HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 10/09/1984 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
October 9, 1984
The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman
Carol Stoner at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 9, 1984, in the Council Chambers.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
Carol Stoner, Chairman
Nancy Rudy, Vice Chairman
Robert Anderson
Chuck Lambert
Raymond 'Ward
Robert Badger, excused
James Byrne, excused
Douglas Cullen, excused
Richard Foslin, excused
PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
James P. Harris, Planning Director
James Hansen, Principal Planner
Fred Satterstrom, Project Planner
Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Rudy MOVED that the
FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 1984 minutes of September 25, 1984,
meeting be approved as presented.
Commissioner Ward SECONDED the MOTION. MOTION unanimously approved.
I
NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Chairman Stoner commented that
October 16 had been scheduled �
as a possible date to continue this hearing.
Verbatim Minutes
Commissioner Stoner: Tonight's agenda item is a public hearing to consider the
proposed expansion of commercial zoning and comprehensive plan map changes in
the East Hill area of Kent. We have some procedural matters that I need to tell
you about before we move on to the presentations. First of all , Commissioners
Byrne and Cullen were asked not to attend the meeting this evening. Both of
them had testified at various times during the Fred Meyer Rezone, and I raised
the appearance of fairness question with the City Attorney. He wasn' t able to
attend tonight but has submitted a memo stating his position that I need to
read into the record at this time. It is addressed to Carol Stoner, Chair,
Planning Commission, City of Kent, regarding Appearance of Fairness Doctrine.
-1-
(Kent Planning Commission Minutes)
(October 9, 1984)
CITY OF ���
October 9, 1984
Carol Stoner, Chairperson
Planning Commission
The City of Kent
RE: Appearance of Fairness Doctrine
Dear Ms. Stoner:
The Planning Commission has been directed to review the City's
Comprehensive Plan
"to determine whether commercial zoning should be expanded
in the general vicinity of the intersection of 104th Avenue
S.E. and S.E. 240th Street [further described as that area
of the City of Kent and Kent Sphere of Interest, North of
S.E. 248th Street and South of S.E. 232nd Street, West of
112th Avenue S.E. and East of 98th Avenue S.E.)."
Resolution 1028. This Resolution followed the City Council 's rejection of a
rezone application within the described study area (Rz-83-3, APPLICATION OF
FRED MEYER, LTD. ). Resolution 1027. You have advised that during the hearing
process on the rezone application, two members of the Planning Commission
spoke in opposition to the rezone. You ask whether the Commission members'
position on the rezone will cause their later participation in the
Commission's review of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning recommendations to
constitute a violation of the appearance of fairness doctrine.
The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine was first applied in the 1969 Supreme
Court decision of Smith v. Skagit County, 75 Wn.2nd 715, 453 P.2d 832 (1969).
In Smith, the County Planning Commission invited only advocates of a proposed
rezone to a closed session, deliberately excluding opponents of the zoning
change. The Supreme Court invalidated the rezone on the basis of the
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, which the court summarized as follows:
"In short, when the law which calls for public hearings
gives the public not only the right to attend but the right
to be heard as well , the hearings must not only be fair but
must appear to be so. It is a situation where appearances
are quite as important as substance. "
---4V
iA
(Kent Planning Commission Minutes)
October 9, 1984
Page 2
Smith, at 733 (emphasis by the Court). Subsequent to the Smith decision, the
appearance of fairness doctrine has been considered in over twenty reported
decisions by the appellate courts of this state.
In 1982 the legislature responded to criticism arising from potential
application of the appearance of fairness doctrine by enacting Chapter 229,
Laws of 1982. The statutory enactment limiting the application of the
appearance of fairness doctrine is codified at Chapter 42.36 RCW. Of
particular application to your inquiry is RCW 42.36.010, which states as
follows:
Application of the appearance of fairness doctrine to local
land use decisions shall be limited to the quasi-judicial
actions of local decision-making bodies as defined in this
section. Quasi-judicial actions of local decision-making
bodies are those actions of the legislative body, planning
commission, hearing examiner, zoning adjuster, board of
adjustment, or boards which determine the legal rights,
duties, or privileges of specific parties in a hearing or
other contested case proceeding. Quasi-judicial actions do
not include the legislative actions adopting, amending or
revising comprehensive, community or nei hborhood Tans or
other land use planning documents or the adoption o
area-wide zoning ordinances or the adoption of a zoning
amendment that is of area-wide significance. [Our emph-asisl.
RCW 42.36.010 limits the application of the doctrine to quasi-judicial
actions. The statute excludes from the definition of quasi-judicial actions
the revision of comprehensive plans and zoning amendments of area-wide
significance.
There are no reported decisions interpreting the term "area-wide" as used
in RCW 42.36.070. The term is to be contrasted with a site-specific zoning
consideration, such as the Fred Meyer, Ltd. application. In our opinion, the
City Council 's direction to consider an approximate 16 square block area of
the Kent East Hill constitutes the Planning Commission's proceedings as that
of "area-wide significance. " In such a case the legislative provisions
provide that the appearance of fairness doctrine does not apply, and the
Commission members would not be disqualified by application of the doctrine.
See also, Westside Hilltop Survival Committee v. King County, 96 Wn.2d 171 ,
634 P.2d 8 .
In the above-paragraph we base our opinion upon the legislative
limitations upon the appearance of fairness doctrine. We believe the
legislative limitations would be applied by a court. However, no appellate
court has yet reviewed the application of the legislative limitation upon a
judicially-created doctrine. Because of this remaining factor, we think it
appropriate to consider the issue under the judicial doctrine.
-3-
(Kent Planning Commission Minutes)
October 9, 1984
Page 3
In 1983 the Supreme Court appeared to be moving away from the application
of the doctrine. In Harris v. Hornbaker, 98 Wn.2nd 650, 658 P.2d 1219 (1983) ,
the court determined that a county s location of a highway interchange in the
development of a 6-year transportation plan was a legislative decision and the
appearance of fairness doctrine did not apply.
In Zehring v. Bellevue, 99 Wn.2nd 488, 663 P.2nd 823 (1983) , the court has
stepped FaRT—and reemphasized the appearance of fairness doctrine. In the
Zehring case, certain property owners sought to invalidate a rezone of land
and a building permit for the construction of an office building on the
rezoned land. Prior to a hearing at which the Planning Commission had denied
reconsideration of its approval of the building design, a member of the
Commission had committed to purchase stock in the corporate owner of the
building. The Supreme Court held that the Commissioner had a potential
financial interest in the outcome of the hearing and that his participation
violated the appearance of fairness doctrine.
In Zehring, the court concluded the building design review hearings before
the Bel eT vue Tlanning Commission were the type of quasi-judicial proceedings
to which the appearance of fairness doctrine was intended to apply. In
I applying the facts of the Commissioner's particular involvement to the
appearance doctrine, the court found that a disinterested person would be
reasonably justified in believing that the Commissioner's interest impugned
his impartiality. The court cited a previous decision in support of its
conclusion that:
The importance of the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine has
i resulted in the recognition that it is necessary only to
show an interest which might have influenced a member of the
Commission and not that it actually so affected him.
In its holding, the court summarized what is the current state of the
judicial theory governing the doctrine.
. A rule may be formulated that whenever an
administrative body, acting in a legislative or
quasi-judicial capacity, conducts a public hearing, required
by law, to decide the rights of individual parties to engage
in or refrain from some activity, the Appearance of Fairness
Doctrine should apply. [Our emphasis].
Zehring v. Bellevue, 99 Wn.2nd at 495-496. The problem with this holding
is the inconsistency with the Harris v. Hornbaker decision, previously cited.
In Harris the court found the county s action to be legislative, and not
subject to the doctrine. However, the legislative action of establishing a
6-year transportation plan does by law require one or more public hearings.
RCW 36.81 .121 . Under the holding in Zehring, then, such a legislative action
I would be subject to the doctrine. With the four dissenting justices in
Zehring, we cannot reconcile this inconsistency. Further, we do not choose to
-4-
(Kent Planning Commission Minutes )
October 9, 1984 '
Page 4
forecast whether the dissenting opinion in Zehrin , advocating elimination of
the doctrine, will be effected by the November election.
We believe that were a court to review the issue, the decision in Harris
v. Hornbaker would more likely be applied. The Kent Planning Commission s
review of area-wide land use is analogous to the county planning action,
reviewed and found valid by the Supreme Court in Harris. The Planning
Commission will not be deciding the rights of individ auau 1 parties. Pursuant to
RCW 42.36.010, the Commission will not be engaging in a quasi-judicial
hearing. While there is some uncertainty, we are of the opinion that the
commissioners are not precluded by the appearance of fairness doctrine from
considering the area-wide planning and zoning for the Kent East Hill .
We recommend that this issue be reviewed at a public hearing of the
Commission, in order for the Commission to consider any challenges to the
commissioners based upon the application of the appearance of fairness
doctrine. RCW 42.36.080.
We trust the foregoing will be of assistance to you. This office remains
available should you have additional questions or concerns.
l
Very truly yours,
P. IStepeMiJulio
City Attorney
cc: Richard C. Cushing,
City Administrator
James Harris,
Planning Director
-5-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
Stoner: At this point I need to ask if there is anyone who does object to the
participation of Commissioners Byrne and Cullen in the decision on this issue
before the Planning Commission.
Voice: What is the question?
Stoner: Is there anyone present who objects to the participation of Commissioners
Byrne and Cullen in the decision?
Voice: Why would we object?
Voice: What was their position? You read all that thing. . .
Stoner: They both testified against the Fred Meyer Rezone at various stages of
that rezone hearing, and that is why they have been asked not to attend them.
The issue is still not decided, and what I am asking you basically is a formality.
Is there anyone who at this point objects? Now we will move on to the hearing
itself. Our procedures for those of you who have not, yes sir.
Voice: Because there is no objection, does that mean that they may be here?
Stoner: That is not determined. They will not be here this evening. If it is
decided that they may participate, they will be asked to review the tapes of
tonight's meeting before the 16th. Are there any other questions? Yes Sir.
Voice: Who asked them not to attend?
Stoner: The City Attorney.
Voice: Would it really do us any good as property owers to object to their . . .
unclear) .
Stoner: My understanding of the objection is that it is a formality, and it is
more than a formality. You were making a legal statement about something. . . . .
(unclear) . . . . . I am not an attorney.
Betty Wall : All right. Then as a property owner I do object.
Harris: What is your name?
Wall : My name is Betty Wall . W a 1 1 .
Stoner: What is your address?
Harris: We legally can' t ask for an address.
Stoner: Our procedures for a public hearing of the Planning Commission are
these. We ask that each initial presentation be limited to ten minutes. If
there are several people who hold a common interest in a specific parcel , we
would ask you to appoint a spokesman or limit your total testimony to ten
minutes. And that is to give everyone a chance to be heard. There will be an
-6-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
additional three-minute rebuttal period for eveyone who wishes to refute something
that they have heard. I will call the names off the sign-up sheet as they are
given to me. If you have not signed up to testify, you may do that at the break.
We go from 7:30, usually, until 10 with a break at approximately 9:00.
Voice: Are they going to state what parcel they are interested in?
Stoner: We have the aerial map, and we have another map that we. . . (unclear) .
If you are addressing a specific site rather than ,lust ,lust general principles,
would you point out that site on the map so that we are all sure that we know
what we are talking about . . .what you are talking about. . . (unclear) . I guess
we will begin with the staff presentation.
Hansen: Find out where the list is if it is still circulating. When you are
done, maybe somebody could just bring it up here. Thank you.
