Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 10/16/1984 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 16, 1984 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Carol Stoner at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 16, 1984, in Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Stoner, Chairman Robert Anderson Chuck Lambert Raymond Ward Nancy Rudy, excused Robert Badger, excused James Byrne, excused Douglas Cullen, excused Richard Foslin, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris , Planning Director Jim Hansen, Principal Planner Fred Satterstron, Project Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE Chairman Stoner called the EAST HILL COMMERCIAL ZONING STUDY meeting to order with the i explanation that even if the Commission did not have a quorum, the City Attorney had assured her that she could proceed with the public hearing. The persons who were not present would have access to the tapes. (Verbatim Minutes) Brandon: My name is Gerald Brandon. I live at 22324 100th Avenue S. E. in Kent. On September 18 there was a planning process seminar presented by the State of Washington, and I ' d like to make a quote from one of the handouts regarding due process and how I feel, that because of this, we may need to. . . I'm not sure how to put this, start the hearing over from the beginning. I am quoting from Techniques of Land Use Control , Legal Background of Laws Relating to Planning. Many members of the Commission were at this seminar. It talks about the conduct of hearing and preservation of records. I will quote: "The Planning Agency Act," this is from page 21 of the document, "Planning agency action or nonaction can be effectively appealed to the courts only on a record. Since a reviewing court may generally only consider the record, an accurate record of the proceedings must be maintained. If an inaccurate or incomplete record is all that is available, the court will usually require a new de novo hearing. The type of record usually required is a verbatim, word for word, transcript of the proceedings. It lists many items for the guidelines for the preservation of records, one which is item Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 4. Persons offering comments or testimony should be instructed by the chairman to speak into the microphone and identify themselves ; otherwise the chairman should request those remarks be repeated into the microphone for the benefit of the record. This requirement also applies to testimony by staff and officials. Item 7 mentions no map, drawing or sketch should be offered for discussion unless the document is offered and kept as part of the record. Whenever any such docu- ment is offered as an exhibit, the secretary should affix an exhibit designation to the document or on the document." And it goes on from there. It is quite a lengthy thing. But I did notice that the record for the last hearing was quite incomplete. It speaks for itself, and I am not sure about the documents, sketches, also we have members of the Planning Commission that are not present tonight and :' they may listen to the tapes but they will not see the drawings , sketches , maps unless they are properly identified. In light of that I am asking that we con- sider whether or not we should continue tonight from where we left off last time. Thank you. Lambert: I have a question before you sit down. Are you anticipating court action? Brandon: Not at this time. Lambert: Oh, O.K. Stoner: Mr. Brandon, what I am going to do is go on the advice that I have from our City Attorney, and that is that we can properly conduct a hearing, but I will note your comments. I will refer them to him and I will expect him to be here at our final meeting on this issue to deal with this. Upcoming meetings.. . we had already scheduled a public hearing on the Solar Access Ordinance for October 23rd. Because of that, we are going to postpone our deliberations until the 30th of October on this issue. In other words we will meet on the 30th. Everyone will have had a chance to go through the verbatim minutes that will have been typed and mailed to all members of the Planning Commission qualified to deal with this issue, and also to have gone through the tapes . At that point we will meet to discuss and come up with a recommendation that we will { then forward to the City Council . So, that is our meeting schedule for the rest of the month. At this point we will begin with the continued public hearing on the East Hill Plan Amendment. Leslie Wagner is the first name on my list. Excuse me. For those of you who have not attended before, we asked for initial statements of no more than ten minutes , and we will also have rebuttal statements of three minutes apiece. We will go into that detail when we get to that portion. Leslie Wagner. Wagner: Yes, I am Leslie Wagner, and my business address is 213 Fourth Avenue South, and I am an attorney for the estate of Carolina Berg. I submitted a letter to you I think you all received in your last week' s packet. The Berg property is Lot 7 of the Rowley Annexation Number 4, and it is the west half of the Tract G, the parcel of land that has been designated Tract G on the East Hill Study. The Planning Department is recommending that Tract G be zoned commercial and correspondending changes be made to the East Hill Plan. I would just like to reiterate points that I made in my letter why we think that is appropriate action and why you should make that recommendation to the Planning Commission. Parcel G is a large tract of land. It is about nine -2 f Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 r acres altogether, relatively flat, has water access, fronts on 240th. There is an already existing left-hand turn lane into 240th. Both owners . . . Tract G consists of two parcels of