Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 10/30/1984 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 30, 1984 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Carol Stoner at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 30, 1984, in the Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Stoner, Chairman Nancy Rudy, Vice Chairman Robert Anderson Robert Badger James Byrne Douglas Cullen Chuck Lambert Raymond Ward Richard Foslin, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: t James Hansen, Principal Planner Fred Satterstrom, Project Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Stoner pointed out FOR OCTOBER 9 AND OCTOBER 16, 1984 two corrections to the Octo- ber 9 minutes. On page 20, seven lines from the bottom of the page, the word completes should be changed to read deletes. The sentence would then read, "You can see this plan deletes the two driveways. . ." On page 22, 16 lines from the top of the page, the word parcel B should be changed to parcel D. The sentence would then read, "Of course E and F are red and the additional 75 feet of parcel D, and then parcel D itself being zoned for offices." Commissioner Lambert MOVED and Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the MOTION that the minutes be accepted as corrected. Unanimously approved. ACCEPTANCE OF DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD Chairman Stoner listed the following items to be accepted into the record: Memo with attachment from: E. B. Bray and Donald A. Peters dated October 2, 1984 Letter with attachment from Robert Thorpe, AICP dated October 10, 1984 Petition from: Frederick Williams, Lyle Cline, Ed J. Brown, Verdie R. Querin (three addresses) and Sonja Pollock received September 20, 1984 Memo from: Jim Poston, City Transportation Engineer dated October 12, 1984 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Letter from: Charlotte Norder dated October 15, 1984 Letter from: Robert R. Clemens, property owner dated October 15, 1984 Letter from: Kevin Ericson, James Albright Realty dated October 18, 1984 Fred Meyer Exhibits: Exhibit 1 Proposed Amendment to Staff Zoning Study Exhibit 2 Conceptual Building Elevations F Exhibit 3 Conceptual Site Plan dated August 23, 1984 Commissioner Rudy MOVED to accept all the documents listed above into the record. Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the MOTION. MOTION unanimously approved. (Verbatim Minutes) Stoner: Since there has been a statement that someone was interested in speak- ing, is there anyone else beyond the gentleman who spoke who wishes to speak tonight? Would you come to the microphone and give your name and address, please. Stern: My name is Stuart Stern, and I live on 224th. I 'd like to know if the Commission is aware of King County's current policy of refusing any permit on the Benson where a project in question will adversely impact the traffic. The proposed zoning that you have before you tonight, including the addition of Fred Meyer and the multiple dwellings at the intersection of Benson and James, goes against King County effort to reduce the traffic impact along the Benson. The new zoning adds as well as impedes the traffic along the Benson. The summary that I received of your own. . .your own summary that I received tonight doubly states this as well . Are you integrating your activities with the Kent's Traffic Department at all? And what are you doing to alleviate this traffic situation? Gary Krueger of Wilsey and Hamm, a private consultant that did the Kent Transportation Study, stated that the only real way to control traffic is through zoning. He could not understand why the East Hill zoning plan was worked on and approved prior to the traffic study that was done. As a result the East Hill zoning does not support the Kent traffic situation. You now have another opportunity to improve, not hinder, the current traffic conditions. I request that you vote "no" on the zoning before you. Stoner: Are there any questions? It would now be appropriate to have a motion to close the public hearing. Rudy: So move. Stoner: Nancy has MOVED, Bob Anderson has SECONDED, that we close the public hearing. All infavor say aye. Voices: Aye. -2- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Stoner: There have been some legal issues raised in the course of this hearing, and Leigh Ann Tift is here from the City Attorney' s office to clarify those issues for us. Leigh Ann. Tift: For the record my name is Leigh Ann Tift. I am the Assistant City Attorney for the City of Kent. Planning Commission has referred to my office a question with regard to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine in their deliberations tonight. There are two parts. . .two parts of an action being considered by the Commission. One part is consideration of an area-wide comprehensive plan amendment. The second part involves recommendations as to specific rezones which will be for- warded to the City Council . Both parts of the issue pending before the Commission tonight were referred to the Commission by the City Council on Resolution 1028. The issue arose because the Council was considering a particular rezone, Fred Meyer rezone. Two members of this Commission spoke with regard to that rezone as citizens. The question is whether now the Appearness of Fairness Doctrine will apply to either one of the parts of the issue pending before the Commission tonight. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine basically provides that a quasi- judicial hearing must not only be fair, it must appear fair. The actual votes of the Commission members on quasi-judicial actions are not the issue. The question is whether there is an appearance of prejudice, bias or prior judgment. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is a judicial doctrine. It was first applied in 1969 by the Washington Supreme Court. The doctrine historically has applied only to quasi-judicial actions. In 1982 the Legislature passed RCW 42.36.010. That statute limits the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. It specifically states that quasi-judicial actions do not include legislative actions adopting, amend- ing or revising comprehensive plans. For that reason it is the opinion of my office that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine does not apply to the Planning Commission' s consideration of amendments to the comprehensive plan, the East Hill plan amend- ments. However, it is our opinion that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine potentially applies to your members who spoke with regard to your rezoning i recommendations. It is important to differentiate between the two. The com- prehensive plan amendment consideration is legislative. It is area wide. It is not sites specific. The rezone recommendations are sites specific, and it is our opinion that the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine would apply in those in- stances. Stoner: Are there any questions of, of Leigh Ann? Leigh Ann, will you be here I for the rest of the meeting? 0. K. Our deliberations tonight need to cover three issues. First of all , the comprehensive plan amendments; second of all , the zoning that needs to be. . .that was specified and directed for us to do in that resolution. And the third issue that came up during testimony by citizens. And the third issue is the scope of the study. The City Council limited the study to the 240th intersection with 108th. But several people { came up forward to say they felt there was an issue there of limiting that. . . limiting the study to that intersection and not looking at all of the potential commercial sites on East Hill . Does anyone else have any other issues than they heard during testimony that they feel need to be considered tonight? All right. Because of the fact that Commissioners Cullen and Byrne are going to excuse themselves during the zoning portion of our deliberations, I would like to start with a discussion of the scope of the study issue. Does anyone have a motion that they would like to make on that? -3- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Lambert: I 'd like to make a motion that we look at all the. . . Stoner: We are at this point recommending to City Council . Lambert: I think we should. I think it is only fair. Stoner: All right. Is there any discussion on the motion? Anderson: Well , I have a question. We've talked about the scope of the study here in the approximately one-mile square block that we have been asked to look 4 at, and in tying together with that. . . in my own mind I 'm not completely convinced j that the City Council has made a commitment to move forward in any sort of pose- 1 tive way regarding the traffic on the East Hill . . .of getting traffic down James Street or up or down the Benson other than what has already been planned by the State Highway Department. If I am in error, maybe Jim Poston, our traffic i engineer, could, could go through that again. But that's kind of my gut feel, that we are looking at an area to consider rezoning or to consider increasing the amount of traffic soon without any apparent relief other than some minor modifications to, you know. For instance, the only thing I can think of is what Fred Meyer themselves propose they would do, which is adding a turning lane at the Benson and a signal light at their main entrance out on 240th. So, I 'm a little uncomfortable with that. Stoner: With expanding the scope. . . Anderson: Yes. Stoner: Any other comments? Badger: Carol , I am concerned a little bit about the two grayed areas indicated as 106th or 108th extended southerly from 240th, and 100th extended southerly and a little bit of gray in the upper left corner of the map. Are we in our study saying that those roads should be put in place, or put in place by the people who. . . if we do rezone in the area. . .are we asking them to put those roads in place? How did those gray lines get there? Stoner: Jim, would like to respond to that, or Fred? Satterstrom: I 'll take the first shot on this. Referring to Map 7 where we have potential roadway locations, we said potential on that map because we indeed as planners feel that some additional collector streets need to be developed along with commercial development in order for a more orderly physical development and for better circulation throughout the entire commercial area up there. We put the label 'botent}al' on there for a couple of reasons. I think that they. . .on I guess the first point is that we go on record as saying that the area probably should have additional right of way in order to serve the commercial development more effectively. And secondly, if you wish as a Planning Commission you might also endorse the idea by. . .if you approve of Map 7 in concept you might decide to recommend that to the City Council along with any recommendations you might make on potential zoning or -4- 9 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 comprehensive plan amendments. So you can do with it as you wish on those potential roadway locations. The map here shows some unbuilt rights of ways. Certainly we feel that the unbuilt rights of ways will eventually be developed in conjunction with the development along that corridor. At some point in time when property abutting those undeveloped right of ways is proposed . . .that more than likely the road will be built at that time or in conjunction with the physical development of the surrounding area, possibly through an LID. But some of those may be developed in their original width, which may be adequate for whatever street purpose. Others may have to be expanded in width. On Map 7 we did not put down what the right-of-way width would be. Perhaps the Public Works Department has some concept as to how many feet that would be, and I think we will rely on them at such time as those properties would develop as to how wide those rights of ways would be. Did I . . . Lambert: . . .Map 7, Fred. Satterstrom: It's the last page in your staff report. It is put in as an appendix. Bear in mind here, again, that the Council 's scope in the resolution that they gave us was to look at commercial expansion, So any issue that was not tied real close to that we didn' t try to focus in on. The traffic is one of those things that. . .chicken and egg situation. . .you have a hard time ignoring. Badger: Fred, from the Planning Department's standpoint at the moment, is 104th and 240th and that area essentially the only roads of major access to the properties that we are considering? Satterstrom: All of the properties that the staff has recommended for compre- hensive plan changes and or zoning changes have direct access to one of those arterial streets. We were reluctant to propose any comprehensive plan changes or zoning changes to any property that did not. But we are making this recom- mendation, I think, with the thought in mind that the City Council at such time as they might take action on this , and let's say that would be a positive action, understands that it must also take a positive stance with respect to potential future rights of ways and arterial improvements in the East Hill area. I travel through that area daily. I live out on the East Hill plateau. I am familiar with the problems. I go past your place twice a day, at least, and am aware of the traffic problems out there, and I think that the land use recom- mendations that we have go hand in hand with some of the recommendations that i the Public Works Department is making about