Fred Satterstrom: Anyone would think the City Attorney is paid hourly by the
length of that memo. For the record my name is Fred Satterstrom. I am Associate
Planner with the Kent Planning Department and am project planner on the East Hill
Zoning Study. I am going to give, hopefully, a little more interesting presentation
than the memo that was just written. At least I have some graphic aids here, and
I am going to go over the staff report and am going to go through a slide presenta-
tion, just walking through some of the candidate commercial sites that the staff
looked at, and, following my presentation,, plan to have Jim Poston from the City's
traffic division talk to you briefly about the inter-relationship between some
of the land use proposals that staff is recommending in the staff report and
the traffic concerns that the Engineering Department has. For the basics, the
source of this study comes from Resolution 1027. We know that we have gone over
this in workshops and I am just going to take a couple of minutes to tell you
once again and for those in the audience who want to know where the study came
from and what the directive was and why we looked at this area . But Resolution
#1027 was passed by the City Council in early September of this year and had a
directive to the Planning Department. It was the result that the denial of the
Fred Meyer Rezone, at least it emanated out of that. The City Council in their
denial of the Fred Meyer Rezone upheld the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner
and proposed to re-examine the area that Fred Meyer was located in in terms of
future commercial development. Resolution #1027, Section 1 .2, gives the specific
directive. It says that the East Hill section of the Comprehensive Plan should
be reviewed and studied to determine whether commercial zoning should be expanded
at the reference site and in the general vicinity of the intersection of 104th
Avenue S.E. and 240th Street. They go on to define more specifically that study
area. You will see it on the East Hill Land Use Plan Map over here, and of course
it forms the outline of all the larger study area maps along the wall . Basically
the study area is about a square mile in terms of numbers of acres. The general
vicinity, reading from Section 1 .3 here, the general vicinity of the intersection
of 104th S. E. and S. E. 240th Street is further described as that area in the
City of Kent north of S. E. 248th Street and South of S. E. 232nd, West of 112th
Avenue S. E. and east of 98th Avenue S. E. Now that takes in, as I think we
reported in the staff report, about two thirds of that area is in King County.
It is unincorporated, and about one third of that area is presently within Kent's
City Limits . They directed you, the Planning Commission, to review and study
-7-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
the Comprehensive Plan to determine whether commercial zoning should be expanded
in the general vicinity as we described and conduct such public hearings as are
necessary and proper to assist in its deliberations . The Planning Department
shall assist the Planning Commission. Following the completion of the study,
recommendation of the Planning Commission for Comprehensive Plan amendment and
implementing zoning measures shall be forwarded to the City Council . I want to
reeemphasize at this point that we are looking at both plan amendments and
zoning amendments. The language here says comprehensive plan amendments and
implementing zoning measures. Don't forget we are looking at both of those at
the same time. We make several recommendations at the end of the staff report
in terms of zoning, but we concede those in terms of comprehensive plan amend-
ments being they are in the City of Kent, and for those areas outside the City,
we recommend some Comprehensive Plan amendments. Of crucial interest to us as
staff in the Resolution #1027 that the City Council handed down, in the very
first section they reiterate a policy that is currently in the East Hill Plan.
That policy reads : '
The area commercially zoned should be expanded at such time when
at least 75 percent of the existing commercial land is developed, `
That really formed the crux of their reasoning when the City Council adopted
Resolution #1027 and denying the Fred Meyer Rezone was that in the words of
the Hearing Examiner, "Let's not look at this on a piece meal , site by site
rezone by rezone basis. Let's look at it through a planning process and look
li at it at an area-wide area." So they describe that area. The first thing we
did as staff was to look at that area and attempt to determine whether or not
75 percent of the existing commercially-zoned land was indeed developed. Our 1
staff report on page 7 talks about commercial capacity. We basically found
that 80 percent of the study area as defined by the City Council was developed
either commercial , public or multifamily residential development. The multi-
family and public sorts of uses, such as the Post Office, represent uses that
are not going to be redeveloped. They are not vacant properties and must be
considered developed properties. Adding those to the totals you see that
approximately 80 percent of the area that presently is zoned community commercial
in the East Hill area is developed leaving approximately 20 percent, 9.9 acres
undeveloped and available for commercial expansion. You will see on the map
right behind you, Chuck, map 5, that the 9.9 acres that remain to be developed
are spread out, scattered, and none of those sites are over 2.1 acres. The
opportunity for larger scale commercial development therefore is quite limited.
Therefore, one of the first things we did then was to, after ascertaining that
the threshold of 75 percent had been exceeded, we began a process of trying
to identify available commercial sites. We found 12, and for those who are
really counting, you can add two, because we looked at two additional sub
pieces of J1 and K1 which are part of the parent parcels that border 104th
Avenue. I wanted to run through those, kind of walking through those 12 or
14 sites so that we can become a little bit more acquainted with some of the
information about those sites that have been presented in the staff report.
Perhaps we can see these with the lights on, or does someone disagree with me.
We can shut down the lights and get a better image. Is there reflection off
that screen for anyone back here. I have two slides in here. One 1964 and
the other one, I believe, is 1980 or 81 showing a portion of the East Hill
Zoning Study Area. This is 240th Street along the bottom, 116th Street here,
and 104th Avenue. You have to hunt for the older ones, so I couldn't get one
-8-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
of the exact study area. As you can see,it is a newly developing suburban resi-
dential area. At this point in time it lacks many of the commercial opportunities
that you see there now. The next shot, 1980 I believe it is , shows in greater
detail the intersection 240th Street and 104th Avenue. Now you see most of the
commercial development that presently exists there. . .starting to fill in there.
If I had a zoning map, you would be able to see the available CC zoned areas
and be able to point some of the sites that we are going to look at. Site A.
Site A consists of three residential lots located at the intersection of 100th
Avenue and S. E. 240th Street, even consolidated the three parcels represent
a smaller parcel , less than an acre, about .82 acres under three ownerships.
It is currently office zoned. The second site, Site B, is also zoned for
offices. It is located along S. E. 240th Street. It is about a 1 .19, over an
acre in size, and presently borders. . . I guess that is the next shot. This
just shows the present condition that it is in. Basically it is a level site,
bordered on one side, in fact, the Children 's World Day Care Center is located
between sites A and B. This is on the west side, Side B, and the east side of
Site A. Site C is also office zoned. It is at the corner of 108th Avenue and
S. E. 240th Street. It is about 1 .8 acres in size, I believe, and is under a
single ownership. It is currently zoned office. It is across from high-density
residential and bordered on the west side by the existing Firestone store. This
just shows another anqle at the intersection at S. E. 240th and 108th Avenue
back towards the Firestone store. And this is standing on the site looking out
towards . . . looking east towards King's Place, multifamily residential . ' The site
i5 basically flat. Site D, we are humping down now to the south side of 240th,
and this is 100th Avenue on the right side where the rear end of that automobile
is, is the East Hill Elementary School , and on the left-hand side is Site D.
Site D represents basically the western one third of the proposed Fred Meyer site.
It is sloped, grades up 100th Avenue and then becomes somewhat flat at the top.
I believe that it involves two or three ownerships right now, and a couple of
single-family residences on it are located right on 240th. This is standing
in the middle of Site D looking west. See the smoke stack coming out of the
East Hill elementary School and the power lines along 100th Avenue. Basically
it looks right out over the elementary school . This is the intersection of
100th Avenue and S. E. 240th looking in a southeasterly direction, again at
Site D. Grade is up very gradually, and those are the single family homes
that abut 240th. Yes.
Stoner: What's the acreage of Site D?
Satterstrom: I believe it is 4.25, four and one-quarter acres. The current
zoning at the side is Rl , 7200 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan shows office
in the front along 240th and multifamily residential to the rear of the site.
Along that line there, a guestimate here is the division between Site D and E.
We are starting to come up towards the top of the knoll along 240th. Site E
is up on the flat. Basically it is very gently rolling, fairly level site. It's
zoning is similar or the same as Site D, Rl , 7200 single family residential .
And the comprehensive designations are also the same. Office in the front and
multifamily residential to the rear. Again, looking at Site E, presently in this
condition is overgrown, no existing use on the property outside of a couple of
single family homes then that have. . .(unclear) S. E. 240th flat on the top.
These are the homes that abut S. E. 240th. This is basically the rear of the
-9-
i
l
t
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
lot which abuts county, unincorporated King County, large lot residential to the
south of this site, overgrown with thick (unclear) trees . Site F is a funny
one because the front part of F, as you can see on the map over here with the
sites that have been colored in red, Site F is the rear portion of a lot about
4. . . .overall it is about 4.4 acres in size. F is the rear portion of that
lot currently zoned Rl , but the front of the lot, of which F is only one half
of, abuts 240th Avenue and it is zoned Community Retail . D, E, and F form the
three sites which were the subject of the Fred Meyer Rezone. This is not
actually part of Site F, but it is a part of the lot which F represents. It
abuts S. E. 240th. It is lined by a row of trees there along James Street.
Lambert: Can I ask you a question on that.
Satterstrom: Yes.
Lambert: When that was originally zoned, why was only the front half zoned
commercial retail and the back half something else. What was the thinking
there? Why didn' t they zone the whole lot?
Harris: That was done a number of years ago and I am not exactly sure what
happened there, but there was request for more of that area to be zoned
commercial at that time. I am not sure what recommendation the Planning
Commission made to the City Council . I know the City Council split the
zoning when it got before them.
Satterstrom: This is another boundary looking toward the southeast boundary
of Site F with the multifamily residential bordering this site. This is the
south side again, suburban residential use in unincorporated King County. The
canopy of trees on the south side of that parcel . By the way F is presently
zoned Rl , but the Comprehensive Plan calls for Community Retail . Hopping over
to the east side of 104th, Benson Road, this Site G is to the left. This is
the old Orchard Shopping Center here. It is running along here. This is
Site G, recently annexed to the City of Kent and presently undergoing interim
zoning. The recommendation, as I understand from the Hearing Examiner, is for
a multifamily designation, is an undeveloped piece of property with basically
flat terrain. It is called interim residential zoning between the time it is
annexed and the time at which it will receive its final zoning. It consists
of two parcels, each about 4.4 acres in size, therefore about an 8.8 acre total ,
under, I believe, two ownerships as well . Again, another shot in better weather
from the site. The trees in the background represent basically the southern
extent of this lot. The frontage road to Site G is S.E. 240th Street, and
basically the wide portion of 240th, the fille-lane configuration of the high-
way extends nearly to the end of Site G along its front. H, I really only
have one shot of, a very difficult site to see in terms of trying to get a
representative picture of it. Standing where James Street narrows down to
two lanes, heading east at approximately 108th Avenue, Site H is on the right-
hand side of S. E. 240th. It consists of 18 and one-half acres. Again that
was recently annexed to the City of Kent. They, too, are being recommended.
It is four parcels of property. All 181-2 acres are being proposed for multi-
family residential development. The development currently exists across the
street on the north side, or on the left side of 240th here is currently
-10-
t
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
I
developed in apartment buildings. That's it for the City of Kent properties,
and there are four sites. Don' t look for I . Didn' t include I so that it
wouldn't get confused for number 1 . But J through M are in King County and we
are addressing these sites from the standpoint of the Comprehensive Plan amend-
ment basis . Obviously we can 't zone them. They are not within the City of
Kent. I 've drawn the line here between the county and city and J is on the
left-hand side. I am standing near the Smorgasbord Restaurant in the old Orchard
Shopping Center on the east side of S. E. 240th Street looking across 104th
Avenue towards Site J which starts at the City limits along the dashed line.
Site J runs along 104th Avenue. From this point, from the Kent City limits
down to 244th Street, Site J is approximately 300 feet deep. J-1 , which is to
the rear or to the west of J, consists of another approximately 300 feet in
depth, and we decided to consider both of these parcels together. I 'm sorry
about the confusion of J and J-1 , but J is currently on the East Hill Comprehen-
sive Plan as Limited Commercial/Office. J-1 is a Multifamily designation. This
is actually up on top of a knoll . We are, in the staff report, pointing out
that there is a grade separation between J and J-1 . There is a rise in the
slope as you come up to 244th Avenue. It is as high as 15 feet difference in
elevation. J-1 forms kind of a plateau above the area that runs along the
Benson Road. O.K. I just basically walk across the street from the Smogas-
bord Restaurant and shot along the boundary line between the city and the
county where Site K begins. Site K is on the east side of the Benson Highway ,
and it, too, is about the size of J, and stretches between the City limits
and South 244th Street. K-1 is an additional 300 feet which we considered to
the east as Site K that runs along the main arterial street. K which is
very gently rolling along. . .has a very gentle rise from 104th Avenue, and
K-1 is a pretty flat plateau, is just a few feet above the Benson Highway
Roadway. In the unincorporated King County presently zoned Suburban Resi-
dential and on the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan, K is on the plan for
Limited Commercial/Office, and K-1 , like J-1 , is Comprehensive Plan for Multi-
family Residential . Again K, Just looking where it begins where in the City
104th narrows from five lane configuration to a two-lane roadway entering
King County, that car is near the boundary between the city and the county.