property. Lot 7, which is the Berg property, and Lot 8. The owners of Lot 8 have indicated to us that they, too, endorse the idea of commercial zoning on that property. The owners of lot. . . or parcel H, which is designated a small-type family on the East Hill Plan, also endorse the idea of commercial zoning on Lot G. And extending commercial zoning out to Lot G would square off the zoning in that area. It would square it off up to 108th, expecially if you also went along with the Planning Commission 's . . .or the Planning Department's recommendation and made Tract C commercial as well . Right now that is undeveloped property, and the Planning Department is recommend- ing that that go commercial as well . That would take commercial zoning all the way up to 108th. 108th is slated to be extended southward and would provide a buffer for commercial and multifamily. And we are asking you to follow the recommendation of the Planning Department in that regard. Stoner: Are there any questions? Thank you. Wagner: Thank you. Stoner: Bert Jones. Vernon Birklid. Alan Stewart. Stewart: Yes, I am Alan Stewart and I am speaking on behalf of my wife, Greta Stewart, who is executrix for the estate of Carolina Berg, the owner of the west half of this area G on your map, and we also want to go on record as sup- porting the recommendation for community commercial designation for area G supplementing what Ms . Wagner had to say. We believe that this is compatible with the provisions of the East Hill Plan that allow for additional commercial development once 75 percent of the existing land is used, andalso believe it is in harmony with the ground rules that were set up in selecting this additional land. The land is already bordered on two sides with commercial development. j Across 240th to the north is the Kent Post Office, the Benson Veterinary Clinic, Firestone store, and on the west it butts right up against the Old Orchard Shopping Center. And I believe that the extension of commercial zoning to the east of the proposed 108th Avenue is well a good use of this iece of land. Where it P 9 P abuts against the Old Orchard Shopping Center is the back side of the Pay Less and Lucky Stores. These are where large trucks unload, and they are always back- ing in and going beep, beep, beep like they do, and I don' t think that land right adjacent there . . . really a very good place to live. So, I think it would be quite logical to extend that area that is already partially used by Old Orchard on up to 108th where you have a natural street barrier. And also, this land is large enough to support a quality development with adequate setbacks and all that, and allow for good egress and ingress. So I hope. . .I just want to support the recommendation for community commercial for area G. Stoner: Are there any questions? John Oswald. ' Oswald: Madam Chairperson, members of the Commission and staff members, my name is John Oswald. I am general counsel for a developer, BC's Commercial Brokerage and Development Company. Among the Corporations which are involved with the parent company there are various subsidiaries, one of which is Kent Development -3- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 Associates. I believe that you are all familiar with the Kent Hill Plaza, approximately 325,000 square feet which we have just built and are now completing Phase II . Among the businesses which are there, of course, are Albertsons, Sears, Great Clothes and many other shops. We are, of course, out of the ground. Our leases are in place, so we have no particular interest at this point in opposing the Fred Meyer Rezone as such . However, I would preface my remarks that any time a quote unquote uneven hand is applied and there is an adverse affect or reaction from that act, then people are going to appeal , people are going to voice their opinions . Our opinions or our conclusions are not based upon necessarily the result of the study or the many facets that were taken with that particular study. We do, however, question the manner in which the rezone was done. Procedurally this is important, not only, we believe, to ourselves but other landowners who live or work or reside, or who in any fashion are connected with the City of Kent or the quote unquote the sphere of interest. In listening to the various comments that were made I wondered how the situation developed as it has , and I have often thought this when appearing before various commissions, councils , other judicial type or nonjudicial type quasi-judicial type bodies, and I sincerely believe that at this point probably my address should be that which would be directed towards the City Council as opposed to this Commission. I went back over the dates starting with August 21st of 1983, which was the application for the rezone filed by Fred Meyer. That proceeded through April 12th, the Draft EIS being published, again on May 2nd and 23rd public hearings were held. June 6th the Hearing Examiner then made a decision basically denying the request and came out with that decision. Appeal filed, of course, on June 20th. August 6th 1984 the City Council affirmed the decision of the Hearing Examiner. The reasons are, of course, in the minutes of that hearing. It is also on the tape. August 13th there is a letter from Mr. Ray Whitman of Fred Meyer directed to the Mayor and the City Countil . August 14th 1984 a memo from the Mayor to the City Council . I really wonder how many people have read those letters or that letter or the memo, because I think it enlightens or tells many people what has happened here. I thought when I first was approached with this par- ticular problem that I would be talking about two various issues , and I really don' t wish to belabor or take your time with these issues. I could go back and site from briefs. I could read to