traffic improvements. Ward: So are you then saying that a positive recommendation on the part of this body. . . (unclear) . . .would automatically generate . . .or should part of the recommendation be a definite statement from this body as to the gray area street right of ways being also developed as commercial development goes into the area in which we are basically recommending. Satterstrom: I certainly think that it is within your authority to do that. I think that if you wish to make a positive recommendation on any of the zoning actions, and then at the same time you wish to tie that to positive commitment in terms of street improvements, it certainly makes sense to predicate one on the other. So you might actually phrase your motion, if you wish, in such -5- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 wording. Stoner: We do have a motion on the floor that respects specifically the scope of the study, and I think we need to hold ourselves to that right now, and then move on to this particular area, because it seems like our discussion is start- ing to focus on this particular intersection. The reason I raised the issue with you is because the Fred Meyer rezone triggered that policy in the East Hill plan that says when 75 percent of the commercial area is developed, we need to look at expansion. And I think the issue was raised in testimony by several people saying if you are going to consider expanding commercial , why are you looking at one area. It talks about the East Hill plan. And I guess I 'm asking what your feeling about that issue is. If you think that is a valid concern that you think needs to be recommended to the City COunciI , then I think that recommendation needs to made. If it is not to your mind valid, then I think we can move on to the spe- cific issue of comprehensive planning at this intersection. , Ward: Do you need a second to that motion? Stoner: There has been a second. Ward: It has been seconded. I didn't hear it. Stoner: Could your restate your motion again, Chuck. Lambert: Yes, I make a motion that we look at the scope of the plan, I mean scope of the study. . .all commercial zones. Stoner: Comprehensive planning of all commercial zoning on East Hill . Rudy: If we are still defining terms here, the question I had before about commercial zoning, does that go in this. . . Stoner: If you want to ask either Fred or. . . Rudy: Fred, my question is this. When we are considering commercial zoning, are we considering only community commercial, CC zoning, or are there other types of commercial zoning that would be available to us? Satterstrom: There are other types of zoning. . .commercial zoning that would be available to you. In our recommendations to you on this intersection, we have only put it in terms of CC thinking that was most appropriate for that area, but there are other commercial designations. . .GC, which is general commercial , NC, which is neighborhood commercial , CC, which is community commercial . They all would be available to you. Rudy: What's the difference between neighborhood commercial and community commercial? Satterstrom: Community commercial is. . .allows a broader range of uses which are oriented to a broader population. NC would be more neighborhood oriented. -6- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Rudy: Could you give me an example? Satterstrom: Seven Eleven would be representative of an NC type of commercial use. But in NC you might not allow a department store, which would be like Pay Less or Ernst, or something like that. That would be a CC-type use. Rudy: What do restaurants become? Satterstrom: That's a technical one. Rudy: Fast foods, for instance. Satterstrom: I ' d have to look in the NC and CC designations for you. I can check if you really think that is important. Rudy: Right now it isn' t. Stoner: Mr. Hansen, do you have a. . . Hansen: I didn 't want to cut that off, but I want to respond, if I could, to the issue that was raised in the motion. Excuse me. 0. K. That is regarding a future work. I think that is what you were referring to, Carol , is . . .if the Planning Commission wishes to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding any future study of planning or zoning for other commercial areas, namely the intersection of 256th and 104th, that general area, and I wanted to bring up something that we as staff agree on. . .that if you do choose to make that recommendation, you might consider having it limited to a study of the East Hill Comprehensive Plan as opposed to also including the zoning as you were directed by the City Council to do in this series of hearings. And the reason for that is that first of all in reviewing a plan designation, you can keep the issue basically on an area-wide discussion. Leigh Ann was pointing to that earlier, and you could look at areas in a little broader manner. You can consider traffic generation and some of the requirements of increasing the density and for new street rights of ways and that sort of thing, but taking that general action and then going to City Council and eventually becoming an actual amendment to the Comprehensive Plan of East Hill , the City's general direction is indicated up there. If it's additional land use and not zoning, then it is fixed on the plan. But then it leaves the option to the property owners to come to the City and go through the normal zone change review process of the hearing examiner. It leaves it up to them at such time as they wish to exercise that option, which is there because the comprehensive plan calls for some sort of commercial use for their property. And on the other hand, if they don't wish to exercise it at that time, the zoning stays the same. But the key point here is that at the time it is reviewed, whether it be in '84 or '85 or maybe 1990, the City in its review process through the hearing examiner has a chance through our various City departments and their review, particularly Engineering, through Traffic, those concerns, to take a look at that particular zone change request in a context of what has happened between now and then. And in this City as dynamic as it is , particularly on the East Hill , what' s happened between now and then could be rather significant. We could have a new school in the interim. -7- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 We could have "x" new businesses. We could have a lot of things that have changed, and those will result in specific conditions to that rezone which we would hope, any time we work on things, we would hope that it would be the best possible development result from that zone change. What I am getting at is the conditions attached as part of that rezone would be as relevant ; as possible. This is as opposed to a situation we are in now where we have a combination of plan and zone change without the perspective that we might have in the review process a year or two from now. So, I hope I made sense there. But it is really an important consideration, and we will make the same remarks to the City Council when we go through the review of this with them. Stoner: Are there any other comments on the motion that is on the floor? Anderson: Yes, I have a question. Then, I guess what you are suggesting, Chuck, is that we expand the study area to generally the East Hill , and that would have no effect on what has been done here until we get to vote. That would be part of it and we may even go back and take another look in that area and possibly change what we end up doing tonight as we look at the overall picture. Stoner: Any other comments. Cullen: Now Jim you were saying. . . (unclear) . . .comprehensive plan.. .zoning... Hansen: I am saying, ideally I think it is in the best interests of the citizens of Kent as well. It isn' t just from the staff standpoint that should you make a recommendation to the Council that you believe the remainder of the commercial areas in the East Hill should be reviewed. In the context of that policy that it be limited to the plan and not also include zoning to immediately follow. That' s really what I was driving at. Cullen: I 'd like to move that we amend Chuck's motion in regards to examining the East Hill Comprehensive Plan and separate that from the zoning. Stoner: So that it would be comprehensive plan only. Cullen: Right. Stoner: O.K. Let me see if I can state this amendment clearly. Doug has moved to amend Chuck's motion to say that we recommend to the City Council that we consider. . .that they consider expanding the study on community commercial to include all of East Hill and as a comprehensive plan amendment study only. Have I correctly stated your motion? Is there a second? Badger: Second. Stoner: Doug has moved and Bob Badger has seconded. Are there any comments. Are you ready to vote? All in favor Voices: Aye. Stoner : Opposed. (silence) -8- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Stoner: Do we need to vote on the main motion since the amendment does include the main motion? Lambert: That gentleman backthere signaled that he cannot hear us up here. Stoner: All right. I will . . .Does this help. Secretary: Could everyone do that. Could everyone be closer to the microphones. Stoner: Everybody needs to. . .talk louder. Hansen: Just to be safe, I 'm no parliamentarian, but I would go ahead and vote on the main motion. Stoner: All right. We are going to vote on the main motion. Are you ready? All in favor. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Opposed (silence) (unanimous) The next issues that I would like to present to you is the comprehensive plan changes that are before you, and I 'd like to separate those into county lands and city lands. I think the issues are different, and if it is agreeable to you to do that, that might be the most orderly way to proceed. . . is to look at county lands and city lands, which- ever order you prefer to do that. Does someone have a motion on either county or city lands and with regard to the commercial . . .community commercial changes. . .designation to community retail . That is the proper comprehensive term, community retail . Is there a motion? Voice: (Unclear question) Stoner: We don't have to. I was thinking that. . .because of issues that were raised during the hearing concerning sites L and M as multiple versus office, limited office commercial , that perhaps some of those issues would be better discussed if we separated county lands from city lands. If you feel that there is no question, that it is cut and dried, we don't have to separate them. Nancy has a motion. Rudy: I move that parcels L and M be designated office. Is that a designation, Fred? Office. Stoner: The motion is to designate parcels L and M in the county as office uses. Is there a second? Jim Byrne has seconded. Is there any discussion. Ward: Yes. Is J and K also going to come? Stoner: Yes, but her motion. . .we can go on. . . Ward: You' re going to take each one of these separate. Stoner: You can do it that way if you wish. You can look at them piece by piece, however you are most comfortable. . .whatever you feel the issues are. -9- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Rudy: It can get terribly confusing with too many. Stoner: It has in the past, hasn' t it. Rudy: We wind up with amendments to the amendments to the amendments. Ward: Maybe this is a much sharper Commission. Stoner: I 'm sure that's true. Ward: L and M then. i Stoner: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the motion? Lambert: I would like to. I went up and sat at 244th and the Benson, and in my foggiest I can't imagine putting apartments adjacent to a five-lane highway. They talk about quality of life. Everything that is done in the Council meet- ings they refer to it as quality of life, and I don't think quality of life is too great abutting a five-lane highway. I just can' t imagine putting apartments and subjecting people to sitting there and listening to that all day. I am very much in favor of office. Anderson: I have a question and this would be directed to staff, and as I recall when we were going through suggesting L and M to be multifamily, there was some. . . I guess the reason for designating that multifamily is because it would be. . . less traffic, and also the idea was that there have been other multifamily-zoned apartments in a similar situation, and I believe the owners said all they could put in that sort of development would be quite low cost housing. And so my question is do you have. . .can you recall some examples that we may be familiar with around the area here that could bear out that it is feasible use of the land. Satterstrom: I do not have any examples. I can respond to that question by saying what I said last time, and that was just taking some typical building dimensions and also giving the setbacks for multiple family zones and saying that you can design a development given the 300. . .270 to 290 feet lot depth with a 20 to 30-foot landscape buffer strip in the front, a double row of parking 65 feet wide, and then a building up to 50 feet wide, and you would only consume approximately one half of the lot depth. What I said at a previous hearing under rebuttal was that, that allowed sufficient design parameters for whoever was designing the site to move those buildings around, move them back off the street such that you could develop that effec- tively in multiple family development. There is another catch in this, and that is that the property to the rear or the property on both sides of L and M, to