L and M, still reminds me of a pack of cigarettes, but I am looking south from
244th Street.. . the right and the left-hand sides of the road. M is on the
left and L is on the right-hand side approximately about 8 and one-third on
both sides stretching about 300 feet deep off Benson Highway. Presently in
the County, both J and K presently zoned SR and both on the City's Comprehensive
Plan for Limited Commercial/Office. I ' ve got one more picture looking from
the south end, this is 248th. This is where L and M, 248th. It is also the
southern boundary of the East Hill Study Area. Yes, we may not have this kind
of weather until next year.
We analyzed the sites. We called them candidate commercial sites because we
believe that they were all eligible, had some potential for commercial . . .for
commercial development. Admittedly, that potential, as we analyzed it, was
low on some sites and higher on other sites. Our rationale for each one of
those sites A through H in the City and J through M for the county, lies on
pages 15 and 16 of the staff report. I am not going to go over those. I
am ,lust going to remind you that that is essentially our rationale. I am
not trying to make this real complicated, and I am trying to be up front about
Y
-ll-
i
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
the methodology that we went through that led us to the recommendations that we
made, and that is what I want to get to, is the staff report startinq on page 17.
Based on our analysis of the seven criteria that we outlined earlier in the
report, we concluded by recommending four sites, that is not individual properties,
but four sites, some of those sites that I mentioned consist of multiple owner-
ships, four sites for commercial , CC, Community Commercial zoninq. They total
about 16.8 acres . Those sites are Site C, located at the corner of 108th and
240th, 1 .82 acres, and Site E, located along S. E . 240th, under multiple owner-
ship, consisting of 4.07 acres, Site F, 2. 17 acres and G located at S. E. 240th
and 108th Avenue extended consisting of 8.8 acres Together these four sites,
C, E, F and G, comprise 16.8 acres. (Tape Changed)
We've got about another 20 percent to go until you would look into (unclear)
commercial again. Sues J, K, and K-1 , consisting of about 13.09 acres all
located in the county, J , K, and K-1 , we are recommending that the Comprehen-
sive Plan designation be changed to Limited Commercial Office, and J and K. and
for Multifamily in K-1 to a Community Retail designation on the Comprehensive
Plan. There is a quirk in all this , and that is on Sites L and M. We call
that about 16.8 acres of land in the City of Kent is being recommended for
Community Retail activity. Sites L and M are all roughly that size, about
17. 1 acres. They are currently.planned in the East Hill Plan for a Limited
Commercial/Office designation. We felt, based on our rationale, that we
might replace the multifamily opportunity that would be replaced by the 16 or
17 acres being rezoned to Community Commercial by changing the designation of
L and M in the county to a high density multifamily. Therefore in the last
page of the text of the staff report we recommend that Sites L and M. about
17.1 acres , be changed to Multifamily Residential (12-24 units per acre) .
Lambert: Can -d ask a question as I normally do?
Satterstrom: Yes.
1
Lambert: Why is it that J and K is retail , and then with the multiple to the
east and west of those J-1 and K-1? Why is it better to have multiple in
L and M which is bisected by an arterial which is going to be widened and will
put more traffic on it? Why wouldn' t that be better retail or office or
whatever it is? Why do you want multiple on an arterial?
Satterstrom: 0. K. That is a many-faceted question. We wrestled over that
ore extensively before making this recommendation. I knew that we would be
asked that question. To hit on some of the primary reasons why we did it.
As I explained, we are changing 16.8 acres from some other designation to
Community Commercial . When we analyzed the East Hill Zoning study area, one
of the things that we realized right away was that not only is there a lack
of commercially-zoned land in the East Hill study area, there is also a lack
of multifamily-zoned land or land available for multifamily development.
Therefore one of the reasons for flipflopping this was to change L and M to
a multifamily designation to make up for the commercial property which had
displaced that opportunity for residential growth.
Lambert: I understand that, but what will be the recommendation for zoning in
H? Is F multifamily?
-12-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
Satterstrom: Yes,
Lambert: Won' t that replace the 16 acres more than replacing. . .
Satterstrom: We feel that it might momentarily; 18.8 of multifamily development
is going to be used up if G were to be changed to CC. That would be available
basically for Community Commercial . Eighteen acres of Multifamily Residential
probably wouldn't last long at the current consumption rates.
Lambert: But also, to the west of L and to the east of M, why not that be
recommended, which would be south of K-1 and J-1 as multi , and leave L and M
commercial .
Satterstrom: 0. K. I ' ll deal with another reason why we propose L and M for
multifamily, and that multifamily development probably will have a lesser
impact on the arterial street in terms of traffic congestion and traffic genera-
tion. Generally speaking, trip generation from multifamily, even higher density
12 to 24, is going to be less than commercial and office types of development.
The lots along 104th Avenue are about 290 feet deep. At that present depth
you allow very little opportunity for, for lack of better term, integrated
planned shopping facilities . Therefore you are going to get a site-site commer-
cial development; hence a lot of conflicts and left-turns in and left-turns out.
The feeling was to reduce the trip generation and reduce the potential for
traffic hazard along 1200 feet, I think, Sites L and M extend along 104th
Avenue. Those are traffic considerations.
Lambert: Getting back to the question I asked a couple of weeks ago about D,
I still can' t get it through my head why it isn't better to take a zone to a
curb line or something, and I was told because the school was there and it
should be something different. But yet right across the street in A and B
in between the two is the school .
Satterstrom: I don't think it is a general rule of thumb, at least not the
planning schools that I know of that a zoning boundary has to run along a
curb. For example, in the Agricultural zone we ran it along toe of the
slope.
Lambert: That's why we have little sections like F. If we take them to a curb,
I mean, take them to a street or alley, you got a permanent boundary.
i
Satterstrom: Sites D, E and F, one of the reasons why we split up the site,
Fred Meyer site, as one unit, it wasn' t fair to analyze it as one site. Very
difficult to recommend one designation for a site that has been extended that
wide. And Site D, E and F just so happens that they line up very well with
property lines. The area was originally platted in about 4 and one half acre
parcels, which D, E, and F roughly conform to. Now we analyze it on that
basis so we could split up the different characteristics of that. . .
Lambert: My thinking is that no company should enter into it, but it doesn' t
matter if it is going to be Fred Meyers there or Charlie' s Bar. Still the
zoning, I would think, would be better to a permanent designation than an
imaginary line down through the middle of a block.
-13- I
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
Satterstrom: Yes, it happens all the time.
Lambert: Yes, I know, and it ends up with spot zoning and strip zoning.
Ward: Did you say that J-1 and K-1 was for multifamily?
Satterstrom: J-1 is, we are not recommending for commercial and we are not
recommending any change in the Comprehensive Plan, so therefore it would remain
multifamily. On K-1 , K-1 is currently planned for a multifamily designation.
We' re recommending that that be changed to Community Retail designation. So
J-1 would remain the same if the recommendation were adopted. But K-1 would
change to a retail designation from multifamily.
Ward: One other thing, do you have any figures as to what period of time it
took the present commercial zoning to reach the 75 percent development?
What spectrum of time are we talking about? Can you give a rough gestimation?
Satterstrom: Well I showed the two aerial photos, real crude examination, we
didn't spend any time going into historical . . .
Ward: About twenty years.
I
Satterstrom: Well , I think the Benson Center was developed around '63, about
the time the first aerial photo that I had. About 17 years later, nearly all
but 9.9 acres of the commercially-zoned land was developed. So, in about 17
years, then, nearly about 40 acres were developed.
i
Rudy: I'm curious about the property directly south of G and east of K-1 . That i
is zoned SR 7200, at least half undeveloped.
i
Satterstrom: Yes, the development down there is kind of hard to classify, because
there are large lots with single family dwellingsusually on each lot. When the
planners went out to do the land use survey, they guessed and by golly that was
unused and classified the whole thing as unused. Basically it is large lots, I
suburban residential , and there may be a cow or two grazing on it, but it is
what I would classify as underdeveloped. It has a very low intensive use on a
large site.
Rudy: Are there houses on it now?
Satterstrom: Generally there are houses on most every lot.
Rudy: Every 7200 feet.
Satterstrom: That is what could be subdivided, too. Generally speaking, there
are a lot of larger lots out there ranging in size from an acre to 4 and a
half to five acres, and they may have only one house on it.
Rudy: That street, can't read it. . .108th, is plotted but it is not built yet.
Right?
Satterstrom: South of 240th.
-14-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
Rudy: South of 240th. Right. But 244th is on the south side of this property.
Recommend commercial in G just north of it but leaving it residential .
Satterstrom: Again, it is in the county. We could zone it. They might recom-
mend some other zoning for it, but the Comprehensive Plan calls for that area
to be multifamily. . . I think that would be compatible with commercial develop-
ment were K and K-1 to develop the commercial character.
Rudy: According to the Comprehensive Plan that little piece is now multifamily.
Satterstrom: Yes. The plan is right behind you. It is a multifamily designa-
tion clear up to 112th. It is real light (unclear) . . .7-12 units , low density
multifamily. Jim would you like to get up here and say your two cents worth
on traffic.
Jim Poston: I 'm Jim Poston, Transportation Engineer for the City. In the last
workshop meeting our instructions or agreement was that I would go back and give
you some more detailed information on the transportation impacts of the proposed
changes. As I worked on it I got deeper and deeper into the project, I found
that I had a report filled with numbers but it was very confusing as to what
the real meaning of those numbers were. So instead of trying to overwhelm
you with all those numbers and levels of service and capacity rations, I
thought I 'd try to give you an overview of what we have done so far with our
transportation plan and how that relates to the commercial zoning project
that we are working on now. One important comment in the staff report was that
the zoning of lands for commercial use must be done in concert with the plan
for improvements with the transportation system. One cannot be done without
the other. There are two parts of this transportation impact. One is
system-wide transportation impacts. That was one that we had struggled with
for the past two years on developing a transportation plan that somehow handles
the impact of the land use changes and land use proposals that we have developed
so far. We have come up with a seven-arterial system, seven east-west arterial
system, and this was based on existing land use plans, Comprehensive Plan
in the City, East Hill Plan, also in the King County area. This was based on
the estimated traffic that would be generated from those zones in the future
and not necessarily what is happening now, and also it was based on policies
that the Council adopted. The Council stated that they wanted to limit new
arterials to four lanes maximum. They did not want six or eight lane arterials.
Also, they didn ' t want to encroach too much on the capacity of those arterials.
They wanted to design close to the capacity but leave a little bumper room. In
fact we are designing to within 90 percent of the peak-hour capacity. However,
because of several reasons the Council eliminated one of these east-west
arterials for consideration. That left us with six. And this affected different
areas of the East Hill in different amounts. Just a couple of numbers , the
208th corridor would have been impacted by about 30 percent. In other words
the densities in that area would have to have been reduced by 30 percent to
match the roadway capacity that we have up there. At the 240th area, which
is more of concern right now, it would have to have been reduced by 22 percent.