you summaries of cases, and we could talk about two different facets which I think will be of paramount importance as this proceeds along, one being spot zoning, obviously a term that you are all familiar with, but two, even more important than that is the doctrine of funda- manental fairness. Now I am not talking any longer about the appearance of fairness doctrine, but I am talking about fundamental process . . .or due process, fundamental fairness. There seems to be one person on the City Council that was aware that certainly at the time on August 6th of the import of the decision, and I believe that was a Mr. Johnson. And when you go back to the minutes of August 6th, then you will note that Mr. Johnson proposed an alternate amendment at that time to the main motion, and that was to include the entire East Hill Plan rather than Just, in his words, this intersection. The proposal failed for a lack of a second. And I would..-and I am sure that you have probably exam- ined the minutes of that Council meeting, because I think they are important. Throughout there is this constant summation or conclusion that there is no evidence that the Hearing Examiner erred in her findings. There was discussion about the Comprehensive Plan, but basically they did not on that date find any problem with that decision. Again, you go to the meeting on August 20th, and in that particular meeting. . .it is interesting what happens, because they again -4- 1 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 indicate the meeting of August 6th denied the application. Then Councilman White asked about a time frame of 45 to 60 days. He asked that that be speci- fied since the Fred Meyer representatives had stated 60 days as their deadline. It was concluded that the 45 to 60 frame would be considered a goal . They even went so far as. . .at that point I believe City Attorney pointed out that a letter from Fred Meyer, which was filed as of record of that particular night, that letter was dated August 13, should be taken as a request for reconsidera- tion and action should be taken on it. That motion was rejected. But again that did not follow the procedural rules , and again I am sure you are aware that such a motion has to be brought within 14 days from the date of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. But I would ask the Commission to review the documents which I have referred to, especially the letter and the memo are of great significance. And I think that if anyone looked at this fairly, they would see that this procedural problem is developed for only for one reason, and it arrived because of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. And in that office memo from the Mayor to the City Council , he talks about things such as the representatives of Fred Meyer indicated the process would be too lengthy, it would exceed the time limits on their control of the properties . They asked for a less time-consuming process If the Council wanted another course of action, it would be indicated that it would be taken at an August 27th meeting. The tenure is the same through the Fred Meyer letter dated August 13th where they indicate that the interpretation of Jim Harris was in error in his revision of the Comprehensive Plan, that there was an arbitrary manner in which Mr. Harris assumed control . That the final action taken by the Council was in error on the Hearing Examiner's recommendation. I guess the point is that the East Hill Comprehensive Plan was just that, a Comprehensive Plan, and when you go into the plan itself, you will find that they define the commercial area, and I think that is important. That is on page 4 of the Plan. Then if you proceed on, and we talk about the threshold determination, and you will again note that they talk in terms of the commercial , that which is encompassed in the Plan. And finally, if I may, I went back over and took a look at what happened here, and if you go back and add up the acreage, we come out that we are going to end up, if everything goes as is now set before this Commission, will end up with 20.52 or20.32 acres of CC land. Basically the study says on page 2, based on the survey result, only 20 percent, 9.9 acres, of the existing commercially zoned land in the study is undeveloped. Existing undeveloped sites are small and scattered The largest site is 2.1 acres . Most sites are generally less. Stoner: I need to cut you off because you have used your ten minutes. I would suggest to you if you have additional testimony, you could submit it to us in writing, if you have additional points that you haven 't made at this point in time. Are there any questions of Mr. Oswald? Lambert: I do. Stoner: Mr. Lambert. Lambert: Are you against the rezone of Parcel G and the J's, K's, L and M's, or are you only interested in Fred Meyer's quote unquote or Charlie' s Bar, which- ever goes into 0, E and F. -5- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 Oswald: No, we are not interested in any one specific parcel , whether it be Fred Meyer, G, F, whatever. Lambert: You think. . . Oswald: We think Mr. Johnson' s motion should have been followed, that the study should have been at least the city area within the Comprehensive Plan, that the whole entire area should have been studied. Least of all , what is going to happen over the next six months. We are already, as I indicated, even with this complete redesignation with the study, you are going to end up with 70 acres, approximately, of undeveloped CC land. That is very little. We are back to i the 75 percent threshold in a matter of short time. But what about other property owners within the City of Kent. Now when they want their land, say they want to be zoned, or they want a variance, or they want to change, do they then come in and ask for a study, and if so, how