the east and west, is also designated on our Comprehensive Plan for multifamily. It would be possible to consolidate the land to the east or to the west with L and M to, in fact, develop multifamily to a greater lot depth than just 300 feet, although I admit the density of that development as proposed on the existing East Hill Plan would be at a lower density than we are recommending for L and M. I can tell you that some of the buildings at Kings Place II along the James Street are within 70 feet of the right of -10- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 way. . .well within 70 feet of the right of way. Lambert: That isn't a five lane, though. Satterstrom: It is not a five lane now, but I think future plans and maybe Jim Poston would like to respond to that, but I think that eventually that will be a five-lane highway. I have no reason to suspect that those build- ings will be vacant the day that that roadway is widened. We did, however, indicate office as kind of a fall-back position on L and M, because we wanted to get rid of that limited commercial aspect of it, because we feared a strip- type commercial development might occur in that corridor. The office designation does allow some transition to the street for multiple family on both sides of it. Stoner: Would you define office uses for us. Satterstrom: You know, I 've been asked that question since about 1974, and there is no good explanation or definition for office. I can try, though. About the best I can do would be to tell you that it is basically. . . (Tape Changed) Satterstrom: . . .that is of a non-retail type nature. And in that lies a broad range of types of uses which are. . .which get away from the types of uses that are contemplated in the strict retail aspect of CC or NC. Stoner: Could you give us some examples. . .some concrete examples. Ray thinks we are a real , sharp group and can handle anything, but I 'm not sure. Can you give me some concrete uses of professional services that are not retail . Satterstrom: There is a medical and dental clinic in the 0-zoned property at the corner of 102nd and 240th Street. There is also in that office zone a nursery school , Children' s World Nursery is in there. Professional offices, City Hall , for example, would be a permitted use. Stoner: We could have an annex to City Hall on East Hill . . . Satterstrom: Law offices , general offices. I understand there is an office going in at the corner of 248th and Benson Highway, just to the south of L on this map here. I 'm not sure, but I think it is about 30,000 square feet. Badger: I beg your pardon, Fred. What kind of an office? Satterstrom: It's a general purpose office building, probably end up with real estate people in it, perhaps medical , professional-type people. Stoner: Law office. Satterstrom: Law offices. Sure. -11- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Anderson: Even planning consultants. Satterstrom: Even those. Stoner: But a service business, for instance, a hair salon. That would be a retail kind of a use. Beauty parlor. Satterstrom: Yes, it is. Some personal services probably would be more retail in character. We have a . . . in the zoning ordinance project that is evolving and will hit you all soon. . .the office zone, the one that is being contemplated } is somewhat more broad in the uses that are permitted in it than the current office zone. The office zone as it exists now is quite restrictive in terms of the permitted uses. It is almost exclusively office-type uses. The office zone that is being contemplated is a little bit more broad, so we feel that it would allow sufficient range of use to be applied in the East Hill area. Hansen: Just to add a little bit to what Fred just said on L and M regarding multifamily, you might recall an earlier meeting. . .we mentioned that the reason that we recommended the addition of that at the time was that if indeed some of the other parcels are converted from their existing multifamily designation to commercial , there will be a net loss of that, and we wanted that recognized. And then secondedly, and candidly, we are quite fearful of having 104th along L and M turn into some of the strip commercial that is not only in Kent, but is maybe recognized nationally . . . and that's the whole. . .the SeaTac strip, all of that Pacific Highway South and North of Seattle. Not that it has the potential to get that bad I think with our current regulations, but it certainly reeks havoc in a lot of ways. Not only is it esthetically bad, but as Jim could testify in terms of traffic it creates numerous problems. So we thought multi- i family might be an alternative you may wish to consider. But I also want to add as Fred said, our basic fall-back position was that office designation on the plan would be perhaps the most appropriate if multifamily did not seem to set well with everyone. Stoner: Any other questions? Comments. Are you ready for the question. The motion states to put a designation on the Comprehensive Plan of office for sites L and M in the county. All in favor. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Opposed. (silence) . All right there are four other sites in the county. There is J-1 , J, K and K-1 . Does anyone have a motion on all or a portion of those? Lambert: Can we ask a question first before. . . Stoner: Certainly may. Lambert: The way I understand it J-1 is to be apartment zoned. Right. And J, K and K-1 will be commercial zoned. Hansen: Excuse me. Jumping in here like Jim Harris on the. . . we can't refer to zoning here. I know it slips out, but we are in fact dealing with the -12- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Comprehensive Plan, and I hope the record is real clear on that. It really needs to be. Excuse me, Chuck. Stoner: So a designation of. . . Lambert: Yes, designation of apartment on J-1 and commercial on J. K and K-1 . Satterstrom: The staff made no recommendation on J-1 , which would leave it at its current planned designation of multifamily 7-12 units. O.K. And then you are correct on the rest, the J, K and K-1 we recommended community retail on the Comprehensive Plan. Rudy: To get things started here, I move that J-1 , J, K and K-1 be designated commercial . Stoner: You mean, community retail. Rudy: Yes. Stoner: O.K. Ward: Need a second for that. Stoner: We do. Ward: I second it. Stoner: Nancy has moved and Ray has seconded that J-1 , J, K and K-1 be designated community retail on the Comprehensive Plan. Is there any discussion. Anyone would like to speak for the motion? Anderson: Well , I have a question. What is the zoning west of J-1? Stoner: What is the Comprehensive Plan designation. . . Anderson: I know it is Rl . Right? Stoner_ I can see this gleam in Jim's eye, and I got to. . . Satterstrom: I apologize to the audience, but I am going to show this to the Commission here. J-1 is right in this area south of the red that I am pointing at here. It is presently this flesh tone which is multiple family 7-12 units. The area to the west is also the same designation, multifamily 7-12. So, if J-1 would be included as community retail , the area to the west for a consider- able distance, for 600 feet or so, would be multifamily 7-12 units. Cullen: I 'd like to move that we amend J-1 to be the same way. Stoner: All right. Doug's amendment to the original motion is to leave J-1 as multifamily, 7-12 units, designation on the Comprehensive Plan. Is there a second? -13- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 14 Anderson: I ' ll second it. Stoner: Bob has seconded. Would anyone like to speak to the amendment or against it? Rudy: We've discussed this J-1 issue several times and taken looks at pictures of the area. I ' ve been up there and wandered around it. I think I 've almost been arrested as a trespasser a couple of times. I really see no real differ- ence between the J-1 and the J area. I don' t know what is going to happen with F. If F were to become commercial as the area around it to the north and east are now, then you would have a commercial area on two sides of this 7-12 multifamily residential . There are some houses there now. I do not see that particular plot of land as a buffer zone between J and that unplotted area that is now SR next to it. It just seems to fit more with J. The hill tends to crest in the back of J-1 rather than the front of it. I think it would logically go along with the J block. Stoner: Any other comments. Anderson: Well , back to traffic. I feel that as long as we keep creating higher densities on East Hill , we are going to be creating more and more traffic problems. And until the City Council and the County and the State agencies take the bull by the horns and say hey, let's clear up some traffic things here and let's develop these roads so that they can handle the traffic that's there now and also handle the traffic that will be created by the future Comprehensive Plan when that is developed, we ought to hold the density down. Ward: I would hope, along with our recommendation for designations within the Comprehensive Plan, that as soon as we get to the portion which we all realize of course is coming, that we vote as to a true zoning designation for these areas. Along with that recommendation would be that we would recommend very strongly that consideration be given to expansion of the streets and feeder streets, etc. . . .and to develop along with the commercial development to the Council . Stoner: Jim. i Byrne: Isn' t there some plans in the future to widen. . .excuse me, expand 104th and 240th, like in 198. . .may be completed in 1987. At the workshop you said that the county or state has some plans for some of that already. But again, to back up, though, these things probably wouldn't be completed at the earliest in 1987 , and that's. . .you confirmed that or we felt that it was just a logical assumption at the workshop. Poston: That's right. The Benson widening on the south part in the area we are talking about would be completed in 1987, most likely. . .start in 1986. But the bigger problem is not necessarily this area right here, but all the areas on the whole East Hill plateau, and I think Mr. Anderson points that out well . . . is that we' ve got to make sure that we can handle all those things -14- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 that are already designated as whatever. . .residential , commercial . . .before we can look at increasing intensity in some of these areas. But I also would point out that the plan that we originally started with was the East Hill Plan and we have incorporated that, and in that area it was designated as limited commercial office, so we planned for slightly higher density than just office or multifamily. But on the other hand the Council , when they did adopt the transportation plan, took out the east-west arterial that I was mentioning, so the recommended arterial plan that we suggested to handle the Comprehensive Plan traffic has been reduced. The Comprehensive Plan hasn't changed, but the traffic plan to meet that land use has changed, so far. Stoner: Where does that stand. That was my next question. You have gone to hearings, and when is your next hearing date? Poston: November 5th is the next hearing on it. Stoner: O.K. So there are some unanswered questions on east-west arterials at this point. Poston: Yes. What I tried to in earlier testimony. . .tried to point out that without that arterial we would even recommend changing the designations down- ward to less dense designations to accommodate the traffic, or to reduce the amount of traffic to accommodate the transportation that would develop. Stoner: Chuck. Lambert: Jim, before you leave. I was going through. . .thumbing through the minutes, and I don' t remember who it was. .Glenn from the Chamber, you or a man from Fred Meyers, that said that if this development did happen, it would keep a lot of the traffic out of the valley because they wouldn't have to go to the valley to handle their business. Do you recall this? Did you say that? Was it Glenn? Poston: There's a combination of adding some traffic and then also diverting traffic that would take a longer trip clear across the valley and cutting it off right there in that area. Lambert: So it kind of half way balances out. Poston: It would at least mitigate the big impact. I don't know if it would balance out. Badger: Jim, may I ask a question of you. Poston: Sure. Badger: The parcel marked J-1 there on the map, if the gray area roads to the left that are not presently roads were, in fact, developed as roads, would that give alternate routes out of J-1 other than going strictly out to 104th. In other words you funnel the effect now of any traffic. -15- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Poston: That's one thing that I wanted to expand on, what Fred said is we have those areas on this map A, staff recommendations, that are shaded, and as I understand it, those are areas that we have right of way now, although there are no roads built there. Is that correct? Q.K. Now when you look at map 7 in the back of the staff report, there are more roads than just indi- cated here. There are some additional ones. The reason those are recommended or suggested is that we are trying to. . .the arterials 240th and 104th are serving two purposes now. One is to get the commuters through north, south, east, west and also to serve as access roads for the shopping areas. What we are recommending is that if the commercial area is expanded, that along