In fact the Public Works Department had to take the position of not only recom-
mending against more intense zoning, or up zones, but actually had to recommend
that zonings be reduced to match this capacity. We are trying to balance the
capacity of the roadway system with the amount of traffic that would be generated
-15-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
by the Comprehensive Plan, and we were controlled on one end. We tried to
balance it by reducing density on the other. To sum all that up to allow
more intense zones or up zones, it is mandatory that we develop this trans-
portation system to carry all the traffic that will be generated by that land
use pattern. As a matter of fact, because of the Fred 'leyer Rezone and Rowley
Annexations, the Public Works Committee of the Council directed its staff to
reexamine that six-arterial plan and seven-arterial plan to see if in fact we
did have new information or new needs that warrant the studying of another
arterial . And there is a public hearing on that on October 15th. So, to
sum up the big picture of system-wide impacts, we are trying to balance the
traffic generated from the Comprehensive Plan with the capacity that we
provide in the street system. Now let's assume that that big picture is taken
care of. We' ve got a street system planned that will take care of all the
traffic that is generated by our comprehensive land uses or comprehensive
land use plan. There are other impacts that will be specific to the site
that we are talking about here. These impacts must also be addressed. These
site impacts, however, are hard to evaluate without specific ideas in mind. f
There are four parcels mentioned in the City, C, E, F and G, but it is
difficult without a good handle on what type of development might go in those
parcels as to how much traffic 1s generated. And that is why . . . when you
look at the staff report, there are numbers that are pretty broad to give
you a general idea of the impact, but they are not specific. And I feel that
to be more specific, we need to have a better idea of what exactly would go
in there. But, roughly, the numbers give you an idea of what kind of impact
we can expect. In general in the City we have handled these impacts on a case-
by-case basis through the environmental impact process. In the Fred Meyer
Rezone there were conditions recommended by the Public 'Works Department to
handle the site' s specific impacts, local impacts at the intersection of
104th and 240th. One of the difficulties in trying to estimate the traffic
from commercial zones is that although we can count the traffic that goes
into and out of a particular store, but we don't know how many of those trips
were actually added to the system. Some of the trips came from other areas,
from other stores and happened to be diverted to this area, Some of the trips
have been going by on a work trip or other trip purpose and were diverted into
the store on an impulse trip. There is another portion of the trips that
had not been made before, and they were added to the traffic stream. So, it
is hard to get some specific traffic impacts for these zones. I can make one
generalization about the commercial zone, the sites we have been talking about
tonight, local access improvements will be needed. And by local access improve-
ments , I mean turn lanes, additional local access streets, even traffic signals,
or maybe frontage roads. These are what we call local impacts. And these
would be addressed based on the development that would go into that particular
zone. Feel that there isn' t a problem in handling that type of traffic
impact. There is enough capacity on a main street. We can devise some kind
of engineering improvements to handle the impacts locally at those sites. I
did want to make a comment on some of the other proposals not In the City, J,
J-1 , K, K-1 , l and M, although it is difficult to assess how much traffic
would be generated from those types of zones , as Fred pointed out, we feel
that generally the commercial zones do generate more traffic on a daily basis
than the residential zones; however, in this case we are balancing thatincreased
traffic with some other zones changing from commercial to residential . So cn
-16-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
the one hand, although it is hard to document, we are increasing the traffic;
on the other hand we are reducing it, we are moving it to another area. So
I would like to sum up. One is that we have system-wide impacts that we
are dealing with. We have developed the system to take care of those. During
the rezone process it was in question as to whether we were going to have that
arterial system in place. It looks like we might. The decision will come on
October 15th. Second problem is that there are local impacts, traffic impacts,
that have to be taken care of. Those can be dealt with on a site specific, or
a development specific basis. Are there any questions?
Ward: Do you have any valid figures on what the local access improvements are,
considering the fact that we do recommend (unclear) .
Poston: One general improvement would be that as indicated in Figure 7, I believe,
shows some extra local access streets that would be desirable to build. These
could be done with the development; however, based on the store or type of use
that is in that particular development, it may not be needed, but it would be
advisable to at least plan for those now, the local access streets.
Ward: Do you have any dollar signs.
Poston: Costs , no I don't. It would, of course, vary according to what type
of street was being constructed and the area in which it was being done. I
don' t have any figures yet.
Ward: And also, suppose we recommend a greater area to be zoned commercial . . .
Poston: It would depend on how much greater you get. If you are talking about
the 16.8 acres, if you were to double that to 32, there might be some question.
At a parcel , five acres , I don ' t think that is going to change any of the
recommendations that we have made.
Anderson: Considering the graphic on Site G, I think one of the suggested
additions there is the north south road to the east of G. What is the policy y
of the City as far as who pays for the development of that road. Is that
something that is shared 50-50 with the developer G, or would he be required
to develop say two thirds of the full street or. . .
Poston: Generally, the past practice has been to allocate the cost based on
the use of the street. The more area that abuts the street, the more the
particular owner would have to pay. So it would be a shared cost for all the
owners that would contribute traffic to the street.
Anderson: Would only the owners pay, or would the City participate in the
cost of it.
Poston: It happens both ways. In some situations we've had what is called a
latent demand. We had traffic that was already there before these developments
came up. The City has paid portions of improvements in that kind of situation.
When there is a new road where there has never been any traffic but a need has
been created, then the whole total cost is paid by the developments. i
-17-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes I
October 9, 1984
Anderson: One other question in that same area. I think we discussed before
the possible widening of 240th to about 116th. Is that correct?
Poston: Yes.
Anderson: When is that going to be completed?
Poston: We don't have any plans on the books for that. The county had improve-
ments slated to complete out to 116th, but since we recently annexed the road,
we haven't incorporated it into the six-year plan. But if I were to guess, I 'd
say three to four years away.
Anderson: That would be five lanes. i
Poston: Yes, it would continue the same section we have east of 104th out to i
116th.
Lambert: You said something about the zone to control the traffic flow. . .zone
to control how much traffic comes through . . . (unclear) . . .commercial created
more traffic than residential . Isn' t it better to design the traffic to the
zone rather than zone to the traffic?
Poston: I 'd say that's a chicken and egg question. We have taken the approach,
and I don't know it came about, but we have followed the zone with the traffic
improvements. We have taken the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as a given, and then
we have developed a transportation plan that matches that. So, in theory they
should be in balance, they should come together.
Stoner: I 'm going to ask you for something for next meeting. We talked in
workshops about what improvements are slated and when for those intersections.
Could you write down for us in a memo that states these are the improvements
that are proposed, this is when it should happen , these are the things we are
considering, like the widening of 240th out to 116th so that we have it in one
place the kinds of impacts that are happening. Would you also include in that
the kind of improvements that can be made locally to address specific site
kinds of things. And I don't mean that we need to say. . . (unclear) but a general
list of things that can be done.
Poston: Also, I imagine it would be helpful to have the possible costs, or at
least ranges of costs.
Stoner: Is there anything else that anyone else has to say?
Rudy: Whether there is a developer in that area that would bear some of the
costs, and whether it is . . .pre-existing or latent. . .or a condition already
existing.
Poston: That would be hard to develop. That would be something. . .not too
much, but hard. We need a crystal ball to see what developer or what parcel
may develop and what type of development would go there. Even though it is
Community Commercial , there are variations, from anywhere from a whole integrated
-18-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
shopping center to several shops in a strip-type development. And then again,
it depends on what area we are talking about. So I think that would be fairly
hard to. . . We could come up with some information, but I wouldn 't vouch for
the validity of it. I don ' t think it would help that much. I really don' t
think so. Before we get that down in writing I 'd like to give you an overview
of the projects that I know of in the area. The State Highway Department has
jurisdiction over 104th Avenue S. E. and call it SR 515, Benson Highway. They
do have plans to construct in 1986 a five-lane widening from 242nd down to
252nd. So that would include the entire area of the Benson south of James and
north of 256th. There are portions of 104th that are five lane now, but those
are just the ones that are inside the city limits. Throughout the county area
it is still a two-lane road. in the spring of 1986 the Highway Department plans
to advertise and construct in the summer that portion of the road. Now the
portion of Benson Highway north of 240th, approximately 236th on up to 192nd,
that portion is slated for the next year, 1987. That would be in the spring of
1987. These projects are under design right now. Again there would be an
improvement on 240th east to 116th; however, the timing of that is a little
uncertain right now. We haven't put that into our program. There has been
for a long time about potential Local Improvement District at 102nd and 240th
even before Fred Meyer came in. That would consist of a turn lane, a possible
traffic signal and improvement at 102nd. However, no action has been taken
on that. At the intersection of 248th and 104th, this would be in conjunction
with the Benson Highway widening to five lanes, there would be a new traffic
signal installed. Because of the annexations, we are, the City of Kent is
responsible for the installation of traffic signal , although it would be
done in conjunction with the Highway Department widening, The intersection of
248th and 104th would also be improved, but only at the intersection. Turn
lanes would be constructed on 248th. That would also be in conjunction with
traffic signals. Roughly, that is all the improvements that, you know, are
at least in the near term, and I will have those, and I will also contact the
county and see if they have any nearby improvements. A lot of 1t is under
the jurisdiction of the county. You will find all of those in the document
report.
Stoner: It is five minutes of nine and I think what we will do is take a
ten-minute break. We have 23 people on the list to testify tonight. We
will get to as many of those as we can. Please be back at five minutes after
nine.
(Hearing resumed at 9:10)
Stoner: The first name on my list is Jerry Baysinger, representing Fred Meyer.
He has two other Fred Meyer people on the list and is asking for 15 minutes
for his presentation. If you have a copy of the agenda and the blue sheet,
there, item E says if a large complex proposal is before the Commission, the
Chairman may permit a longer testimony period. I have told the other members
of the Commission and they are willing to give Fred Meyer 15 minutes. Since
their rezone is the issue that triggered the hearings tonight and because they
have made specific proposal , so we are going to give them 15 minutes for their
presentation.
-19-
I
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
Baysinger: Thank you. My name is Jerry Baysinger. Madam Chairman, members of
the Commission and interested citizens, I 'd like to introduce the balance of
the Fred Meyer team that are here tonight and are available to answer specific
questions which you might have. First is Roy Whitman, the Vice President of
Fred Meyer in charge of property and engineering, Steve Gale, Director of
Real Estate, and then Steve Turlis who is the real estate broker with Real
Estate Resources involved in the property acquisition for Fred Meyer, and Wayne
Kittleson, traffic consultant with CH2M Hill . There is a footnote pertaining
to the status of the Commissioners who testified against Fred Meyer Rezone.
We would like to reserve.
Stoner: I 'm finding out people in the back are not hearing you. Is that
mike on?
Harris : It's on, and we've tied the two systems together. Now the speakers
are back there, so you see the two round black things on the. . .those of you
on the far right don' t have a speaker, so if you move that way, you can hear.
I was just back there and I could hear you quite well .
Baysinger: We would like to reserve the right to object to those two Commissioners
pending a discussion of their status with both the City Attorney and Fred Meyer
(unclear) . We are going to limit our comments to parcels D, E and F. We are
elated to be given this opportunity to speak in favor of the adoption of the
East Hill Commercial Zoning Study with certain amendments. We believe the
efforts of the Planning staff to expand the commercially-zoned land in the
area of East Hill is commendable. The proposed changes will allow new commer-
cial services to be provided as the population of East Hill increases and the
demand necessitates. As you are aware, it is the request of Fred Meyer to
rezone a parcel of land located along 240th which triggered the initiation of
the East Hill Commercial Zoning Study by the Kent City Council . Fred Meyer
proposes to construct a full-service retail store of approximately 145,000
square feet on the site. Now to show you the site plan that was submitted
to the City Council during the appeal hearing. Three parcels D, E and F. . .
the store is located roughtly half way between the east boundary and west
boundary. This is 100th Avenue. . .some of the words are upsidedown because
all of our plans were drawn the other way. We have a main entrance to the
site located at 102nd and propose to provide a traffic signal at that point.
You have a secondary entrance shown off 240th about 250 feet east of 100th
Avenue. The school you can just see a corner of, this is cut into an aerial
photograph of the site. East Hill Elementary School is located to the west
of the site. Our original proposal submitted with the rezone application
showed two driveways on 100th• One could serve as a secondary entrance to the
parking lot and the second one could serve as a service access for service
vehicles that need to get to the back side of the store. You can see this
plan completes the two driveways (unclear) . . . The store itself will be a
full-service store with similar, high quality construction to the new Fred
Meyer stores which have been constructed elsewhere. From the outset it was
obvious that there would be three major issues related to this development:
traffic, the relationship to the East Hill Elementary School , and the rela-
tion of this proposal to the Comprehensive Plan. To deal with traffic Fred
Meyer was asked by the City staff to prepare a traffic impact analysis for
-20-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
which CH2M Hill was retained. Their analysis deals primarily with traffic problems
in the immediate area of the site. As Mr. Poston said, site specific issues. It
was thought that the existing congestion at 240th and 104th would be relieved by
improvements planned as part of this project or which were scheduled by the
State and the City. The specific improvements which were proposed for the project
included the addition of the signal at 102nd, the synchronization of signals at
100th, 102nd and 104th, and the addition of a right-turn lane on 240th to
southbound 104th. These improvements combined with the planned widening of 104th
south of 240th would result in an improved traffic flow, in fact improvement to
an acceptable level despite projected increases in background traffic and trips
in and out of the Fred Meyer site. Conversations with the City staff indicate
that Public Works Department and City Traffic Engineer approve of these findings.
especially in light of the designation of one more east-west arterial which
basically addresses the system of widening task. The second major issue pertain-
ing to the rezone was the relationship of the proposed store to the East Hill
Elementary School . Fred Meyer representatives met several times with Kent School
District officials to determine whether and how a retail store such as this
could be a good neighbor to the elementary school . As a result of these
meetings, Fred Meyer agreed to provide a 40-foot landscape buffer along 100th
that would also include a 15-foot grade offset. Fred Meyer also agreed that
it would make full street improvements on 100th by putting lighting and sidewalks
on each side, and to provide visual and acoustical barriers on the school 's
side of the street. At the public hearings on the hearing request, a number
of citizens testified against this project. Their primary concerns were about
traffic impact and the other impacts that the store would have on the school .