many studies are there going to be and how ,zany landowners are going to be affected? Lambert: Well , we are not here to answer that of course, you know. The only thing we are interested in is what is laid out by the Planning Department. Oswald: I hope that I answered the question. I am not interested in any par- ticular parcel as such. Lambert: You think we should be looking at a larger area. . .looking 20 years down the road instead of six months. Oswald: When one reads the plan and reads the threshold determination, I think you cannot escape the conclusion that when they say 75 percent of the commercial land, they define the commercial line, that they were, at least at that point, they were contemplating that certainly a study would be made, but that it would be made within the framework of the East Hill Plan which was adopted in September of '82, Anybody can cut boundaries, and you can arrive at any deter- mination percentagewise if you want, depending upon who designates the boundary. And I think it would be extremely unfair to those other landowners , to others who have property not to have been included. Perhaps these changes would be something more. i Lambert: As it is right now, I think you have answered my question. We can't take into consideration anything else but what is up there. Oswald: Thank you. Stoner: Any other questions? Mr. Ward. Ward: You indicate that you are not really concerned about the overall rezone as what is basically considered, but you refer to the rezone. . . the initial opening statement, I wrote it down here, as a Fred Meyer Rezone. Oswald: I picked up on that. . it seemed all the way through. Again, when I started through the various docuir,ents , we always seemed to be focusing either on letters written. . .the Office of the Mayor when they dated their memo August -6- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 14th, everything is always in terms of the letter from Fred Meyer dated April 13, the finding and recommendation of the Hearing Examiner refers again to. . . everything refers to the Fred Meyer Rezone. Of course the study didn' t come along until much after this . The study didn' t come along until , actually, August 6, 1984, when they requested the study of an intersection. Thereafter as I understand it, it was the Planning staff that went down to develop the boundaries and came back to the City Council with the boundaries. The City Council never did give the Planning staff any boundaries to work with. They described an intersection and property around that intersection. And I submit that when they did that on August 6, 1984, they were full aware, as a matter of fact,on that same particular date they went ahead and confirmed the Hearing Examiner' s decision. So everything is termed in terms of Fred Meyer Rezone that I have been able, as I go through the minutes, as I go through the letters, the documentation, the memorandum, the study, everything is framed. . . Stoner: Mr. Oswald, you are aware that the Fred Meyer Rezone proposal did bring to light the fact that we had crossed the 75 percent threshold. As I understand the proceedings, that is what triggered the study, and I think, Jim Harris, would you like to respond to that. Harris: That is generally correct. That was brought out in the testimony at the hearings that we passed the 75 percent mark. In other words , we are literally at saturation in commercial . Council did direct the staff to come back with a boundary, and that is what we did. We worked with the City Attorney, in fact, on that boundary. And. . . Just let me add one thing so that everybody in the audience is clear why we are here tonight. We are under an edict. . . a resolution adopted by the City Council to do a specific study. A lot of people testifying want us to do more than that study, and we are really bound, unless the Commission wanted to ignore the City Council , and you are smiling. I wouldn't suggest that. Lambert: I think we should listen to City Council , then we could have another one of these and have more fun. Stoner: I second that motion. Mr. Anderson. ! i Anderson: As you say, you represent only the new shopping center up there, and just the property that we see that' s developed up there now as part of that. Oswald: That is the property which we own now, the East Hill Plaza, correct. Again, I am sure you are familiar with the area and the shopping center. That is what we own. Yes, it is approximately 325,000 square feet of shopping center. Stoner: Any other question? Lambert: One more, just a simple yes or no. Are you against or for Fred Meyer's Rezone? Oswald: Am I against it in substance. No. Am I against it procedurally, the way it happened. Yes. Lambert: O. K. -7- Y Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 Stoner: Mr. Ward. Ward: Then the recommendation that we study a one-square mile area does not particularly concern you. You don' t feel that we need additional commercial zoning within this area. Oswald: No, I think. . .My point is that I think if you are going to be consistent with the study, that you have to at least go into the area of the study, see how the boundaries were defined initially. If you are going to apply that threshold determination, then do the way the study is written, talking in terms of the commercial area after they have defined it. So I think the study, if you are going to have a study, 1t should be of the entire East Hill plan area, or certainly no less , because we are talking zoning now, no less than the por- tion of the East Hill plan which is incorporated or is now within the boundaries of the City of Kent. Because we are again talking zoning as opposed to Planning. Stoner: O.K. Any other questions? Jerald Brannon. Thank you. Jerald Brannon . Brannon: I 'd like to give up my time to this man if he wishes