with that, plans are made to expand the access , because that is the most important part of commercial activities . . . the access to it. The ones that we see that are on map A in the shaded areas, the gray areas, are ones that we feel i are almost mandatory whether it is changed to commercial or kept at the designation as it is. Because those are approximately quarter mile points, and to get some kind of. . .any kind of circulation, really, we need at least those arterials. . .or those collectors. Badger: That would avoid, for instance, coming off of J-1 . . .that would avoid a left turn going north onto 104th, because there would be another route out to get to 104th other than just that 244th. . . Poston: Or going clear down to 94th. But then. . .even with those roads there, the gray areas or the ones on map 7 still have a problem that beyond 100th it's still only one arterial that gets down to the bottom of the valley and across. With the plan we' ve recommended there are two additional ones, 277th, in the vicinity of, and also in the vicinity of 192nd--196th. Those would be two additional arterials that go clear across the valley to take a load off 240th. Here we would change the local impact. There would be less turns at 244th and the Benson, but the amount of traffic trying to go east-west still wouldn't change. Still that commuting traffic would still need to get out west and come back east. Byrne: So in other words, the heavy arterials are mainly commuting groups that you are considering. . Poston: What we are trying to get is the commuting traffic onto those and keep them off some of the by-pass or the side streets. A lot of the traffic when the arterial gets loaded up ends up there, but the side streets are primarily. . . I guess the purpose of those streets is to provide access for the residents, for the commercial businesses . Byrne: Basically we aren' t going to change the flow of traffic on Benson or 240th with new arterials. We are just going to let people get to the businesses easier. . . . Poston: Right. 1 Byrne: They have to go back out there. Poston: That's right. It will help out at the intersections somewhat, because instead of having no access or no alternate access, you'd have a number of -16- ' Kent Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 30, 1984 driveways directly onto the arterial . If you have those side streets, some of traffic can get onto the side street and come out at the arterial at maybe a controlled intersection, traffic signal . . .something like that, rather than have to wait for a gap in traffic, hazardous movements like that. Rudy: I have a double question. First, don' t go away, part of this is for you. To Jim or Fred if J-1 were designated commercial , how long would it likely be before it were developed as commercial , realistically. Stoner: Crystal ball question. I Hansen: I don't really think there is an answer for that. I'd like to say there's a set plan on development in Kent, but there are some parcels that I see that to me probably logically should have been developed years ago that have not, and there are others that are extremely marginal that develop before any of the others. So, I wish I could even guess, but maybe Fred. . . Satterstrom: Thank you, Jim. I , again, have no crystal ball . That is a very difficult question to answer. I would predict it would be quite long range on the basis that there is some fairly nice homes up in that area, and the people may not wish to sell out right a way, and therefore we may be talking about the long term rather than the short term. I won' t put a number on either long or short here, so I can' t be proven wrong. Rudy: That's fine. Now Tom, how long the roadways are going to be narrowed, say to five lanes, on the Benson. Poston: Widened. Rudy: The five-lane configuration on the Benson. Poston: I have to point that this is not under control of the city because the state is doing the project, but their plans are to advertise the section between 242nd and 252nd, right here, in the spring of 86, so a year and one- half away, that they would advertise and get a contractor on board, work the summer, some in the fall , hopefully have it constructed by 1987. The portion north of 236th on up into the county also would be advertised in 1987, hope- fully completed by 1988. So we are looking at a year and a half to two and one half to get that one portion done, and then maybe three and one half for the upper portion. Rudy: About the same length of time then. Poston: Well the north portion is going to be slower. I mean it is going to be later. . .but it' s in the next two or three years. Lambert: The only way we get direct answers is by asking question, did you notice. Badger: Then, Tom, it would be logical to assume that more north-south traffic would occur, especially from the north area, on 104th if you have a five-lane -17- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 highway down through that area. Poston: If that's completed,and it's completed and linked all the way up to 192nd, I 'm sure there is going to be a draw from some of the other two-lane roads farther east rather than turning off at, say, 132nd and fighting two- lane traffic and stop signs all the way up and down the road, maybe. . .people may be tempted to come to the Benson with five lanes of traffic, freer flowing, to move north and south. I can' t guarantee that, but that seems like common sense. Stoner: It will be five lanes all the way to Renton. Poston: It will be five lanes from 264th down to the city limits of Kent, clear up into Renton. Ward: So in essence what you are saying is that the five-lane change will increase i the traffic as compared to any change in the zoning. . . Poston: Well , you could look at it that way. Ward: . . .The zoning change. . .but it wouldn't have any tremendous effect. Poston: O.K. What the zoning change would do, or at least the five-lane improve- ment would do, would shift traffic temporarily. But then we have a lot of undeveloped areas that will fill up, and traffic will be generated there, and it will fill in where that traffic had been shifted. } Ward: So we need a shift in traffic. . .now to try to support that commercial zoning that we are trying to get passed. Poston: Maybe we should build the 132nd at five lanes and draw traffic out there and then fill it in with commercial . Ward: We' ll think about that one, too. Poston: But I think it was pointed out at the Council level that maybe we should build more Fred Meyers because they have demonstrated there would be less traffic. Stoner: The motion on the floor is. . .the amendment states J-1 be left as multiple 7-12; J, community retail ; K, community retail ; K-1 , community retail . Are there any other comments. Rudy: Don't we have to go to the amendment first and then the rest of it. Stoner: The amendment first, and the amendment is as I stated. All those in favor of the amended motion. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Do you need a count? Was that not clear? Opposed. -18- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Voices: No. Stoner: O. K. We have three opposed, Chuck, Doug, Jim, Bob and myself in favor. Is that correct? Voice: Raise your hands. Register on the tape. Stoner: 0. K. Five three. Five in favor, three against. 0. K. As I under- stand it, we do not vote on the main motion at this point, or shall we go ahead and be safe. Leigh Ann, can you be our parliamentarian? Tift: I am probably less familiar with parliamentary procedures than you are. Stoner: At this point do we need to vote on the main motion? I would not think SO. Hansen: Excuse me. The Council almost always. . .they vote on amendments, and then they vote on the main motion. Stoner: O.K. We vote on the main motion. So the main motion as amended would say that J-1 will be multifamily designation, 7-12; J, community retail ; K, commun- ity retail ; K-1, community retail . All in favor. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Opposed. (No response) All right. That concludes our recommendations on county lands for the Comprehensive Plan designation. Now we need to look at city parcels for a Comprehensive Plan designation. We are not to zoning yet. We are still talking about Comprehensive Plan designations. We are looking at parcels A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H as being within the city limits. We are look- ing at parcels A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H are the parcels we are concerned with within the city limits for Comprehensive Plan designation. Is there a motion? Rudy: At one of our hearings Jerry Baysinger said that there was apparently a question of whether the office designation included parking as an acceptable use. Do we have any answer to that? Hansen: Yes. It is permitted under the code. I think, if I remember correctly, within 500 feet of the primary use. . .it's an administrative interpretation. . . we've allowed a parking lot with all the usual improvements to occur on the given zone. And in this case if we are talking about planning only, but even- tually zoning, then. . .and if it was an office zone that was in place, then it would be allowed assuming, and this is theoretically until we have the question before us and the actual application, and the situation is going to apply to the land, we could make an official determination, but at this time assuming all those other factors were O.K. , it would be approved. Lambert: Before the motion is made could we ask Fred one more time to give us the staff's recommendation on A, B, C, D, E, F. and G. Stoner: And H. -19- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Lambert: And H. Satterstrom: And we are just talking about Comprehensive Plan. Correct? Lambert: We are talking recommended designations. Satterstrom: On A and B. . .On A and B the staff had no recommendation for chang- ing either the Comprehensive Plan or zoning. On site C. . . Stoner: What is it currently? i Satterstrom: A and B are both office. . .Comprehensive Plan. On site C, about 1 .8 acres, I believe, it is presently office on the East Hill Plan. That' s this little piece of orange here at the corner of 108th and 240th. We are pro- posing to change that to community retail . R we had no proposal for a Comprehensive Plan amendment which would leave it then at it 's present designation of office along 240th, with a high density multifamily designation on the rear. That's it's existing designation. We were originally recommending no change. Lambert: High density. You mean MRM. Satterstrom: If you are going to convert that to a zoning designation, it would be something similar to that, yes. I want to come back to that one, however. E, it' s present designation is the same as D with office in the front and multiple family on the rear. We are proposing to change that to a community retail . Site F is the rear portion of a lot that extends all the way to 240th but is split by zoning. The front portion is currently zoned and planned for community retail as is the back portion on F. We recommend no change, which 1 would leave it at its Present Comprehensive Plan amendment. . .or Comprehensive Plan designation of community retail . Site G, which lies just to the east of the Lucky and Pay Less up here, Old Orchard Shopping Center, about 8.8 acres j is currently on the Comprehensive Plan for high density multiple family. We are proposing community retail . And H, which is a much larger piece of land, about 18 acres, stretching all the way from 108th Avenue out to 112th, is currently designated multiple family and we are making no recommendation on that which would keep it at its existing multifamily designation. Now, I wanted to come back to D. The proponents of that, Fred Meyer representatives, indicated that they wished to propose D as entirely for office. They were talk- j in terms of zoning, and I just would like to inform you. . .or advise you that if you contemplate rezoning that to office at some later time tonight, that the office designation be placed on the entire site extended from wherever it sits on this site back to the rear line, to change that to an office designation on the comprehensive Plan. Lambert: What was the reasoning behind that? . . .As a buffer? ' i Satterstrom: What was. . .you are asking me what their reasoning was for proposing it as office zoning? I believe that it was their feeling that were accessory parking to be allowed for their facility, that office zoning would be more appropriate, and coupled with the fact that they could live with the restriction -20- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 on that property to office use, because they did have an undesignated vacant parcel on that site D, which I think they were contemplating some future use and they felt that office zoning might be compatible with their plans. Rudy: Fred, didn't Fred Meyer want 75 feet on the east side of the D section to be commercial or as part of their building. . .the building extend. . . Satterstrom: They were talking in terms of zoning. If you contemplate perhaps taking similar action, you could take that action with respect to the Comprehen- sive Plan. I tend to view the Comprehensive Plan in general types of terms. If the line is close, it' s O. K. If the land use is close, generally it is compatible. It depends on how you view the Comprehensive Plan. But they did recommend or were suggesting that the Planning Commission shift the CC line 75 feet to the west, which would then be shifted