Well , both we and the school district believe that the improvements were adequate.
We went back to the drawing board and developed the scheme that is shown here.
The driveways on 100th have been eliminated. The 40-foot buffer and grade
offset still remain, but the proposed improvements to 100th and the school
property would no longer be necessary. Traffic which would have used 100th
to get to Fred Meyer will now use the secondary or west entrance on 240th.
The third major issue was that this site was not designated . . .all of this
site was not designated for commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan. We
pointed out in our proposal that our proposal was consistent with plans, goals
and policies, and that the ordinance does call for expansion of the commer-
cial zone when 75 percent of the commercially-zoned land has been developed. i
However, neither the Hearing Examiner nor the City Council were comfortable
with providing this expansion through the sites specific rezone. Thus, the
City Council asked for this study. We believe that the Planning staff has I
done a commendable job in preparing the East Hill Commercial Zoning Study. j
Unfortunately, if the study is adopted without amendment, construction of the j
Fred Meyer retail store would not be possible. We have superimposed the parcels
D, E and F under that. I don't know if you can see them through the reflection.
As you can see, the footprint of the store extends west into parcel D approxi-
mately 75 feet. We have looked at options for bona fiding the footprint to stay
within parcels E and F, but have been unable to find an acceptable solution
both for internal store layout and for site design. The line between D and E
was selected because it was old lot line. It was a convenient designation to
look at the parcels, but we also feel it was an arbitrary boundary which is not
reflected through a single ownership of all these parcels. The first amendment
-21-
5
d
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
that we proposed to the staff report would be to include the east 75 feet of
parcel D in the commercial zone. This would increase the commercial zone area
by approximately 1 .1 acres and allow the store to be constructed as originally
proposed. The balance of parcel 0 is approximately 229 feet deep. Staff
points out that its proximity to 100th Avenue S. E. across from the school
creates conflicts with commercial use. Staff has also expressed a concern
that commercial zoning here would create a domino effect bringing additional
pressure to the City to zone more land west of this site for commercial
uses. We would like to offer a plan which will address both of these legiti-
mate concerns. We believe that parcel D should be designated and zoned for
offices with the provision that parking from an adjacent commercial use is
an acceptable use of the property. Enlarged again at the same scale are
parcels D, E and F to show the proposal . As you can see A and B are part of
what is already an office zone. The existing commercial zone is unlabelled.
Of course E and F are red and the additional 75 feet of parcel D, and then
parcel B itself being zoned for offices. The plan proposed by Fred Meyer would
eliminate all driveways and thus all traffic contributed by this (unclear) at
100th. This is possible only with a single, large development on the 12-acre
site. The portion of parcel D not used for parking would eventually be
developed for professional or medical offices, a bank or other uses permitted
by the zoning ordinance for the office zone. That parcel , approximately 25,000
square foot parcel . . . (unclear) . . .The reason that is not used for (unclear). .. is
that is a very inconvenient distance from the store for space . . . (unclear). . .
By this action the City can insure a permanent legal and physical barrier
between the commercial zone and and the school . In the first workshop of the
Planning Commission pertaining to this study, Jim Hansen cited a survey of
East Hill residents done in early 1982. The survey showed that access to
shopping was the most frequently mentioned response to the question what people
liked most about living in Kent East Hill area. Traffic and growth were the
least liked factors. The Kent East Hill area is, in fact, one of the fastest
growing residential areas in this region. Failure to provide space for needed
services in a growing area does not mean that the services will not be provided.
It simply means that they will be provided elsewhere with substantial loss of
convenience and price competitiveness for East Hill residents and jobs and taxes
will go elsewhere. Fred Meyer's proposal will result in better, more complete
shopping facilities on the East Hill , while improving traffic flow in the
vicinity of the site. Other benefits of the ten million dollar project include
a year-long construction project employing 70 to 100 workers, local purchase of
million dollars in construction materials. The store would provide permanent
and seasonal employment for 150 to 200 people. We have an annual payroll of
$2,500,000. Local sales and property taxes contributed would be nearly $300,000
per year, this going to operation of local schools and government. The portion
going directly to the City of Kent would be approximately $200,000 a year, and
we have estimated the improvements to public streets and utilities after developers
expense, $200,000. The Kent Planning Commission is in a unique position. Rarely
is the change in the Comprehensive Plan so closely related to a specific develop-
ment proposal . With only minor modifications of designating the east 75 feet of
parcel D commercial, and the balance of parcel D for offices with accessory park-
ing permitted, the Kent Fred Meyer retail store can become a reality. Fred Meyer
looks forward to becoming a good neighbor on the East Hill and a major contributor
to the liveability and the economic healch of the City of Kent. I would be happy
to eptartain questions at this time.
-22-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
Lambert: I have a question. Along the south curb line at 240th, is there a
collector lane for right-hand turns, or will they come right out of the traffic
into the parking lot?
Baysinger: They would come right out into the lanes and go directly into the
parking lot. There is , however, some improvements planned to the median along
there so that left turns would be possible at 102nd.
Lambert: I know some places they cut into collector or right-turn lanes, and
I wondered if that was planned to help get the people entering out of the main
flow of traffic.
Baysinger: I ' d like to have Wayne Kittleson comment about this.
Kittleson: Our traffic impact analysis didn't assume a separate what you are
calling a deceleration lane in the right-turn pocket. Certainly separating
them out would probably have a beneficial affect on traffic because it wouldn't
slow them down as much, but we found that it wasn't necessary in orderto maintain
the capacity and an adequate level of service.
Lambert: Was that decided on today' s count, or after the store' s built?
Kittleson: What we took was current volume data that was available from the
City of Kent and overlaid on to that projected volumes that will be generated in
the future after Fred Meyer is built. And that was the basis of the (unclear) .
Rudy: Just to get the size accurate in my mind, would you compare the size of
that with the parking area to the size of Fred Meyer over on the west side?
Kittleson: Over in Midway? r.
Rudy: Right. And about how many cars would you get a day?
Roy Whitman: The Midway store sits back on the total parcel , where this sits
and is surrounded by parking on three sides. . . (unclear) .
Harris: Madam Chairman. We have people talking out in the audience. We don't
have any idea who they are. We need to have you identify yourself.
I
Roy Whitman: Midway store is approximately 110,000 square feet versus the
total for this store at 140 to 145,000 square feet.
Harris : Since we are doing verbatims, we have to go back and have the first
person identify himself, the next person identify himself, or our verbatims are
worthless.
Stoner: Would you please come up and identify yourself.
Whitman: My name is Roy 'Whitman and I am (unclear). . . engineering. . . (unclear)
The question was how does this store compare with our Midway store over on the
west side. I believe Midway is around 110,000 square feet. . (unclear) . . . and
-23-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
as Steve said, the Midway store sits way back off the highway and has almost
all the parking in front of it, whereas this has parking (unclear) . . . on all
three sides.
Stoner: So the building at Midway is 110,000 square feet and this one is supposed
to be. . .
Whitman: About 145,000.
Stoner: 145,000 square feet.
I
Rudy: How many cars are generated per day by this. How many cars would be
turning in and going back out.
Whitman: That is all a matter of record, but I 'll ask Wayne because he has all I
the numbers. . . It does vary.
Kittleson: My name again is Wayne Kittleson and I am with CH2M Hill . The infor-
mation that we provided in our environmental impact report indicates that for
this size store we were figuring a total driveway volume, total number of vehicles
in and out during the day, about 8,800 vehicles,so that is about 4,400 out.
Those are one-way trips. Now, of course, as Jim Poston alluded to, a lot of
them are drop-in trips. That is those people who are already on the roadway that
are stopping in for convenience-type shopping. We estimated that to be, based
on our other Fred Meyer store studies, to be about 30 percent of the total trips .
So, if we take those out, then the new trips on the roadway are about I,200, That
is 3,100 in and 3,100 out.
Stoner: Since you are there I am going to ask you another traffic question.
What is the effect of synchronizing the signals versus leaving them as they
they would sit.
Kittleson: The big benefit of synchronizing signals on any arterial system or
even in the (unclear). . . is in the reduction of number of stops by vehicles
and the amount of delay at the intersection. We won' t, of course, increase the
capacity of the roadway. The capacity stays about the same, but you get a better
level of service to drivers because they have less average delays per vehicle,
and a higher percentage of vehicles approach the intersection, get through on the
intersection on the green and, consequently, those who stop hopefully won' t have
to wait as long.
Stoner: What level of service are you anticipating at those intersections?
Kittleson: Again, it depends on the year that we are looking. If you were
looking into the future and under future conditions with improvements, you are
looking at a D level of service. It is a low D level of service. It is in the
D (unclear) range. Are you familiar with the level of service?
Stoner: I an but you may explain it.
Kittleson: Are you familiar with the service?
-24-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
Ward: No, I am not.
Kittleson: The level of service is a concept that has been developed by traffic
engineers to try to quantify the qualitative aspects of traffic flow. To try
to quantify things like travel time, stops , delay, degree of frustration the
drivers experience down the roadway. And we have assigned five levels of
service, and they range from K, which is the best, which occurs basically when
you are the only driver on the highway, to an F level of service, which is when
you are in a parking lot (unclear) . Urban areas throughout the country, and I
think it's the same way,generally have decided that a D level of service is the
minimum acceptable in an urban area. Some urban areas now are going to an E
level of service during the peak hours, just because congestion is becoming so
great. But at E level service you begin to get very unstable flows and really
lots of delays. In terms of average delay, atD level of service the average
vehicle at an intersection is sitting there waiting 40 to 60 seconds, which
seems like a real, long time to a driver. So what we are talking about is
something in the 40 to 60-second range in the future, probably on the high end
of that. This is 1990. . . (unclear) . . .That compares with current conditions out
there that we currently estimate at 240th and 104th in excess of a minute delay.
You have (unclear) level of service out there right now.
Stoner: And you are talking about peak traffic.
Kittleson: Particularly during the evening peak hours, because, of course, Fred
Meyer store will not have much of an impact in the morning.
Stoner: What about weekends?
Kittleson: Weekend traffic. Generally the biggest problem on the arterial
system occurs during the evening weekday peak hour. Because that is when the
commuting rush hour places the greatest demand on the system, that combined
with Fred Meyer traffic. It's true that Fred Meyer' s traffic, well traffic per
se, will probably be higher on weekends than on weekdays, but when you consider
its impact on the total system, it won't stress the system as much on the
weekend as it does during a weekday.
Rudy: You are talking about a D- level of service.
Kittleson: Yes.
Rudy: What year does the store open?
Baysinger: I believe you are talking about one year after construction.
Ward: What year is that?
Baysinger: That would probably be some time in '86 or '87. The store is not
scheduled for construction. The soonest it could start would be next spring,
more likely it would be a year from next spring. As I said, there has not been a
firm schedule established for its construction due to the uncertainty of the
issues.
-25-
f
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
Rudy: 1987. . .(unclear) .
Ward: That minus D level of flow or of service. . .that don't happen three years
after completion of construction of store. . .(unclear) .
Baysinger: We were looking at conditions that would occur one year after the
store was opened.