more. Otherwise. .. Stoner: Chuck Adams. Adams: There was a lady that should have been called before me. . .Elaine Holst. Stoner: I apologize. You are absolutely right. I started farther down. I 've got a couple of people I have obviously skipped. My error. Ms. Holst. Would you. . . ` Holst: I might say that I feel out of place really being here after all , the business interests and the business people. I am just an ordinary citizen that owns a home. Harris : We don't have a name for her. I Holst: Oh, excuse me. Elaine Holst, 860 Stetson Avenue. Nobody knows where that is, except we who live on it. I am simply here. . .I've lived in Kent since 1946. I was driven out of one home because of development and that didn't do me any good, incidentally. I 'm simply here to make a plea for the people who live on dead end streets north of James. Any rezoning that throws more traffic into James Street is to our detriment for safety of the children in the area. We cannot cross James Street. There is no light or even a crosswalk between Central Avenue and 94th. Some of the oeople last time were talking about traffic and how maybe. . .or synchronizing lights, and so forth, that would never do us any good, because we have a hard time now getting into the right- turn lane, the immediate right-turn lane. Turning left to go up the hill is almost impossible. We usually have to turn right and go around several blocks in order to turn left or to accomplish the left turn. I don' t. . .Therefore, I personally object to any rezoning that would encroach on residential zones and throw more traffic onto James Street. It is an impossible situation. I wish somebody could come up there and see what it is. If we want to visit some people just across James, maybe two or three blocks away, we can't get across there. And that is true almost all day. At peak hours it is impossible, but -8- J Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 almost all day there is somebody coming in one of the lanes that keeps us from going out. We can' t cross ever. Well , maybe at six o'clock in the morning or on a Sunday, or something like that. I question this policy that when a commer- cial zone is 75 percent filled that you have to expand it. . .always into the residential area, always ignoring a buffer zone. We people on the hill thought that when we built up there, when they established a buffer zone, that was established presumably in good faith with the people. Now if this reezone. . . I have nothing against Fred Meyer as such, I am against anything that furthers. . . that takes the commercial zoning beyond what it is now. At one time they said that they would not zone anything commercial on James beyond the corners on Central and 104th. I just don't understand why when something is filled it always has to encroach on or squeeze the residential area. Are not the ordin- ary citizens, such as I am, entitled to something? The only way we can get out of our property, and this includes several streets, is by James Street or by helicopter, but I doubt that we could do that. And those were platted out, those streets were platted out with the idea of going to James because we have a cliff back of us. There is no way of getting down there other than jumping. And I know. . . I talked with many of my neighbors, and they are all blue about ti this. . .that it was even considered that they expand the commercial zone to the west. And if this one rezone is allowed, then are you going to rezone again or ignore the boundary of the commercial zone and go into a residential area. You mentioned how it's saturated commercially. Well the area there is saturated residentially, also. So, I ,lust wanted to bring this before the Planning Commission. Stoner: Thank you. Are there any questions? Lambert: Yes, I have one question. Have you ever made an appointment with the f traffic engineers about your problem and gone down and sat and talked to him? Holst: The traffic engineers, I think, know our problem as they indicated at the last meeting. ' Lambert: But have you ever, or your neighbors gone and sat and talked to them. Maybe they could help you. Holst: Well , thank you. Could probably do that. We just didn't realize that we could do that. Thank you. Stoner: Mr. Poston is sitting in the back if you want to talk to him right now. Lambert: He's here tonight, m'am. Ward: Tell him to give you a. . . Stoner: Glenn Votaw. Votaw: Madam Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I am Glenn Votaw. I reside at 23612 100th S. E. , and I am representing tonight basically the Chamber of Commerce. We have been involved in the East Hill Plan. rlhen it was first -9- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 z developed I was one of the members of the committee that served on the Citizens Committee for the East Hill Plan, and there was a lot of discussion. I know at that time, back in late 81 and early g2, Jim Hansen was just on board with the Planning staff for a little while and he was getting his feet wet and I was too. At that time when we looked at the whole East Hill area, we had some differences in our economy and some different economic outlook than we have today. We, in the Chamber, when we reviewed the plan had some concerns about what happens if things start to grow again. What happens if the economy gets good. And so we felt that the planning at that time was a good plan, and we thought it was the right thing to do, but we recognized that at some future date there would be a need for some reconsideration of zoning on the East Hill because of the pressures of growth that would occur not just in the sphere of interest of Kent, but also outside to the east. And I think we are beginning to see some of that right now. So we feel this is a good time to reevaluate the property use up there on the East Hill and give