onto site D such that I think they said some- thing about their building line would then all be within CC zoning. Rudy: Would that be considered a zoning problem or a variance? Satterstrom: Well really. . . if you shifted the line over 75 feet, it would be neither problem. They wouldn't need a variance. It wouldn't be a zoning problem. Stoner: Are lines that close on a Comprehensive Plan map? Satterstrom: Well , when they end at the street they are pretty definitive; how- ever sometimes you draw a conceptual line along a ridge. We drew the line on the Comprehensive Plan for the. . .along the toe of the slope. Sometimes that line is more general . Sometimes it is less general . I tend to look at a Comprehensive Plan in general fashion, and if it is near a property line, it ., is more by happenstance than anything else. The Comprehensive Plan would not need to be defined in such definitive terms or follow such a definite line. Cullen: Fred, how far over is 75 feet? ' Satterstrom: Pardon. Cullen- Percentage wise how far over is 75 feet? Stoner: I think we have a graphic to show that. Satterstrom: Yes, I ' ll get the graphic. Referring to Fred Meyer's exhibit that is titled "Proposed Amendment to the Staff Zoning Study," this line right here shows the boundary between D and E as defined in your staff report. Each site is about 4.4 acres, four and one-quarter acres. Each site is also about 300 feet wide. If you shifted the line from D over to here 75 feet, you'd have about 225 feet of depth. Lambert: What is the parking if D were to be zoned CC along with E and F? Satterstrom: There wouldn't be any problem. I think that if I can elaborate on that question, I think the reason that Fred Meyer proposed that, recalling -21- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 what Baysinger said, was to restrict the use of that building pad that they had there such that it would not develop to a CC use but to an office, and ; provide some transition between the Fred Meyer store and the school . Stoner: Fred, would you show that to the people in the back. There were a couple indicating they would like to see. Satterstrom: Just briefly explain that again. . .Site D and site E as proposed in the staff report are about four and a quarter acres in size. They are about 300 feet in width. What Fred Meyer representatives are suggesting here . on this exhibit is to shift the line between E and D 75 feet to the west, which would create an additional 75 feet of community commercial zoning leaving site D at 225 feet in width, and then propose that for office zoning. Stoner: We have closed the public hearing and I can't take comments at this f point. Are there any other questions. We need really to have a motion on the floor before we discuss. C + Cullen: I move that we accept the recommendation of the Planning Department with the exception of D, that we make that office and commercial 75 feet, I don't know how to word it. Stoner: Well , I think the thrust of Fred's comment is that we don't necessarily need to draw a hard line there at this point, but that can done during the zoninc portion of it if we deem that necessary. Am I interpreting you correctly? Satterstrom: I really think you have the flexibility to do it either way. Stoner: And you may choose how you wish to state that in your motion. If you want to state it as the westerly 225 feet of D as an 0 designation. Cullen: That sounds great. I ' ll go along with that. Badger: I' ll second that if you can figure out how to write it. Stoner: All right. 0. K. Doug has moved and Nancy has seconded that the staff recommendations on A, B, C, E, F, G and H be accepted as proposed, that parcel D, the westerly 225 feel; be designated "0" and the easterly 75 feet of that parcel be designated community retail . Badger: Did you touch on H yet? Stoner: I included H in my motion. . .that it be designated as the staff had recommended. Badger: What was staff's recommendation on H again? Lambert: MRM. Badger: MRM. -22- f Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Satterstrom: We are not making a recommendation to community retail , which would then keep it in its present designation, which would be multifamily 12-24, medium density, whatever. . . Voice: Twelve to twenty-four units per acre. .. Satterstrom: Just as a basic change we are assuming that D is 300 feet wide, that is why we are using 225 and 75. Perhaps we should say the east 75 feet and the balance west of that line would be. . .the balance 225 feet, more or less. Stoner: All right. So we are going to rephrase the motion. If I can restate it once more and if you all agree that the motion is to accept the staff recommenda- tion on A, B, C, D, E, F, G and K that the easterly portion of D, the 75 eastern- most feet of D will be designated "CR, the balance of it will be designated "0" . Lambert: I 'd like to amend Doug's . . . Stoner: Please do. Lambert: I'd like to amend it to. . .D to be all commercial . Ward: I 'd second that. Stoner: There has been an amendment by Chuck Lambert to designate D, the entire parcel D as community retail seconded by Ray Ward. Would anyone like to speak to the amendment? Lambert: Yes. Ward: Can I speak. . . Lambert: Go ahead. Are you on my side or. . . Ward: No, mine is a point of clarification. Go ahead and speak. . . Lambert: No, go ahead I 'll . . . Ward: As I understand the motion and the amendment to the motion...is the fact that we have a recommendation for C, D, E, F and G to be designated in the plan as commercial . That H basically remain as multifamily, medium density, and that A and B also remain as office, which sounds like a pretty good recommenda- tion to me. Stoner: Anyone else need to speak to the motion. Lambert: The reason I offered the amendment. . .we heard from, I believe it was the Assistant Superintendent, and the school was in favor of the development at 100th and 240th (Tape Changed) Lambert: . . .And I am sure he was representing many of the business people in the city. And most of the citizens who spoke, spoke in favor of it. And as the -23- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 office building . . . I mean the office zoning designation as a buffer to the school . The man from the school also stated that they were going to remodel that school . It was scheduled for remodeling, which means that the school is going to be there an awful long time. I could understand the office zoning as a buffer from residential , but as a buffer from the school, I just can't see where that would be to any advantage. And I think it would be to the advantage of the developer and maybe down the road twenty years, that it also be zoned commercial . Stoner: Anybody want to speak against the amendment. Anderson: From what I recall the Assistant Superintendent of Schools said was that he primarily was interested in that parcel beinq under one ownership. The ! reason for the one ownership was so that he would have one person to go to talk to that had control . . . if there were any problem that he had that spill over on to the school site. That area along D, as I understand it, is consider- able difference in grade, and so there is certain amount of natural separation just by elevation. And I even think the Fred Meyer proposal showed that they had deleted two driveways which previously had been intended to enter out onto { 100th, the street that runs along the school now. I 'm not sure which way I want to go. In some ways I like the idea of leaving some of that office so that there's perhaps some control for future use now. . then we know for now, at least, that it all would be used for parking, that it is not suitable for office, that it won' t be used for that, but there may be an office at the northwest corner and that there is always the possibility in the future that the recommended plan could show that that could become commercial at some time in the future. i We don' t know if we need a buffer zone or not. It would appear right now that we don' t need one, but perhaps sometime in the future we would. And in that case we would already have it. If sometime in the future we may decide that we don' t need it and it would be beneficial to have some commercial along there, then the Comprehensive Plan could be amended to take that into account. I am really concerned again loading up the East Hill with a great deal of area that is zoned commercial . Lambert: If that were to be zoned office, we might put back in the two driveways onto 100th to give access to the offices. Anderson: It didn't appear. . .All I can answer to are the plans that were shown, and I presume if that if that procedure were acted on. . .you know, it would go through the Hearing Examiner, and presumably they would allow some access. Is that right? i Hansen: Those specific issues regarding the actual site development of Fred Meyer or any other commercial development that might occur on that parcel or i some of the others . . . are tackled during the site review process and conditions of approval are attached, and in that particular case, the access thing would be worked out according to the best available information. So. . .and that is something that Jim Poston, of course, plays a very key role in. Right now I think. . . I just advise that we didn't get into that kind of detail , particu- larly considering you' re still working on a plan amendment. -24- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Lambert: But according to the zone. . .or the driveway bill that Jim, I think you offered that, didn ' t you. . .how many driveways would be allowed on 100th if that was developed as office. In that I forget what your formula was. Poston: I don't know the depth, but just looking at it I 'd probably guess at about 600 feet. Potentially there could be I think it is three driveways , going by the strict interpretation of the ordinance. Lambert: I wouldn't think that we'd have more than. . . the city would have more control over access off of 100th if it was all zoned commercial . . .that whole plot, and under whoever develops it. . . Stoner: This is an issue that I wanted Leigh Ann to speak to after the break, and that is our ability to condition the zoning that we put on the parcels that we are zoning. And I think we need to go through the rest of the Comprehensive Plan changes that we want to make, take our break, have Leigh Ann discuss with us what our options are in terms of the zoning that we want to put on this land and the conditions that we might want to include with those zoning changes. And that may resolve some of these issues. But I want to point that out to you as a possible option. I realize that these two things are relative, but I would urge you to think of this in terms of comprehensive planning, of comprehensive land use. What do you want to see happen in a general way in this area, because this is an area-wide comprehensive land use change that we are looking at. Byrne: Would It be appropriate to amend the motion to. . . Stoner: All right. Let's find out. Another amendment. Byrne: Maybe. We don't know if it's appropriate or not. Stoner: O. K. All right. Byrne: I ' ll amend the motion to state that at which time the roads are improved sufficiently to, as Mr. Poston case said we can recommend commercial zoning. . . comprehensive. . . Stoner: Commercial designation. Byrne: Commercial designation. . . like where we' re missing two east-west corridors right now with one. . .we don' t know where it is going to be and how it will affect 104th and 240th. . .would it be appropriate to say that we would change the comprehensive plan designation. . .to look at it as commercial zoning with the roads are improved. . . Rudy: All of it. Stoner: We're back at the chicken and egg situation, aren't we? Byrne: There are a lot of people on the East Hill that will be adversely affected by heavier traffic and commercial rezoning in that area. . .until the roads are improved. -25- 1 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Poston: Although we have this arterial system proposed, we are a long way from implementing it. And when you mention. . .you know, I think, I don' t remember the exact words, but the improvements are done or down. . .The new arterials that we propose, if were to get started on them today, and I doubt that we can, it would be seven to ten years before they are on line. So we are going to see a lot worse conditions before we can get those arterials on line. So, I don't know that . . . Jim and Fred hedged on when these developments would be done, and I think appropriately so. But I don' t think you can tie any kind of designation you might put on it to improvements being completed. Now I think there is a difference of the improvements being completed and the plan being complete. So, I think that if you could somehow mention that we have a complete comorehen- sive plan or recommend the addition of another arterial . Hansen: To add a footnote to that comment, I think that during this process on the plan amendment you might keep into consideration that the existing East Hill plan here is loaded with pages of comments. . .goals, objectives and policies, many of which deal with transportation improvements, and my general recommenda- tion to you I guess is to not sink too much into the detail as Fred mentioned earlier. I realize that is a propensity, but that you can really deal with some of these details more specifically at such time as you take whatever rezoning actions, and that these concerns you are raising are actually already raised here in the plan, so you wouldn't need to feel guilty if you didn't mention them specifically. I think as long as you then, at such time as you take zoning action wish to address those, and Leigh Ann speaks to how much you could condition or how strongly you could condition or how strongly you could recommend such conditions, then you could do those. And that might be a more appropriate time. Stoner: Let me see if I have all of this. The amendment to the main motion that is on the floor is to designate D as community retail in the Comprehensive Plan. Everything else could go as staff has recommended it and as is covered in the main motion. Rudy: Isn't the amendment just on D alone? Stoner: Yes. The amendment speaks to parcel D, community retail , as opposed to 1 splitting that parcel as it is designated in the main motion between office and community retail . Are you ready to vote on the amended motion? All in favor or the amendment. (Silence) All opposed. Voices: Aye. Stoner: The main motion has been amended ... or has not been amended, so we will vote on the main motion. The main motion says sites A and B will be "0" , site C will be community retail , site. . . no site C is community retail . . . D will be. . . the eastern 75 feet of D will be community retail , the balance, the western balance to be "0" , E, community retail , F, community retail , G, community retail , H will be MRM, medium density multifamily. All in favor of those comprehensive plan designation. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Opposed. (silence) -26- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Stoner: We have now completed the comprehensive plan designation changes for the study area. Let's take a twelve minute break. Be back at 9:25 and we will start on zoning. Stoner: Fred, could you write on the map what we have done in terms of designa- tions. I think the only one. . . Satterstrom: What about if I indicate them? Stoner: Do we have a sheet of paper that we could even list them on or. . . Satterstrom: Yes, why don' t I put it on the blackboard. . . what about a green board. . . Stoner: We probably need to be able to see the map we are working from, but I think it would help if we had a list of what we have done. Leigh Ann, could you address the issue of of conditioning zoning. Tift: Again, for the record my name is Leigh Ann Tift. I am the Assistant City Attorney. Commission has asked for an opinion as to whether or not it may condition. . .impose conditions. . .or request that conditions be imposed along with its zoning recommendations. The answer is yes you can; however conditions imposed upon a rezone must usually be associated with identified impacts of the action being taken by, in this case, the Commission. There should be an identi- fied impact, and then the condition is imposed to somehow mitigate the impact. The easy example is a rezone for a project's specific type of action. I ' ll use the Fred Meyer rezone, because I think we are fairly familiar with that. In that instance you have a retail store. You know exactly what is going to go on the site. You can look in the traffic engineer's book. You can say for this type of development we are going to have "x" number of trips generated per day. For that reason you can look at the streets then, you can say the impacts on the streets from "x" number of trips per day will be this result. We believe that in order to mitigate this impact we must impose a condition. And then you limit access or make them put in turn lanes, or you do something to mitigate the traffic impact. You are not considering project specific rezoning at this point, so you must be careful that your conditions do not. . .will apply across the board. Assuming that Fred Meyer does not develop site E, just for example assume that it' s a Boeing top security plant. They have fifteen workers and only fifteen workers are ever going to enter the site. In that case your traffic generation is not going to be nearly what the Fred Meyer- type project would produce. So you should bear in mind that while you are considering site specific zoning, you are not considering project specific zoning, and that any conditions that you impose should be general because of the nature of the consideration. Anything else? Stoner: Are there any other questions? O.K. At this point we are going to consider the rezoning of those parcels within the city, and we are talking specifically about C, D, E, F, and G. Tift: Ms. Stoner, for the record I think that you should maybe announce that both Mr. Cullen and Mr. Byrne have left. -27- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Stoner: Commissioners Cullen and Byrne have left. They have excused themselves from this portion of our hearing. Those are the sites for which the comprehen- sive plan designation has changed. Teat is the reason that I have identified those parcels as being the ones that are appropriate for zoning change, C, D, E, F, and G. , but I would imagine they are all available for rezone considera- tion if anyone wishes to do that. Zoning needs to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that is why we have listed the designations that we voted on this evening to the side there. A motion at this point would be approriate. Ray. Ward: I 'd like to move. . .make a motion that we consider rezoning sites C. 09 E, F and G to commercial . Stoner: I see a problem with site D. Lambert: He meant the east 75 feet of it. Stoner: All right. 0. K. Ward: I really didn't, but O.K. I really meant the whole site of D. ` Stoner: You may state your motion as you wish it to read. ! Ward: I shall restate my motion. That we consider the rezoning of sites C, the 75 feet of site D, E, F and G as commercial to keep down the fight. Stoner: Is there a second. Ray has moved and Chuck has seconded that we change l the zoning on those sites to community commercial . Is there any discussion? Anderson: I 'd like to talk about traffic again. It is not obvious to everyone I happen to live on East Hill , and I drive right by this area, but not every day. I happen to work in Renton. I live on 148th Avenue S.E. , so when I go to work, I go north. I end up on the five-lane Benson Highway. But I travel across the valley often enough to be concerned about the traffic that is there now and the additional traffic which is going to continue to go through that area regardless of what we do here tonight, because the area east of Kent is growing. I 'm sure most of you have seen the area on S. E. 240th and near 132nd on the north side across from small Seven-Eleven that is being developed. I 'm not sure what is going in. I presume it is multifamily. Most of that traffic, I assume, will soon be on 240th. And there are other projects further to the east, including single family residences in the. . .across the golf course. There is a lot of. . . homes going on there, and further to the east. So again, I am open to sugges- tion by the traffic enqineer, but I would. . . I am certainly concerned about the traffic and about tying in some sort of traffic improvements, and I am not I sure how those can be done. Of course we don' t want to be site specific and j don' t want to prevent future projects to go in on the East Hill of Kent; however, 1 I think we should make the streets on East Hill of Kent as safe as we can, and make the flow of traffic through that area as reasonable as we can expect it. It appears to me it is close to saturation right now without anything going into these sites and without anything happening to the east. And we are going to see, based on what we calked about tonight, we are looking at three or four -28- I Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 t' years before we are going to have any real help in changing traffic or moving i traffic any more rapidly or safely through this area. Stoner: Can you address the potential impacts of the motion that you just heard? Or is that another crystal ball question. Poston: Maybe it' s a crystal ball question, but I'll take a hack at it. The problem I ' ve been trying to get across is one. . .the backlog problem. We've got a Comprehensive Plan. Without any changes made today, without any changes made at all , we' re trying to recommend, and we are trying to get adopted, a network that would satisfy that Comprehensive Plan. Now so far the Council has adopted portions of what we've recommended. Now we are trying to balance the network, transportation network on the one hand, with the Comprehensive Plan. Now the designations here are relatively minor when you look at the entire Comprehensive Plan, but our position in the Public Works Department is that right now we don' t have a transportation system that's in balance, and we don't think that any further designations should be made, or I should say. . .zoning changes should be made which could intensify that traffic. And without getting into some specific figures I feel that the commercial zone would intensify traffic somewhat, maybe 15 percent. But when we were faced with a shortage in the capacity of the roads of 22 percent, an increase of 15 percent is significant. So what I would recommend, this is off the cuff though, I would recommend that you somehow, and I don't know if Leigh Ann can get this correct, that these impacts are identified, that the impacts of additional development under the Comprehensive Plan is a concern, and that also a concern is that the transportation network be developed . . . the comprehensive transportation plan be adopted which is in accordance with the i Comprehensive Plan. If that can be effected, then I think these. . .if we could get the transportation network in balance with the Comprehensive Plan as it exists , then these type of changes can be accommodated. But without that balance in the transportation plan and the Comprehensive Plan, I don' t feel that we can accommodate any, and I use the term loosely "upzones", whether it be commercial or higher intensity residential or industrial . Stoner: Ray. Ward: To defend my motion, we have had a series of hearings regarding future developments as far as Kent is concerned. I have heard that the greater per- centage from the citizenry of Kent . . . indicate that they are in favor of further development in this area. I have heard from the business community represented by the Chamber of Commerce that they are in favor of further development in this area. It would behoove me, even though I 'm not an elected individual of those concerned factions, that whatever decision I make, whatever recommendation I make should be based upon what the people and also the business community of Kent would basically want for development in that area. We are talking about an economic development type of a thing here, that we are talking about a situation where as we want Kent to go far and wide, so far as development in South King County. In order for Kent to do that we have to have commercial area for it to develop into. And that' s why I am in favor of zoning additional lands so far as commercial . The traffic impact. . .there will always be a traffic problem anywhere. There is a traffic problem throughout the United States and more than likely throughout the world. -29- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 They cannot be resolved by your tradeoff between a consideration for a traffic pattern in a given area and the economic development of that area. I think people are much more prone to have a job, a place to work and money to spend in order to buy a car to drive on that given street. If we don't have economic development in the area, they' re not going to have either one. They are going to have an ideal traffic situation so that they can either drive to work or drive for pleasure, or they are going to have a circumstance where they have economic development.. have money in their pockets and be happy and can have the freedom of choice to decide as to whether they want to drive in that given area or not. That's why I am recommending all of the areas that we have indicated i so far as commercial zoning. Lambert: I was looking through. . . I believe Mr. Baysinger was the one that gave us the date for completion. And I am wondering if we could ask, I know the public hearing is over, if Mr. Turks. Do you remember what date Mr. Baysinger said this would be. . . Turlis: Yes. Steve Turlis, Real Estate Resources, and I happen to represent Fred Meyer in their real estate matters. At best normally our construction period is one year from the time we start the ground work. At best because we are in the inclement weather type of season at this point in time, at best and at the earliest that we could probably start breaking ground would be sometime next year with the store opening perhaps in June or July of 1986. Lambert: Then I will add to that since he. . . in the handout that Jim Poston gave us the projects, like the Benson being widened from 242nd to 252nd will be completed in 1986. And then all the rest will be 1987, which will help relieve the traffic. So if the store completion and the widening of the Benson kind of coincide, I think that would help a lot. i Badger: Well , I would like to speak in support of Ray's motion in particular r om the standpoint of the individuals , the people who live on East Hill . And I feel that the enlargement of the commercial area in this particular considera- tion that we are talking about is to provide more services for those people who desperately need those services. As far as the heavy