Anderson: I have a question regarding your suggestion that the westerly 290 feet
or whatever of parcel D be zoned business or professional offices. What would. . .
how deeply have you looked into that as far as access; for instance, would it
be through the same access that you are proposing for the Fred Meyer layout that
you have there, or would it be off 100th? To combine that with another question,
have you discussed this , for instance, with the school and gotten any feedback?
i
Baysinger: In response to the first question, because we have presented the
site layout and have a specific purpose and a specific development in mind for
the site, our basic use of parcel D would be as par<ing accessory to the com-
mercial use. Our discussions with the Planning staff indicate that has been
permitted and other office-zoned parcels within the city. . .(unclear) we would
ask that . . . making this an office zone specifically to permit parking accessory
to commercial use. The zoning ordinance does not say that is a permitted use.
The 25,000 square foot parcel in the upper left corner is Parcel 2, and that
can be accessed from the entries which we have proposed on 240th. So there
would be no driveways in this 600-foot stretch on the east side of 100th
Avenue. . .
Anderson: Well , then I presume that what we are talking about then, as far as
actual use goes and the proposed use that you had previously, is that essentially
it will be the same size.
Baysinger: Yes. The benefit to the city is that there is no access, thus no
impact on 100th Avenue. There is a permanent 40-foot physical , or landscape
buffer which is also. . .(unclear) completely obscures site from the school to
the store, or even the store parking lot. It will be completely obscured.
And the use of parcel 2 would be a use permitted by the ordinance, professional
offices , medical offices, etc. The second part of the question related to the •
school and whether they had agreed to this , and the answer is yes. And I believe
there is someone from the school district who is prepared to speak tonight.
Lambert: Is the Midway Store parking satisfactory?
Baysinger: In terms of total parking spaces on the site, there is an adequate
amount.
Lambert: The configuration of it.
Baysinger: As far as the configuration, it is completely unsatisfactory. The
reason is that most retail customers for a store of this type, which is. . (unclear)
day-to-day neighborhood needs, are unwilling to walk more than 200 feet from their
-26-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
cars to the building. If you look at the way the site is layed out and lay a scale
on it, you have approximately 200 feet from the store to the outside edge of the
site on all three sides. The Midway store, and I am just guessing, is about 500
feet from the front of the store to the front of the parking lot. Hence, what
you see is a big, empty parking lot in front, and a few, but a great density of
cars within 200 feet of the building. .F
Lambert: The front is park-and-ride.
Baysinger: Yes, so there are some cars in front.
Lambert: What I am leading up to, what would keep from moving the building
75 feet to the east.
Baysinger: Basically that 200 . . . All right. I mentioned two things. If we
just move the building as is, then the parking in parcel F will get squeezed
and is reduced to about half what it is.
Lambert: But if you get parking, you'd pick it up over in D.
Baysinger: Well , you' d pick it up.
Lambert: No matter where you have the building, people are going to park in
the fire lanes and handicapped zones.
Whitman: The Midway store was an acquisition. We acquired the old Valu-Mart
chain. It is not the way we would have designed it had we designed it. The
parking is all out in front typically of the old . . . (unclear) . Today we would
prefer to distribute our parking close to the store so that people don' t have
so far to walk. So, Midway is really not what we consider to be a good example
of a parking lot as we would design it today.
Lambert: And it would make it utterly impossible to build a building by moving
it east 75 feet?
Whitman: It would make it very difficult, yes. Parking on the east side would
become so compressed that . . .end up with about six spaces on each one of those
. . . (unclear) . The design we have shown is what we feel is the design we would
normally work out based on the whole property. It is equally spaced, it serves
customer' s needs, and to make it real lopsided, we don't think it would be for
the customer' s best interests.
Rudy: Is it a two-story or one-story building?
Baysinger: No, it is a one-story building, and I did bring some elevation. . .
unclear . . . part of the environmental impact statement.
Lambert: While you are doing that, let me get back. I watched the Everett
store built. The parking is all to the front. . . on Evergreen Way. . .brick on
the north.
-27-
i
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
Whitman: That was a trapezoid-shaped piece of property, very narrow on the
south end, and the parking on the south is substantially less, but there is
parking on the north. . .(unclear) .
Lambert: Very little parking on the north, the bulk is to the Evergreen side,
like the one in Lynnwood.
Whitman: I did want to respond to the rest of your question, what would happen
if we shoved it over. What it results in is a parking lot of about 120 feet j
wide on the east and about 270 feet wide on the west, and the last 70 feet of
that would almost never be parked in, and also it provides an internal imbalance
in the store. We have entries on three sides of the store. A preliminary layout
has food in this area, variety in the front of the store and soft goods in this
area. There is an entry on each side of the store. ;f you move the entire
store over and reduce the parking which is available for a specific need, it
would tend to make one part of the parking lot very congested, and the rest of
it would look empty. And it also concentrates the traffic unequally on the
site. To respond to your question about the store, it is 28 feet tall . It is,
again these are conceptual elevations, painted, tilt-up concrete building with
accent pannels and we do have a small rendering, but that. . .(unclear) .
Rudy: This is sort of an extra question. What I wanted to ask about was the
year's building time and what impact that is going to have on 100th and 240th.
A year is really a long time. Obviously, it takes a long time to build a store,
but what about trucks going in and out transporting dirt, hauling stuff away,
building things, everything that has to go in and out there with the school
next door.
Baysinger: First, all the construction traffic can be routed and will be
routed to use 240th, not 100th. There would be an extensive phase of earth-
moving, probably six weeks long. However, the way this site is designed, the
II earthmoving would be primarily shifting dirt from one part of the site to
another part of the site. We don' t anticipate any great haul in of material
in this case. Basically cutting down the mound in the middle of the site,
pushing that material toward the west to create a level platform, more or less
for the store. Often time on a store like this where it is close to a school
or other sensitive area like that, we will put a temporary construction fence
around the site to keep children from wandering through the site. There would
be some noise during construction. We would limit that by limiting the hours
of constructuion to daylight hours only. The actual heavy trucking phase
would be roughtly for the first. . .about four to five months where we would be
moving earth, excavating, pouring concrete foundations and concrete panels .
After the panels are erected, the building is pretty much enclosed and the
work takes place within the enclosed building. The other thing is, ideally
when we start a project like this in the spring, say April , although we can
start it at any time of year we like to start in in the spring, so the
bulk of the heavy construction activity would occur during the summer months.
Ward: Which wouldn't have any impact on school . . .
-28-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
Anderson: I have another question. On the east side of the site, east of
parcel F, would that be free. . .either be easements there for the free crossing
of traffic or would there be a barrier there to limit the movement of traffic
on and off the site through those other businesses and the parking area there?
Baysinger: The parking lot, through this portion of it where it is developed
currently, we would propose free access between the two sites so that somebody
using this facility could drive without going back out into the street. . . through
the signal and through this signal . We think it is a lot more logical to. . .
(unclear) . That also would relieve the pressure somewhat on this intersection
(unclear). . . sheltered left-turn lane here and this southbound traffic is
stopped by the signal if there is not a big right-turn contribution, then there
could be a certain amount of freedom of movement for people to get into the site.
This layout has been reviewed (unclear) . . . To the south of this is King County
housing. . .senior citizen housing. . . (unclear) as part of the environmental
impact study, we surveyed all of the trees on the site and proposed to save
the fairly significant growth of trees which exist (unclear) . . . and we encourage
pedestrian movement through this area. There is no vehicular access.
Stoner: At what point in the construction process would you (unclear) would the
landscaping. . .
Baysinger: Normally that would be handled during the latter. . .late portion of
the project; however, some of it may be done earlier because there are signifi-
cant trees on the site, and some of the things we have done on other sites,
rose. . (unclear) . . .dug up a number of trees and set them aside, and then as
soon as the (unclear) were established, then placed those trees back into the
ground, which increased their chance of survival .
Ward: Which of these lands do Fred Meyer personally own?
Baysinger: Fred Meyer controls all 12.8 acres. What I mean by controls is
that they have entered into agreements to purchase subject to the land being
rezoned.
Ward: Options. . .
Baysinger: No, they are not options, but they are purchase and sale agreements
subject to the condition of zoning. I believe there are seven parcels and a
total of twelve owners involved.
Anderson: Madam Chairperson and interested parties, my name is J. Kirk Anderson.
I work for Jerry Wagner Real Estate, 25022 104th Avenue in Kent. I am speaking for
a list of property owners that I will submit when I am through speaking. We are
concerned with Kent' s sphere of influence over proposed zoning in King County.
My topic is the L and M designations. As you can see, those guys have got it
covered up. You might want to uncover that so that we can clarify that. They
are down in the bottom of the drawing. Our office has sold property in the
L and M designations. Purchasers were aware of the East Hill Comprehensive
Plan and the proposed zoning. Our purchasers bought these properties with the
-29-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
idea of moving their businesses to this location sometime in the near future.
In my opinion with all of the work study and input from the community and,
obviously, the Planning Commission in Kent, to develop the Comprehensive
Plan, why change it. We in the real estate industry need creditability with
our clients , and when we have the East Hill Comprehensive Plan, it gives us
some guidelines to go by. If the L and M areas that were proposed limited
commercial office are downzoned to multifamily, I feel that this will be a
financial blow to the recent purchasers and the long-time property owners.
I feel residential or multifamily zoning on 104th does not make good sense.
The traffic congestion even with the proposed road improvements and, most
importantly, the noise for people trying to sleep would be unbearable. So,
in conclusion, since I earn my living and spend eight hours a day in that
area, I would like to go on record as violently opposed to multifamily zoning
in L and M. I have a petition from all property owners (End of Tape)
(Submitted petition)
Stoner: Gary Wagner.
Wagner: I am Gary Wagner at 13412 S. E. 243rd. Again, I 'm looking at the L
and M designation on the map and would like to reiterate or bring up a couple
points that Mr. Anderson did not. I have, too, talked to many of the people
that live or own land in the L and M designation. Most of them are quite upset
with the proposed downgrade zoning, which is basically from the commercial/
office that is now in the Comprehensive Plan to the apartment zoning. The two
things that probably bother them the most is that we feel 17 months was involved
in making the East Hill Plan, which a lot of people talk about when is
(unclear) . Seventeen months was involved in it. Now within three weeks we are
downgrading that property, which doesn't seem reasonable or anywhere fair.
Number two, which we are not against the Fred Meyer annexation or rezone, but
it seems funny that, which was brought up earlier, that there are 17 acres
there that is upgraded in zoning and we are asked for 17 acres to take a
downgrade in zone. This is already in the Comprehensive Plan, which we, again,
think is unfair. Another think I would like to add is, in talking to the traffic
engineer, and the other points that were brought out by the Planning Commission,
that we had basically 300 feet of depth in the property in most of those parcels,
which is true. That most of those would be developed in small parcels which
would create more traffic problems. If we are going to make them apartments
and have 300 feet of depth, we have already been told tonight that the Benson
Highway will be a five-lane highway probably within the next year and a half.
So that is going to cut that depth from 300 feet to 260 or 270. Now you are
talking about asking people on an economic basis to build apartments and slam those
next to a five-lane highway. I think that during the day, for businesses you can
live with that quite nicely, but I don' t think you can sleep there at night.
Thank you very much.
Stoner: Mr. Wagner, I point out to you that the land you are talking about is
in the county (unclear) . . . it is currently designated on the Comprehensive
Plan (unclear) . . .
Wagner: That's true. -30-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
Stoner: I'm sorry to say that (unclear) . . .
Wagner: We realize that it is all proposed.
Stoner: Just wanted to make sure that is clear.
Anderson: I have a question, and that is, you said the depth may be reduced
to 270 or 260 feet with the five lanes. So the right of way there now, what
is the right-of-way width through there now.
Wagner: I 'd have to. . .
Voice: Sixty foot.
Wagner: Is it 60 foot, Jim, up there in that area?
Harris: 1 assume that it is.
Anderson: So it is 30 feet on each side of the street leaving a balance of 300.
Wagner: There is 300 now with the 60 feet, and I understand the proposed
five lanes it would take, obviously, more footage on both sides of the street.
Anderson: It would take 22 lanes on each side, which should be about 30 feet,
plus whatever else. Thank you.