consideration to both people in the main part of Kent down below as well as up on the East Hill and West Hill . I think we have to give all of those people consideration in terms of our planning for the future. Some of the things that we've looked at in the past as far as criteria for commercial zoning that. . .number 1 , it should not be piecemeal . We've seen the effects of having a little bit of property here and a little property there zoned commercially, or even for other types of zoning for that matter. It tends to break things up, and nobody uses the property efficiently or properly. It doesn' t give businesses any kind of a real desire or economic benefit to try to use the property well . It should be substantial and contiguous . No investor or sound business person is going to consider acquisition of property that they can 't do something with , that they would not have flexibility of siting or an adequate size to allow for development of a quality facility or facilities with attractive yet functional designs. Thirdly, we feel that it should serve the needs of the population density in the area. Now, when we are looking at commercial , we realize that we have two sections really, of East Hill . We have the Benson area, and we also have the East Hill Plaza area which has been developed considerably. Both of those serve the people within the area . If you look at about a mile or two miles around, par- ticularly east and north of the Benson area, there is a lot of population out there that needs to be served. And so, there are some criteria, I am sure. that planners use and people who are in the business, developing business, use. _ _ I don't know what those are, but I am sure that there is some relationship of the square footage of commercial needs to the population being served. And I think that should be looked at. Commercial area should be hubs for all service needs. It is not. . . In fact, we have seen that in the Benson area. I see it. I live right close to that, and I see that not all the service needs can really be met up there. I have to go elsewhere for certain of the service needs that I have just for doing shopping and day-to-day business that I might want to conduct there. Commercial zoning should not be in terms of ratio of acreage, but in terms of potential radial density. And I think I talked a little about that in a different way, but the population per acre of the surrounding area should be long term. Now I think as we see what is happening, excuse, me in the economy today, I think we have to start looking ahead beyond a three-year period or five-year period. A lot of plans we' re making today are In terms of the year 2000, even businesses are doing that today. What is going to be -10- r Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 happening by the year 2000? I think we need to be doing our planning with respect to that. A little bit on traffic . . . I know there are a lot of theories and a lot of things , but we talk about the traffic coming up and down James . A lot of the pressure we get on traffic is people east of the East Hill area trying to use James or some other corridor to get through Kent to someplace else. If we have more services provided on the hill there where people don' t have to come down through Kent, I 'm not sure but what. . .at least it terminates traffic there rather than carrying it on through. And I think that' s something that needs to be considered when you talk about service areas. We would recommend that sites C, D, E, F, G and J and K be seriously considered as part of the commercial zoning. That would add about 26 acres, that' s a little bit over 50 percent of the existing zoned property up there. . .as we understand it, 80 percent of which is already in use as a commercial site. It would give you another 50 percent. If you think of the year 2000, that probably wouldn' t be enough, but at least that is what we recommend. Thank you. Stoner: Are there any questions? Votaw: Yes, Chuck. Lambert: Go through those a little slower, Glenn. C, D, E and what. Votaw: C, D, E, F, G, J and K. Lambert: All commercial . Votaw: Yes. Stoner: You are not including J-1 and K-1 then. Votaw:' No. Stoner: Anyone else with questions. Votaw: Any other questions. Thank you very much. Stoner: Thank you. Jeanne Foster. Kris Miller. Mr. Adams. Adams: Madam Chairman and Planners. I am Chuck Adams from Kent Realty whose 'I address is 25629 101st Avenue S. E. Kent. I have an office up on East Hill near the Kent Meridian High School . This Fred Meyer project, I am the other real estate agent involved who has been closest to the property owners . I am working closely with Steve Turles and his people. And we have been working on this project for, I think the options have been good for probably a year and a half now, and Steve and I started talking about different sites on the East Hill of Kent probably six months prior to that period, so it has been a couple of years that this thing has been jelling. So the fact that there is now some action considered to increase the zoning is not really something that has just happened like that, really. I think all of the hearings, as Mr. Harris has indicated, have helped to point out the fact that there is definitely a shortage of commercial property on the East Hill . I would hope -11- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 that the City Council would, in their infinite wisdom sometime down the road, address the other area , the other major intersection which would be the 256th Benson and that area south. And I presume that they would out of fairness. I know there are other property owners here tonight, and were at the last hear- ing who, I 'm trying to put in a good word for their property, but I like the fact that we are just concentrating on a small area at a time. Whether