transportation goes, the 1 more homes that are built out east of the city limits of Kent, the heavier the i flow on 240th. I realize that. But I am considering the service needs of all people that are already in here. For instance, in a multifamily unit there is the going to be a awful . . .excuse me, that's not the right wording. . . there is going to be considerable number of people who need to go to the dentist, who need to go to the grocery store, and who need all of these personal services, and there may not be enough commmercial zoning available for those types of businesses to y satisfy the needs of the citizenry. So I think the commercial zoning should be expanded for that reason, and I think then that the City Council and the trans- portation people of the City of Kent, the City Engineer must then address the problem to service the people. i Poston: In my statement just previous I think I may have been misunderstood I from the comments that I have heard so far. I don't mean to say that any desig- nations should not be changed. But what I would like to suggest is that there be some kind of mention or suggestion that this transportation network be . . . -30- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 that the transportation impact be accommodated in accordance with this commercial rezoning. When you mention providing services to the citizens and to the businesses , I think that the transportation network is providing a service. We are not looking for an ideal traffic situation, we are just looking for a situation where we can provide a transportation service to the businesses. Without that service, much like without water, without sewer, the businesses won't locate there regardless of whatever designation or whatever zone you put on the land. So what my point was. . .was, hopefully, don't give the Council recommendation to rezone the land to a commercial designation without also recommending to the Council that the transportation portion of it be improved also or upgraded. Stoner: We have a motion on the floor. Rudy: This is the first one on this motion, isn't it. Stoner: I think so. Rudy: Good. I would like to amend the motion to read that in order to mitigate the impact of increased traffic caused by increased commercial zoning that the City develop a definite plan to. . . Ward: This is coming slow. Rudy: I can' t get the right wording for you. Ward: To accommodate . . . Rudy: To accommodate the increased traffic. All right. Lambert: Second. Ward: That' s a recommendation. . . Rudy: And it includes the two. . . Ward: Then I would amend my original motion to include that piggyback clause. Stoner: All right. It's a friendly amendment. . . Hansen: Did someone second that? Lambert: Yes, I did. Stoner: All right. The original motion is to designate C, D, E, F and G as. . . no, the original motion is to designate C, the eastern 75 feet of D, E, F, and G as community commercial . The amendment states that we recommend that the City Council develop a transportation plan that will accommodate the additional traffic generated by that zoning. Lambert: I would like to offer an amendment to the original motion of Ray's getting back to what he first offered. That all of D be zoned commercial , all of E, F and G and C be zoned commercial . -31- s Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Stoner: Would you like to mitigate the traffic impact? Lambert: Yes. Stoner: Is there a second to Mr. Lambert's motion? Ward: Can I second his. . . Second. Hansen: O.K. I just want to add something. . .while you are talking about. . . while you are attempting to tie in the transportation impacts and transporta- tion needs to a consideration to expand commercial zoning. . .Jim Poston has spoken to, I think, two different things happening. And I wanted to see what you thought about trying to nail this down a little tighter. One is the need for an additional arterial that, the no-name arterial , that we all know about where it is , and anyway. . .the City Council some time ago in considering the initial transportation plan deleted that. And it has been a great concern, and there is no doubt in Jim' s mind or anyone else' s, I think, in Planning or Public Works, that if the area is to grow up here, at some point an additional arterial will have to be. . .not only attached to the plan, but eventually built. Then the other area is a more localized one, and that' s the street grid that' s represented, I believe, on Map 7. That is of particular concern, I think, especially to Planning. I can speak on our behalf, that in your motion that we'd recommend that if you wish to discuss and attach some general condition regarding your concern for transportation that you tie it to, and this is a for instance, the arterial . . .a need for an east-west arterial north of your study area , and that secondly . . . you recognize the need for a road grid or road network that's representative of Map 7. I think, this is my personal opinion, I think that the City Council needs to, if at all possible, have something specific to consider because when we go through the process with them, I know as staff, both Public Works and Planning will be emphasizing this point again, and if you. . .what I am getting to is if you feel at least in a general sort of way that you need to attach transportation concerns or some general conditions to your motion, that you consider making it more specific, which I think will make it easier for the City Council to then deli- berate and consider the eventual buildout which may be representative of the streets shown here plus the arterial . Badger: Jim, I 'm sorry, but on Ma 7 the�_ y p potential grid is something different j than these gray areas of unbuilt street right of ways over here. f Hansen: Well , would seven be the preferable. . . iI Satterstrom: If I can help out here, the rights of ways that show on Map A that we are referring to over here as the gray areas, those are rights of ways that presently exist and I think the City has every intention of developing at some point in the future. The rights of ways that show on Map 7 are additional rights of ways over and above those that we presently have, and I think that the ones on Map 7 are aimed , primarily at making the commercial area , 240th and 104th, have a better circulation pattern and function better. . . from a subarea perspective. Hansen: I think what we are trying to say is that, and I think we feel that the City has to be committed to transportation improvements, and it is fine to say -32- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 that in a general sort of way, but we are getting down to the point in this sort of a rezone where we need to be as specific as possible, and that in your refer- ence, for instance to Map 7, it is not like every road on that should be built necessarily within a given period of time, or that they all should be built, but that it is representative of the need for a transportation system, a localized one, to accommodate the growth that we anticipate to occur and take some of the. . . and relieve some of the major arterials that we have now that are. . .The reason they are so bad right now is because there are very few alternatives other than to take those. And as Jim pointed out, as the area grows, for every relief we give, as the area grows, of course that is going to be eventually filled up and then some and be over capacity, but at least it would show a commitment towards a pattern up there and I think would make land use planning and eventual develop- ment of the area and some of the decisions that have to be made a little easier. Stoner: I 'm going to ask a frivilous question. Does the 102nd Street extension include a tunnel under or an overpass over a proposed development on South James? It's a unique question, but I think it is something we need to consider if we are going to recommend. . . Satterstrom: It does not include a tunnel or a bridge, and I would again remind you that my concept of a comprehensive plan which would include a potential roadway location, would also be very general in nature. Some of these might not be public rights of way but could actually occur as internal driveways to an integrated shopping development. So 102nd may actually not be a public street at all . It may end up as an internal driveway. Stoner: The public hearing is closed at this point. Do you have comments that you want to address to us. Voice: Yes I do. (Tape Changed) I Stoner: May 1 have a motion to reopen the public hearing. i Lambert: I make the motion. i Stoner: Is there a second. Badger: Second. Stoner: O.K. Chuck has moved and Bob has seconded to reopen the public hearing. All in favor. Voices : Aye. Stoner: Would you come up and present your case, please. Stern: I appreciate your reopening it since new evidence has been submitted this evening after the public hearing has been closed. Stuart Stern from 224th. May I remind you not to lose site of the fact that the gray areas on the map that has been presented as possible offshots from the traffic by-pass an elemen- tary school on 100th. So how adequate are those offshots for additional traffic? -33- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 To me they are very insignificant. Stoner: All right. Now we need a motion. Lambert: I make a motion that we close the public hearing. Stoner: Chuck has moved and Bob Badger has seconded. All in favor. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Opposed (silence) All right. We have to go back to all of those amendments. All right. Chuck's amendment states he would like. . . is moving to amend the motion to include all of D as community commercial . Anyone like to speak to or against. Lambert: I would. Getting back to what Ray said earlier, I think we should ; listen to the representative of the Chamber who spoke in favor of rezoning all of D, E and F to commercial . The man from the school spoke in favor of it. I think, if I remember right, we have had five dissidents on this that have spoken at the public hearings, and of those three were not speaking against the rezone but against the procedure in which it was being done. So I think, along with Ray, we have to listen to the citizenry and also the people that are in business who Mr. Votaw represents. And I think that they are telling us that this is what they want. And I cannot see that it will pose a problem to the school or to any of the residents either way, whether it is office or business. Either way it' s going to be parking. And I think it would be better to include that in commercial . Ward: I don' t think I could say it any better than that. Stoner: I have a concern and I am going to speak to it. And my major concern with this particular site is that school . I really think that we need to con- sider the statements of people who say that school adjacent to that commercial site is a problem. I think the specific site plan that we saw includes some good efforts at buffering those two uses from one another. But I am concerned about access from 100th onto that site. And since the final proposal we saw was a combination of office and commercial on that site with no access from 100th, that really is the specific kind of proposal that I am looking at for that area. And that is really the only. . .personally that is the only way I 'm going to vote for that kind of use is if there is adequate buffering for that school . Lambert: You mean, by demanding that they delete any driveways. I think that if it went office at a later date, we would see driveways in there for access. It would have to be. If that is 600 foot deep with one access, according to the formula they would be allowed one 40-foot drive, I believe, off of 240th. Stoner: But it is not 600. O.K. It's 600 feet from •. . Lambert: From the front to the rear. -34- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Stoner: From the front to the rear. Poston: When I was mentioning 600 feet, I was referring to the distance along 100th and not the distance along 240th. Lambert: And if they aren' t allowed any access off 100th. . .and across the face, I believe that formula was one 40-foot driveway. . .would be. . . Poston: It would be 35 for commercial or office. . . Lambert: They would be allowed one 35-foot driveway off of 240th on that lot. Badger: In the entire 600 feet. Lambert: In the entire 600 feet. And no way could that be possible if that is office. In no way would you get everybody in and out of there. And it would be better to have it all go commercial and let whoever does develop that have control of it, as long as it is under one owner. Poston: As Jim Hansen was pointing out that when we look at the site or a rezone or any project that develops on this site, we will look at conditions like that. . . driveways and access. And so far at this point I haven't addressed the latest Fred Meyer proposal of closing off the access to 100th. There are reasons for doing that. But also there are impacts associated with it, and the impact that I want to tell you about now is that all the traffic that may be distributed at two entrances will be concentrated at one. So rather than having some impact at the two entrances which can occur at the same time, I 'm talking about the signals , you could have green coming out of Fred Meyer at the same time with twice as much traffic leaving. . .you have all the traffic at one location at 102nd. So, you know. . .that's compounding the problem. That's a tradeoff I ' ll have to admit. The traffic