Stoner: Glen Crow. I
I
Crow: Since we are running out of time, I'11 try to keep this short and sweet
and try not to reiterate much of what was said. I also am opposed to the L
and M portion of the plan. I am opposed to the approach which was taken to
create the opportunity for Fred Meyer. I am not opposed to the Fred Meyer
zoning at all . I am just opposed to the approach that was taken, particularly
L and M. First I 'd like to speak a moment about the Comprehensive Plan. Two
community workshops were attended by 230 citizens. A phone survey of 631 '
persons was conducted and over 40 committee meetings were held in this process.
In addition to the Planning Commission, there was a 30-person advisory committee i
made up of Kent citizens. We now have a plan we can be proud of, and I think
it is important that we protect it. We should guard against any haphazard
deviation from the plan which might significantly affect the community. Especially
when all thatis happening here is, we are flipflopping, we' re trading 17 acres
for 17 acres and trading a zoning application. It really is a bandaid approach,
and I think speaking to your potential traffic problems , your peak-hour traffic
is what you have to be mostly concerned with. And if you build a bunch of multi-
family developments on L and M, the peak traffic hour is going to be (unclear)
morning and evening. If you stick with the Comprehensive Plan that has limited
commercial office zoning, that is an all-day pattern. It is not particularly
heavy at that peak traffic hour. The purpose of this hearing, as I understand it,
the charge was to expand commercial areas of East Hill . I attended that meeting
when the charge was made, and I heard people speak about the charge, and I don't
remember hearing anything about a downzoning plan or study. I question the
-31-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
intent. The East Hill Comprehensive Plan spoke to the need for buffer zones
between residential and commercial areas , and I find no mention nor do I find
any need for a buffer zone between two commercial areas. I am speaking now
between the commercial area between the James complex versus the Smith complex
on the other end where the five-lane highway is going to connect. Not to
reiterate, but as a developer I find it very difficult to contemplate developing
a 270 or 260 foot piece with multifamily residences, because I have to look very
cautiously at the market. If I look at all the reasons for rent, such as view,
closeness to schools, bus lines , quiet and peaceful , price, the only thing I
can fit in there is price. I am on a five-lane highway that is undesirable,
so if I compete with price, by definition I am building slum apartments. So,
to make it short, what it all boils down to is that we are tradinq potential
high-quality professional office space in the L and M area for
another apartment complex of questional quality which provides short-term shelter
for an unstable transient population. Frankly, I think we have enough of them.
What is the highest and best use of the land? I think it is quite obvious to
me, anyway, that the Comprehensive Plan spoke well of that 300-foot area on the
Benson with a five-lane highway 1n one year. The real use ought to be, accord-
ing to the Comprehensive Plan, limited commercial office use is appropriate.
I am also a little bit concerned about, you look at the total picture and what is
presented tonight, I see that it appears to be the total elimination of office
zoning in favor of either commercial or multifamily. And we have very little
office zoning available to us in the area. And I think that is a very strong
consideration that we have to look at. And I really seriously doubt that the
differences between, as far as traffic goes, multifamily versus an office
usage would be at all significant in comparison with the trade we made or are
proposing to make. To put Fred Meyer acreage in at their traffic volumes , it
makes our traffic problem insignificant.
Stoner: Does anyone have a question? Mr. Lambert has a question. JJ
Lambert: Apartment dwellers are unstable transient populous. Fifty four I
percent of the people in the City of Kent pay rent. I am one of those. Six
years I have lived in the same. . .
Crow: Do you want to live on a five-lane highway?
Lambert: No, but. . .
Crow: What I am saying,that my target is going to be that. You cannot raise
a family on a five-lane highway. Can you? Would you like to raise a family
there?
Lambert: No, I 'm on your side. . .(unclear) .
Crow: . . .Unclear . . . All I am saying by definition, if I have to go in and
compete on price and price alone, I am building a facility that is good for
only a very small market, people that are going to be there a short period of
time and move. They are going to have children and go someplace. It is an
-32-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
unstable, quick-moving environment, and price and quality are going to go along
with it. That is all that I am saying.
Rudy: Mr. Crow, do you have property in the L and M zones?
Crow: Yes, I do. I am one of the petitioners.
Rudy: Would you show where. If I can see it, I can understand it.
Crow: I have a piece of property right approximately here.
Rudy: Is it a residence?
Crow: Right now it is a residence.
Rudy: Do you live there?
Crow: No, I do not.
Ward: This L and M is in the county.
Crow: Yes it is.
Ward: Someone correct me if I am wrong. Isn' t the normal process the fact
that you as property owners out in the L and M should petition the City to
annex that given property to the City of Kent. Then we as the Planning
Commission could then, and the Planning Department, could make our recommenda-
tion for the zoning change.
Crow: Yes, that is very true, but my understanding is that we are proposing
a change to the Comprehensive Plan. Twofold. A change to the Comprehensive
Plan, which I am opposed to, and the other facet of what they are proposing here
is that the current property within the City boundaries, that zoning will be
changed, and that will be effective virtually immediately, whereas the futures,
if you call it that on our property as far as the Comprehensive Plan goes, that
is purely a Comprehensive Plan at the moment and we are opposed to changing
that plan.
Ward: Could we as a Planning Commission recommend that we change the zoning in
that L and M to commercial , would you object?
Crow: Not at all . I 'm jumping to the downzoning. I wouldn't object if you
kept the Comprehensive Plan, the office zoning. I am objecting to the down-
zoning to accomplish this other thing. I don't think it should be downzoned.
Harris: Just for clarification to the Planning Commission, we are not talking
about zoning on L and M. We can' t. We are going to talk about the comp plan.
Mr. Crow is right there. It would be annexed to the city someday, and what
they want is that designation to show commercial/office when it is annexed to
the city so that they can at least ask for a comparable zoning in the city.
-33-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
Right now they are moving a little bit ahead there, relying on the Comprehensive
Plan to be a stable document that stays in place until annexation comes, and
then they can ask for the comparable zoning.
Lambert: Actually, the way the zone is today, apartments or multiple dwelling,
is an upzone, because it is zoned suburban residential right now.
Crow: As it sits right now.
Lambert: It is proposed. It is proposed, so there is no downzone.
Crow: We can't, for example, go to the county, and we can 't request what we
think is a proper zoning with the new five-lane highway, because we are going
to run into a hands-off situation, because the county wants to work with the
city, and that is exactly what they should do. We think that is very important
to have a comprehensive plan, and we ought to try to strive for a comprehensive
plan that we all could, hopefully, live with. It is for planning purposes . All
we want is, we want it to be planned properly. We would like to plan it the
way it was originally intended in the plan. That is our whole purpose.
Lambert: You could take the plan right now and apply for a building permit for
an office and have it rented today.
Crow: No, there would have to be a zone change.
Stoner: Robert Osborn.
Osborn: Robert Osborn, 27919 106th Avenue S. E. , Kent. I have a piece of property
in L zone right on the corner of 244th and 104th. We were talking about the
different (unclear) plans as far as the property owners on both sides of that
road. The only thing I have heard tonight that was disagreeable with the
planners was the traffic which was slightly larger each day. The thing is that
at peak hour traffic, seven o'clock in the morning until eight thirty in the
morning it, it is completely missed with office zoning, and picks up, maybe they
might overlap a half an hour in the evening traffic, so that cuts it down to
1/16 of the day that is affecting the peak load. The rest of the time you have
100 percent traffic out there. They are hitting everybody that has to work
in those apartments, and they are going to leave and come back at the same. So,
getting back to the noise factor, maybe put it down into a multi zone, like my
particular piece, I 'm just starting on that slight grade that goes up there
and it is up hill . I am going to be buffeted with noise in there. I am 190
feet deep. That would be ,lust like an echo chamber. I couldn't keep anybody
living in those apartments if I built apartments in there. That would be a
joke. And as far as the first time when this thing came around five years
ago, everybody stood up and said, well , we' re just sick and tired of our cats
getting killed on that highway. We are sick of our dogs getting killed, and
we are sick and tired of our kids getting mamed and killed on that highway.
If you make that apartment zoning there, of course you take care of the cats
and dogs, and the managers won 't let them there. But what about the kids?
Their friends are going to be across the street, good share of them. If it
was only on one side, it would only be half as bad. Then they won' t travel
-34-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
across. Now we have already doubled the width of that highway to get across,
so the safety factor is quite important there. And as far as the zoning, if I
was to go get a building permit in King County at this time, they would recommend
coming back for a rezone, what would be on the Comprehensive Plan for the City of
Kent. That is what they go by. I 've been there quite a few times. I 've lived
up on the hill 28 years. And it just doesn' t work . . . (unclear) the zoning.
Thank you.
Stoner: Dan Moorman.
Moorman: Madam Chairperson and members of the Planning Commission. My name is
Dan Moorman and I own property 26213 104th. Although my comments are not about
my property in the general nature, but I have a specific recommendation. First
of all I think that the Planning Department is to be commended for doing a real
good job of applying some very broad guidelines and ground rules to a rather
specific area, a very small part of the area, and as a result I think there have
been some distortions , and I want to discuss one such distortion. I think, also,
that you get these distortions when you talk about our chunk of the East Hill
commercial area. The Comprehensive Plan talks about the East Hill commercial
area as being (unclear) . . .at the intersection of the Benson and 256th as well
as 240th. And I think that if you were to consider all of that commercial area,
that you would find, I am sure, other areas that would meet the criteria which
were accessed arterial streets and sites in and around existing commercial
areas with no spot or pocket zoning, and partial sizes that would be large
enough by themselves in combination adjacent parcels, to support commercial
development that wouldn't create adverse impacts and the (unclear) environment
wouldn' t require you to downzone someone in order to upzone someone else.
What I am recommending strongly is that this study be expanded to include that
commercial area to the south. I would propose that you just extend the
boundary down to Mill Creek Canyon and Mill Creek Park, which serves as a
good boundary, and down to the sphere of influence and to the county's
(unclear) and then the power station is going in down there. Extend the
other eastern boundary down to that corner. That cuts through largely
residential area and school property that already belongs to the City. So
there are some natural boundaries that encompass that area. Consider it all
in perspective with these same boundaries. You see, you sort of wired the
study, you cut the area so small . This is really what I am recommending,
and I ask you to consider that when the hearings here are (unclear) .
Stoner: Betty Wall . We are going to try to go to at least 10:30 because we
have so many people on the list.
Wall : My name is Betty Wall . I own property at 10127 S. E. 240th. I would
like to also commend the Planning Department for their efforts. I would ask
that you as a Commission take a broader look into the future. Ask the school
district what their plans are (unclear) . . .if they are going to remain there.
(Unclear). . .what impact is going to be downgraded. If their influx of child-
ren is going to become less. I would like you to take broad look at the
commercial rather than office. See what your influx of people will be, what
your impact, of factory workers, etc. Don't just take a parcel here and
and a parcel there. Look at the broad perspective. I think that Fred Meyer
-35-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
should be allowed to go in. I think that with the depressed economy that Kent
has recently experienced, that the $300,000 in taxes would be . . . (unclear) in
the City coffers, and 200 plus jobs would be more than welcome. Thank you
very much.
Stoner: I have one question. Are you speaking about the impacts on East Hill
Elementary and the future uses by the school district of that specific site?
Wall : I hope that you as the Planning Commission should look at the entire
factors that are being presented before you.
Lambert: That which you brought about the school , that was brought up at a
previous meeting where. . .it was wondered if that school would even be there
down the road ten, fifteen or twenty years.
Wall : Unfortunately my career kept me out of town and I couldn't be here at
the previous meeting, so when they wanted to send me out again, I said absolutely
not. It was important that 1 be here.
Lambert: You wanted to come here to see us.
Wall : Absolutely.
Lambert: Well , that school was brought up.
Wall : Thank you.
i
Stoner: You are the school district's representative, aren't you.
Winkle: Yes, and I've signed up to speak.
Stoner: That was what I was going to say. Can you come back? Can we go through
the people who have waited. . .
IWinkle: When is your next meeting?
Stoner: The 16th.
Winkle: The 16th.
Stoner: Could we take your comments at 10:30?
Winkle• Sure.
Stoner: (Unclear comments) Bob Gaunt is the next name on the list.
