figures that was quoted I won't hold the Planning staff to this. . . they estimated that maybe 60 percent of the trips that came through there were going east. I think that I would say that itwould be probably 80 percent. Unfortunately I live east and I have to make the trip through there twice a day and, frankly, I do choose the off-peak hours, particularly tonight I ' ll use the off-peak hours to get out through there. One other point that I would like leave you with, and that ha,s to do with Mr. Elkins who spoke earlier and he was talking about the 0-zoning. This property, the property of the owners that I represent and I am speaking on behalf of, this is currently 0-zoned. I am familiar with the Kent Zoning • Code which, under conditional use exceptions or permits, would allow a mix of commercial and office. If you do nothing else, perhaps you could make a strong recommendation l:o Fie powers that be that strong consideration be given to those areas which are 0-zoned to allow or encourage the mix of the office and the commercial so that the property owners can develop the property and develop a use of office and commercial mixed in an O-zone ,If you are not going to change the Comprehensive Plan to look at those parcels as poten- tial commercial . So in summation, on behalf of the people that I represent in J, Alternative #5 we would like to see. . .that would be Alternative 99. . . three or 4, one of those we think would be a good use of the property which is owned by these people. One other thing that I would like to address, and that is the stream which flows through J. I put stream in quotation marks. I am sensitive to develop- ment and what is there. Let ' s call it what it is. It ' s not a stream, it is a drainage ditch. Mrs. Norder who is here and has lived on the property on the corner there for some twenty years will tell you that she has to water her cattle in the summer. It isn ' t a stream. It is a drainage ditch. Cer- tainly drainage ditches. . .you have water, you generate a lot of asphalt, you have to have drainage ditches, you have to make proper planning and take care of them. But let 's not go overboard and call them streams when they are drainage ditches. Thank you. Ward: Is McFarland here. • Voice: I 'm not on the list but I like to speak when you come to the end. Ward: All right. Is McFarland still here. What is your name, sir? -34- c Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 Bob Clemmens: My name is Bob Clemmens. I am a property owner along with Dan Moorman at the intersection of 264th and 104th. We own lots H and I along with about three acres in here. There is a total of about 16.5 acres in K I . We are directly across the street from the Sears store, Yuen Lui and Pacific Fabrics. The Planning Department has offered an alternative #1 , and they have given a lot of good reasons to support that alternative, and I have to, in all honesty, say that I can live with it. It is no action at all . And they have good reasons for it, and so I am not opposing it. I will say, though, that Alternatives #3 and #4 are nice alternatives for me. They certainly bring more commercial into that area and allow a developer to develop on a large scale that has more aesthetic values to it, similar to what Kent Hill Plaza has done. I will throw this out only as something to look at whether you want to consider putting it on a plan for future consideration. . . it is up to you. There is one other alternative for roads in the area and that is this. Right now as you come up Canyon Drive, eou take that turn off at Crow Road and you take the 260th Street and you go to 108th and then you cut back north and then you try to get back on. . .well , I think there is somewhat of a free lane there to get back onto Kent Kangley. When the original flyer came out that was mailed to me, it didn't tell me totake 260th. The flyer said to go down Crow Road to 264th and over to 108th and then back up, which is out of the way. So, when I saw that it hit a bell . I said why? Go down Crow Road and get to 264th. All the City has to do, and the state, is to extend that over here. The City owns a good share of this property now and it is nothing more than a driveway. • I don 't believe there are any buildings in the way at all , and it is a matter of extending this road with state help. I 'm sure you could get state funding for it, because it would be an alternate for 516. And I would emphasize a temporary alternate until they can get that 277th bypass. Badger: Is that the deadend road that I got caught on once about four years trying to go a back way. Byrne: Mr. Clemmens. Where is Sequoia Junior High in relation to to the pro- posed road you just made. Clemmens: The proposed road would be adjacent to the back end of Sequoia Junior illiggh.—I would be directly south of their playfield area. Byrne: So you would propose a bypass that would go behind the playfield at Sequoia Junior High. Clemmens: I 'm saying that is another consideration that we want to look at. . . would hope that the state could share in that. What you could do to get away from the bottleneck up here for those people who are not interested in stop- ping up here and want to get straight home, they could go down this street, 264th, take the extension and come freely back on to Kent Kangley Road. Badger: Has any developer approached you for all 16 acres if you could get a rezone. • Clemmens: We have had two developers approach us. . .not actually develop- ers, users. One in the sense of a retail type, and the other in a more service -35- v _ Kent Planning Commission Minutes • January 28, 1986 oriented type. Due to some legislative action that is going on in the state legislature right now, the service oriented type of use for our southern nine acres of our property has been held up because they didn 't (unclear) them. . . what they can do on that property. Ward: The new road that you propose sounds like a tremendously good idea, but it wouldn' t do anything to help Mrs. McGatlin' s road which isn ' t being used right now. Do you have any alternate to that which could possibly help use her road. Clemmens: The reason that it isn't being used is. . .you come here. You stop at this light. You have to come up here. You stop here. Then you have to actually go in the opposite way you want to go. You want to get down here..-----� that's where you want to get. People get the impression that they are equally as well off staying here and trying to fight the traffic. One of the consider- ations here is right at 264th and 105th you can put stop signs on 104th and make 264th a thoroughfare. They could leave the Kent Kangley, they could come down there and thoroughfare right back on this. I 'm not proposing it as something, obviously. It is something that one could consider if you were able to get funding through the state for it. I would look at it as a temporary alternate to 516. Thank you. Ward: Anyone else who hasn't signed up. • Voice: I don' t think that is too good of an idea, because I live on 264th and I have all the traffic I need. 5 Ward: I ' ll ask the question again. Is there anyone else who would like to speak. If not. . . Lambert: I MOVE that the hearing be closed. Byrne: SECOND. Ward: It has been moved and seconded that the public hearing be closed. All in favor. Commissioners' Voices: Aye. Harris: I suggest that you come back for deliberations on February 25th, the fourth Tuesday. We will have minutes out for you. (End of Verbatim Minutes) The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 Respectfully submitted, JJ PesPIIHar is, Secretary