or not I 'm involved in the Fred Meyer project or not, because 7t seems to be simpler to address this area this time and the other area the next time around if that comes about. Mr. Oswald mentioned something about. . .he didn' t like spot zoning, and I 'm not sure what he meant by. . . if he was referring to this study, but my definition of spot zoning would be zoning something that is not consistent with adjoining properties . And it seems like C, D, E, F, G are all extensions or existing CC zoning, and I don ' t really think that there is spot zoning occurring there. The Benson area. . .there is limited commercial , or potential limited commercial property which is still in the county, and I think the recommendation was to take, or to downzone, take the limited commercial designation and put a high density or medium density multifamily, and I would have to agree with Mr. Osborn and the Wagner Realty people, that that really isn' t fair to realtors , property owners that have worked toward a goal based on a plan that was already developed, I mean part of the plan, and rip the rug and change things, because that would hurt a lot of people. Then, again, it appears as though the Fred Meyer project, I don' t want to put a bad onus on the Fred Meyer project either, because it seems then as though they are robbing Peter to pay Paul , or taking some zoning away from someone else, and I wouldn't want that to happen. So, since that other Benson area is still in the county. . . limited commercial is adequate. A lot of those businesses are small businesses, like the hearing aid people, and day care and other such that their businesses f will continue there as long as they so desire, and apparently their permits are through the county. So, in conclusion. . .One other point. Through the studies and through the time that has elapsed over the last eighteen to twenty-four months. . and one of the exhibits that I had. . .brought out at the hearing examiner level , that there was about 5.2 acres , plus or minus , those are unofficial figures , of CC in the southwest quadrangle of this Benson 240th intersection, and pointed out that that is a very small portion compared to all the other major intersections on the East Hill of Kent, and it is on the going-home side of the road. When you compare that to the other southwest quadrangle. . . the going home side where the Johnny's Shopping Center is, which has just been nicely redone, that represents somewhere between 30 and 40 acres of commercial property. So the small amount of addition, which would be D, E, F for at least the east 75 feet of D and perhaps a buffer of office along 100th that would satisfy the Fred Meyer project, would be highly recommended. So, I guess that is about all I have to say, and I thank you for your time. Stoner: Are there any questions . Art Fluke. Fluke: Madam Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Art Fluke. I reside at 24635 104th S. E. , which is in the zone described as L by the charts prepared by Mr. Harris. In addition my wife and I own other property in this area. Although at present we are in King County and not within the City limits, we are affected by Kent'sComprehensive East Hill Plan. I believe that negotiations now between the East Hill Water District and Kent will soon -12- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 bring us into the realm of the City limits. We in the LM areas are concerned about the proposal before this committee. We are not opposed to the request for rezoning by the Fred Meyer group, but what we do oppose is the trade-offs that have been recommended which will affect us, that is the downgrading of potential zoning from commercial office to multiple dwelling in order to upgrade zoning in other areas . This appears to us to be counter productive and a waste of commercial land. When the 104th S. E. highway project is completed, land in the L and M areas will provide a link between the 240th and 256th shopping centers. Residents in the L and M area in all probability will only sell their land in large parcels, thus providing approximately four parcels within those two areas , parcels that will range from 3 to 4 acres or more. Thereby we figure we will only attract quality tenants into that area. The plan as presented now would divide commercial development between 240th and Benson clusters , and the 256th and 104th S. E. areas with no continuity between the two. There is no doubt that more commercial land will be needed in the near future. As was pointed out by the Fred Meyer presentation, commercial businesses are needed to serve the public in this area. If not provided, development, will _go elsewhere. In other words , if Kent doesn 't provide a favorable climate for expansion in this area, we will be bypassed. Competition for the shopping dollar will be great, so let' s develop an area which can be convenient and attractive. One which will attract people to come to Kent to spend their money. One more comment I would like to add is that at last night's Council meeting your traffic engineer indicated that traffic forecasts for our area are now being downgraded by approximately 25 percent. Based on those figures it would appear that increased traffic by Fred Meyer could easily be absorbed, thus eliminating the need to downgrade potential zoning in the L and M areas. In closing I would like to again call your attention to the petition presented by Gary Wagner in the first session of these hearings. The petition was cir- culated by my wife who obtained more than 95 percent of the signatures of the property owners . They are all deeply concerned about the recommended downgrading of potential zoning which would restrict them from developing their property to the maximum potential . Thank you. Stoner: Bob Clemens. Clemens: My name is Bob