Gaunt: Chairman of the Planning Commission. My name is Bob Gaunt. I own
property at 10617 Kent Kangley Road. I 'd like to comment, also, on a well-done
Comprehensive Plan. I am quite concerned about the black square that you have
drawn and doesn' t include all of the East Hill Comprehensive Plan. Naturally
my concern is the (unclear) property in the middle of the section of that plan.
-36-
i
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
Someone mentioned earlier the need for looking a long way down the road and
not be site specific. I 'd like to bring a few points to you. One of the
concerns is , of course, the traffic in the area. There are some things being
done that are going to improve that traffic. There is an interchange going
in on the Valley Freeway at 208th and will reduce a lot of traffic that has
to come clear down into Kent and come up Kent Kangley Road. That should
reduce the traffic significantly. There is a large CIP project planned on
the Petrovitsky Road that will reduce traffic. In the six-year King County
road program, 140th and 132nd are planned for widening, 116th is planned
for widening, S. E. 240th is planned for widening east of the Kent City
limits clear to 132nd. So, you see there are several plans there. Kent
News Journal showed a comprehensive plan that a task force did for the
City of Kent that included six or seven options. One they didn' t include
was the new road that comes down off of I-5 in the Midway area, and I
think that there is a strong possibility that this could be picked up and
brought up to the East Hill on the other side and have a continuous flow
there. So that covers the traffic portion. I think that it is being
addressed, and there is a strong possibility that those problems are going
to be addressed. Personally, I am concerned about the area that you are
considering for commercial consideration. Part of that area is in King
County, and I would ask that you consider areas that are still within the
City limits of Kent. The portion that we own, my partner is with me here
tonight, is within the City limits of Kent. We would like strong consider-
ation before you start thinking about areas outside the City of Kent. Mr.
Ward was a little bit interested in what it costs when they form an L. I.D.
or something and put in a development and the developer has to pay the costs .
Our property was involved in an L. I . D. that was included in the East Hill
shopping center. The City came after our property and was going to condemn
the property if we didn 't sign the paper. We signed the paper. They paid
us approximately $3.50 a square foot for the right of way, and now they are
billing us $15.80 a square foot for the improvements. It amounts to $60,000
for a stretch 128 feet long and 30 feet wide. So that will give you an idea
what the costs are. I am for the Fred Meyer development. I think we need
it, and I think we are going to need more such developments in the East Hill
area. Presently there is over a thousand units of apartments under construc-
tion in the East Hill area. There is going to be more, and if you will ask
the school district, they have just built several large schools east of the
area, and they are projecting more growth. So all of those people have got
to go somewhere to shop, and more than likely it will be the East Hill area.
Thank you.
Stoner: Any questions.
Lambert: Mr. Gaunt, your property is zoned office, right.
Gaunt: Yes it is, but in your Comprehensive Plan we notice now that you want
to downzone it to apartment houses.
Lambert: Is that a downzone.
Gaunt: Very definitely. In fact we are going to approach you for an upzone
very shortly.
-37-
f
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
Lambert: How do you feel that it is a downzone.
Gaunt: You can' t sell apartment house property for. . .what. ..
Lambert: For $4,000 per unit.
Gaunt: Equate that to square foot of property.
Lambert: It would be about $92,000 per acre, about $100,000 per acre.
Gaunt: That' s nowhere near. . .
I
Lambert: Isn' t that pretty close. . . (unclear) .
Voice: If I follow your line of questioning, I will agree with the
fellow here that commercial office space when you buy it by the foot is going
to much higher than what you calculate with the apartment building.
Voice: About 3 to 1 is probably. . . .
Harris: May I ask a question. Are you in one of those lettered areas up j
there, or are you off down on Kent Kangley.
Gaunt: No, I 'm off down on the Kent Kangley. If I could step behind Mr. Ward
I 'd point it out.
Harris: He is out of the study area. 1
Gaunt: We are right here where the Kent Kangley takes off right in this portion
here behind the new Sears development and all that development there. The Village
Green apartments are just to the east.
Harris : I fail to see where anybody is doing anything with the zoning in there.
There is no request to change the zoning or anything. We are not dealing with
that tonight.
Gaunt: Well , my concern about that is why aren't you looking. . .if you are going
to change the Comprehensive Plan, why aren't you looking at the whole area, and
why aren' t you looking at those sections of property that are within the City
limits that you have control over. Why are you involving yourself with portions
that are in King County?
Stoner: The City Council decided (unclear).
Harris: The City Council passed a resolution to look at an area that is outlined
up there. Now that may be shorsighted, longsighted or indifferent, but that is
what we have to do tonight.
i
Stoner: Doug Woods.
Woods: Madam Chairman and the Planning Commission members, my name is Doug
Woods and I am from Tacoma, Washington. I have a real estate company and we
-38-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
specialize in commercial real estate development and we represent several
national companies in their site acquisitions. I am also here tonight to
represent Mr. Jack Engle who is the owner of property lettered as number C
on your plan there, and also Firestone Tire and Rubber Company which has
property adjacent to number C. I am here to support your proposal for rezoning
properties C, G, E, F, and I feel that D should probably be included in that,
also. After listening to the testimony that has been given tonight, it appears
to me that with your rezone in the Comprehensive Plan, in the very near future
after Fred Meyer, if they are successful , after they are developed and if the
apartment property, as was mentioned earlier, is developed on Section G, you
are right back to where you are right now with lack of commercial CC zoned
property in this area. S. E. 240th Street is a very important street. It serves
a very large geographic area. I has a very large demographic base, and that
is going to continue to grow. As this growth occurs, there are going to be
a lot more services that are going to be demanded to be provided in this area.
As of August 1 , I was commissioned by Firestone Tire and Rubber Company and
Jack Engle to find a purchaser for the property designated C and the remainder
of the Firestone property, which is the little square up here on the East Hill
that is currently zoned CC. Today I sent out nearly 300 letters and followed
up most of those letters with telephone calls. I have received no response
on office zoned property; however I have in excess of 20 calls for commercial
property, which I think demonstrates a very viable need for some more commercial
zoning in that area. I think, if you take a look which you obviously have, that
the area up there definitely has a need for more commercial zone, because there
is a very small vacancy factor in the existing commercial buildings. The growth
that is being experienced in the commercial areas tends to be in the retail
sector right now. That is one of the reasons for that need to be able to provide i
for some more retail services in the area. Finally, my last point that I would f
like to make is that if you in your Comprehensive Plan do not provide for this
growth, what will naturally happen is on the sphere of your influence another
governmental body, possibly King County, will provide for that to occur. By
them doing that rather than you doing that, you will lose your tax base that
could potentially be in your sphere of influence. Also, you lose control of
that. So I would suggest or encourage you to adopt the proposal that you have
before you. Thank you.
Stoner: Jerry Winkle
Winkle: Since I have a microphone, I' ll go ahead and speak from here. My name
is Jerry Winkle. I am Assistant Superintendent of Schools for Kent. I think
there has been a lot of discussion about what the school and what the parents
feel . We spent hours and hours on this issue alone trying to determine that.
We spent many, many hours with the Fred Meyer staff and folks who are here
tonight trying to provide every assurance possible that we can protect the
kids. I am going to make a couple of general statements tonight and will respond
to your questions to make it easier and shorter. When we've looked at Fred Meyer's
development, I think we looked at it favorably in the sense that (unclear) . ..
We are not concerned that it will be a danger to the kids. I think one of the
things that I want to point out is 100th Avenue and possibly the two driveways
(unclear). . .enclosure. I would not want any decisions to be made about that
until we have had time to meet with them again. The proposal that they showed
-39-
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
you tonight about complete closure offers some disadvantages to the school
district. . . (unclear) and we want to be sure that we have had time to work
those out, that being if it is closed, obviously when Fred Meyer came to us
before, it was with both entrances open, very little traffic going by, basically
from their side. But with full street improvements with sidewalks, with buffering,
with sound deadening and a number of other things which were offered to uq and
we basically accepted. I think the fall back position, or theirs , was when it
became highly open for concern about what that meant to kids, we were far less
concerned as a school district than the parent group. They were concerned. But
those driveways. . .we think the improvements far outweigh the (unclear) . . .
They gave you a proposal which eliminated those obviously . . . persuade whoever
was going to make the decision that it would not be a factor. We do not feel
that this is a big factor. We want to be sure of the decision before we decide
to say, "Yes, close it," or "Yes, leave it open." I think we have some more studying
to do. That is my major point. I wouldn' t want to suggest one or the other at
this point. When we get into the rezone (unclear) . . . we can talk some more.
A couple of questions about the future of the school . There is no plan of ours
in short or long range that the school will close. We believe that it is going
be open for at least 20 years. We are applying for state matching money to do a
complete renovation of East Hill Elementary, which is in the neighborhood of
two or three million dollars, co bring that school up to like-new standards.
That is on the way right now to be part of a bond issue on November 6. (Unclear)
1 ,600 to 1 ,800 elementary students in our district. . . (unclear) Those are my
major points.
Stoner: Are there any questions?
Anderson: I have a question. Are there any kids that walk to school that would
have to walk through either the parcels D, E and F or would they be bussed, or
would there be some that walk that are located southeast of the site that may be
walking through that area?
Winkle: I think there are some. Claudia Odie, Director of Transportation, is here.
I 'll let her respond directly to that. She also lives there.
Stoner: Would you come to the mike?
Odie: I 'm Claudie Odie with Kent School District, and I live at 9506 South
241st. There are a few students that walk on the south side from Benson Highway
down at various times. This last year I don' t believe that there have been any
but two or three. They live up around the corner on Benson Highway. For the
most part the kids that live on Benson from about 244th on are bussed to school .
Most of the kids are coming from the north on 100th Avenue, Valli Kee area and
bus the kids in the apartments out east of the Post Office.
Ward: One thing I want to get clear in my mind, is it the feeling then that from
the initial application process of Fred Meyer that a commercial development of
a shopping center has an adverse affect upon the school?
Winkle: No, it does not. I don't think that is our intent to have anyone believe
that. I think there are some parents that believe that, but I think the parent
-40-
i
Kent Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1984
concerns don't necessarily relate to the school but rather than what their
children are going to do perhaps after school . But that is not any different
than what is occurring (unclear) . Let me answer it directly. We think that
it would be an advantage to one developer, whoever it be, to develop that and
to be in communication with the school district and the principal directly.
We think we have more control , more latitude and more flexibility than having
six to eight or nine developers or multifamily apartments in there which give
us all kinds of (unclear) . I am talking specifically about (unclear) apart-
ments. That doesn' t mean that we can' t accommodate any of those. But it
would be an advantage, and someone like Fred Meyer' s manager whom we could
talk to in the event we were having problems, from the school ' s perspective,
traffic and all those things. I think that if we do develop 100th with a
light, signal , etc. , it offers us some advantages for ingress and egress with
bussing. We' ll do some things there to help improve our situation in the
long run. To think for a minute that somebody isn't going to develop behind
there and form an L.I . D. and have the school district share in the L.I .D. for
that development is shortsighted, and we are concerned about that. Because
that would be a $200,000 bill for us as a school district and you as taxpayers
for a commercial development back there that we would receive substantial
(unclear) . Therefore I think that Fred Meyer' s kind of operation offers. . .
(unclear) . We need to think economically as well as just the emotions of
child safety, because I think that is a risk almost anywhere in Kent today.
This will offer us, I think some real plusses . And again, I am not trying to
support the development. . . (unclear) . . .
Lambert: Did you tell this to the Hearing Examiner?
Winkle: Yes.
Harris: We have two letters that have to get into the record tonight. I will
quickly refer to those. The first letter deals with sites just east of K-1 , and
that is a site owned by Elizabeth B. Bray and Donald A. Peters. I have that
letter. The second letter deals with part of G. The letter is from the
attorneys Curran Kleweno and Johnson signed by Leslie A. Wagner, who is an attorney
in that office. So, can you get those into the record.
Stoner: Do I have a motion to accept those letters into the record? Commissioner
Lambert MOVED to accept the letters into the record. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED
the MOTION. Motion carried.
(End of verbatim minutes. )
Commissioner Ward MOVED that the public hearing be continued until October 16,
1984, at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the MOTION. Motion carried.
The hearing was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
P
P. Harris, Secretary
-41-