impact on one hand, we have the traffic on 100th as another. i But I didn' t point that out before, and I wanted to make sure that I at least commented on it. Stoner: Give me the formula again, Jim. If that area is office, what kind of access can we have. Poston: For 600-foot frontage, and this would be either office or commercial , would be three driveways. And without quoting specifically, it would be approxi- mately three driveways. And commercial establishment or office establishment is considered to be the same as for number of driveways and width of driveways. There are a lot of differences in traffic generation and other things , but as far as driveways are concerned, the number of driveways is based on the front footage and not necessarily the type of use. Hansen: Also, just for what it' s worth, upon the rezone of this property ab- solutely anything allowed in CC can be built there. Anything in CC, whether it be a Fred Meyer or anyone else, and should they lose interest or wish to go elsewhere, virtually anything again could be built there, and as Jim men- tioned, during its site plan review conditions would be attached that are tailored or customized to that particular use for that site. That's why I caution you about getting too specific on this , because you'd be presuming that -35- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 only that use would be there. And, frankly, you know, again. . .it's open season for any use as long as it fits within the constraints of the CC if that is what you zoned it. Anderson: I have a couple of comments. One would be. . .as I understand the difference between office and commercial retail , if that were office along the western portion of D, generally speaking the majority of the traffic that would be going to the office buildings would be the employees. Other traffic, would not be, for instance, typical shoppers which would be going to a large retail store at pretty much any time during day. So that. . . if that westerly portion of D were office, then it would follow my way of thinking that most of the traffic generated in and out of D, for instance, if 100th were used, would be probably at office hour times, it should be 4:30, 5:00 in the after- noon after most of the school children have gone and also early in the morning about 8:30 about the time the busses were getting there, but. . .at least you wouldn' t have this constant traffic all day and in addition to that, I don't 1 necessarily feel comfortable with anything even next to an elementary school of retail establishments which may divert the children from school and give them some other opportunity to want to skip. At least I wouldn 't want that for my kids. So, based on that I think I would prefer the office designation on that westerly approximately 225 feet. Lambert: Does anybody know what street the school uses for access for their busses? 100th Three driveways would really mess it up. Satterstrom: Generally I have chosen not to speak whenever there has been a motion made. I am going to make an exception with this one, though. I said earlier tonight that I look at comprehensive plans in a general sort of a way, but I think that it stops at a point where the land use action that you are about to recommend is inconsistent with that Comprehensive Plan. And having already recommended. . . not that you can' t change it. . .but having already having recommended an office designation for the westerly 225 feet or so of site D, I think it would be inconsistent to zone it community commercial . I agree with Jim that if site D were to be zoned, all of it, to CC, and the Fred Meyer proposal were not to go through, you might see site D develop independently of E and F and were it zoned CC, we could have drive in restaurants and bowling alleys right across the street from the elementary school . By the way I looked up drive in restaurants and they are not allowed in the NC, but they are allowed in CC zoning, and therefore I think that those types of uses might be f incompatible if site D were zoned CC. Furthermore, the office designation, or the office zoning on site D restricts how close, if the Fred Meyer proposal becomes reality, restricts that building from coming within 225 feet of that j property line. So there would be substantial distance from the right of way i and the school actually to the Fred Meyer building proper, and, of course, ; would limit the development of that vacant pad that they had on their original development proposal to an office use, not commercial . Lambert: Is this the only thing inconsistent we've done tonight? Satterstrom: As far as I know. Lambert: O.K. But the school speaks in favor of that being zoned commercial . _36- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 r Satterstrom: Yes, because I think that they are relying on the Fred Meyer proposal per se for some of the reasons that they have given at the public hearings, I think we've got to assume that anything could happen here. Lambert: Anything could happen in the office, couldn't it? Satterstrom: Yes, what I am saying is that. . . Lambert: The traffic impact . .down in South Kent, maybe north Renton, is an office building leased by Boeing. You should see that parking lot. There is more parking lot than building down there, and that thing is full . And I don' t think there are too fewer cars in that parking lot than would be generated by Fred Meyer in that little corner. Poston: I ' d say that you have to compare that. . . you are comparing there the office with the industrial area, whereas up there you would be comparing office to the commercial area. If you had a site the size of the Boeing complex with a commercial building on it, you'd see a heck of a lot of cars there than. . . Lambert: Office building to cars. . . Poston: But I mean with a commercial site on the office area. . .or commercial building on the office site you 'd have a lot more cars there. I think the nature. . . the number of driveways is going to be probably the same, but the nature of the traffic would be different. Satterstrom: I 'm saying that we have to assume that anything could happen. If the Fred Meyer proposal goes in, the office isn't going to cause them any problems as far as locating their accessory parking on that land. So to zone it office could theoretically accommodate that proposal at the same time restrict- ing the use of that vacant parcel that they have in that original site plan to an office use rather than another CC use and providing a transition to the school . If it is zoned CC and Fred Meyer does not go through, and we are kind of assuming that that's a possibility, then we would be restricting. . . If you adopted office zoning for site D, you would be restricting that to office zoning. And I think that generally speaking.. .I think Jim will agree with this , and that is trip generation for offices is guing to be somewhat lower than for general commercial use. Lambert: With no disrespect for Fred Meyer, but any decision that I make is not going to be based on what Fred Meyer wants, it is what the citizens of the community are saying. Whether Fred Meyer goes in or not, I still think we have to listen to the citizens and the business people. Stoner: Leigh Ann. Tift: I want to make one brief comment before we get too lost in the parade of horribles. . .anything can happen. . .You have to remember that any commercial building is greater than 12,000 square feet is going to be subject to SEPA. You can always condition a project under SEPA. If there is a short plat, -37- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 you can condition the project to a short plat ordinance. You can condition based on transportation plan. This is not the last hope for any sort of development. And I think that is important to remember. Stoner: Crushed. We're not the last hope. Well , that's a responsibility off my shoulders. To go back to those motions , the amendment states that all of D is to be zoned CC. Are you ready to vote. All in favor of CC zoning on parcel D say aye. Voices: Aye. Stoner: All opposed. Voices: Nay. . .Aye. . . Stoner: All in favor would you raise your hands, please. Opposed. (Two in favor and four opposed. ) We now go to the original motion and the amendment thereto. Are you accepting Nancy's amendment as a friendly amendment? Hansen: Could we hear the motion and also a direct reference to the type of commercial zoning that is in the motion as well as any reference to so many feet from the property line. It is very important that we get it. Stoner: As I recall , the original motion states that parcel C, the easterly 75 feet of Parcel D, E, F, and G are to be zoned community commercial . Nancy's amendment, which. . .because it has been accepted as a friendly amendment, we are incorporating into the main motion and we will vote on both of them together, states that we are directing the City Council to develop a transportation plan that will mitigate the impacts of this zone on the transportation network. Badger: What happened to the rest of D? Stoner: Nothing has happened to it yet. Badger: O.K. Stoner: Are you ready to vote on this motion, or would you like to speak to it? Chuck. { Lambert: No, I 'm ready. Stoner: Are you. All in favor. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Opposed. (silence) All right. So we now have community commercial } on C, the eastern 75 feet of D, E, F, G. Now we need to deal with the westerly portion of D and H. Rudy: What exactly is the zoning on D right now. I have two different notes here. I have one that says it is RI and another that says it is office, and MF together. -38- i Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Satterstrom: The existing zoning on all of site D is R1 7200. Rudy: Ah, so we do need to deal with it. Ward: So we need a motion for. . . Rom: I move that the remainder. . . I 'll rephrase that. I move that the western portion of site D, excluding the eastern 75 feet, be zoned office. Badger: Second it. Stoner: Nancy has moved and Bob Badger has seconded that the western portion of site D, excluding the eastern 75 feet, be zoned office. Is there any dis- cussion? Lambert: That will mean it is eligible for parking. Stoner: Yes, I believe that is right. Ward: Call for the question. Stoner: All in favor. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Opposed. (silence) We now need a motion concerning parcel H. Ward: Could I make an announcement? I think it is snowing outside. Stoner: It must be time to go home. It is. Lambert: I move that we recommend that parcel H be zoned multiple. . . Stoner: Medium density MRM. O.K. Is there a second to that? Ward: Second it. Stoner: Chuck has moved and Ray has seconded that we zone parcel H medium density multiple. Ward: What is H now? Hansen: H is MRM, and it was just rezoned recently as a result of an annexa- tion off of Rowley Number 4. Stoner: Do we need to act on it? Hansen: No, in fact the resolution should go through Council any day, and it will be finalized. Lambert: I 'd like to retract my motion. / ^J 7^ Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 Stoner: O X Now we have two other issues, unfortunately, that we need to deal with very quickly, one of which is. . .do we want to recommend any additional traffic to the Council , the other one was the 75 percent policy. Lambert: I make a motion that we recommend to the City Council that they delete the words "75 percent" from the. . . Stoner: Chuck has made and Nancy has seconded a motion recommending deletion of the words "75 percent" in that policy that triggered this process. Hansen: We can reference that if you want to. Stoner: This finally ends this discussion. Lambert: Does this mean that we can have these more often now, doesn't it? Stoner: Yes, all the time. Hansen: Just for reference, that is Policy 8 under Public Facilities. Do you want that . . . by the motion would that be then to simply delete that from the existing East Hill Comprehensive Plan. Stoner: Would you read the whole policy. Hansen: Policy 8 reads "the area commercially zoned should be expanded at such time when at least 75 percent of the existing commercial land is developed." i Policy 8, Public Facilities on page 53. (, Stoner: Do you want to delete the policy? All right. The motion now reads to delete that policy. Any discussion. All in favor. Voices: Aye. Stoner: Opposed. (silence) Do you have any other specific recommendations in terms of the transportation plan, i .e. Map 7. The statement was made that we should make specific recommendations to the Council in terms of potential rights of way in that area that would improve the circulation in that specific area. If you don't want to recommend, that's fine. Badger: In terms of the fact that we have already agreed to review the upper area on East Hill , the business areas, the commercial zonings again, I think we can pick that up at that time. Stoner: If the Council so directs us to do. Lambert: Can we also incorporate into that and make it unlawful for airplanes to alight in commissioners back yards. Stoner: I think that would be an excellent. . . -40- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 30, 1984 I Stoner: If you are not willing to make a specific proposal , then our business for this evening is finished. (End of Verbatim Minutes) Adjournment Commissioner Rudy MOVED and Commissioner Anderson SECONDED the MOTION to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 10:3D p.m. Respectfully submitted, 0 James P. Harris, Secretary 1 I -41-