Clemens. My address. . . I am a property owner at 26157 104th Avenue S. E. The property is located across the street from the East Hill Plaza. I heard Mr. Adams indicate that while you' re studying this particular area at 240th that in fairness sometime down the road you should look at the area at 256th. I agree with that. The exception I take to it is that I don' t feel that the Fred Meyer group would find that acceptable if you said sometime down the road you would look at their conditions and situation. I say in the name of fairness , if you are going to open up the Comprehensive Plan that took taro years to develop. . . I attended the majority of the meetings. . . that if the plan is open, it should be open for all the commercial areas . To use the term sometime down the road is very vague. There is no guarantee that it will be opened up again in six months , one year, five years . Why it is opened up for one special interest and not for the public as a whole as property owners, I take exception to. I strongly recommend that the Commission consider going back to the Council with the position that it should be open for the entire plan. Thank you. -13- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 Stoner: Are there any questions. Ward: Where are you located now? Where is the property that you are concerned about? Clemens: It is south of 256th. You know where the Sears store is. Ward: Can you point it out? Clemens : It is not on this plan. See, that's my concern. . .we are opening up the East Hill Plan, but we are only opening up a pocket of it. Lambert: How is your property zoned, sir? Clemens: There's about 162 acres of which about 312 acres is commercial and 1 about 13 acres of office. When the East Hill Plaza group came in, they have done the same thing to that area, you know. It has used up a lot of the commercial area. I am speaking in the name of fairness to myself and other property owners that want to be heard and considered in any additional commercial land being opened up. It certainly is not a competitive advantage for the people at 256th if there is 50 acres opened up at 240th. It is not fair. It is unfair in my opinion. Ward: But do you understand our point that we have been given a study area to consider. . . Clemens: To consider, yes. I. . . Ward: Do we have a process in which citizens per se can apply for a study of a given area if they join forces . Harris : Any citizen can address the City Council at any of their regular public meetings. That is the first Monday and the third Monday of each month. Ward: And that is the process. . . Harris: That is where all these people who want the study expanded should be. They should be beating on the doors of City Council and ask them why they di - rected you to do what they have done and why it isn't opened, and please open it, if that is what they want. Ward: And I assure you that this body would be very happy to consider your area or anyone else' s area who properly petitioned. We are only a recommending body. We are recommending a possibility to the City Council , and they had given the edict as to which area they wanted studied. And that is all we are doing. Clemens: Well , is it beyond reason to think that possibly one of the options that Council . . .that you could have to the Council is that, rather than study a small pocket of the East Hill Plan, that it be opened up to everybody. -14- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 Ward: That might be. That might come out of this group. Clemens: And that is why I am speaking. I ask your consideration. Thank you. Stoner: We usually break at 9:00. I am going to ask if there is anyone here who did not get to sign up on the sheet who wants to make an initial statement on the issue we are considering tonight. Would you come up to the microphone please and give us your name and address. I have completed the list, and before I go to rebuttal testimony. . .I 'd like to break before we begin the rebuttal portion, so if you have not testified and you have comments , why don' t you do that now. Hall : I din't know whether you would be presenting another list to sign up tonight or not, so I did not sign up last time, because I didn' t know what I would feel about. . .after hearing the testimony. My name is Russell Hall . I live at 12518 S. E. 232nd in Kent. That is on the East Hill , east of this area that we are considering. First of all let me give a little background about myself. I am a 20-plus-year resident of the Kent community. I am a little young compared to many of these that have been here for 30 or 40 years, but I feel I have a vested interest in the community, also. I am a graduate of Kent Meridian High School . I have owned one or more properties at any given time in the last ten years in this community. I currently own several properties that are under the Kent Post Office address. None of the properties are affected by the proposals here, so I am speaking as a concerned resident and a party to the community. Additionally, I am a licensed real estate broker and have been for six years, and two years as a sales person prior to that, so I have been involved in real estate sales for eight years. I am not involved in commercial sales . I am currently involved in managing single-family rentals as property management, so I don't expect to gain any income from any of this that happens here. I have attended hearings involving the Soos Creek Plan . That goes back a few years, about four or five for those who are newer to the community. I 've attended hearings on the East Hill Plan when it was being developed. I have attended the annexation and zoning hearings involving Rowley Annexation 3 and 4 which are just now completing. And, finally, I have attended these hearings . With all this in mind, I feel that I have a knowledge of the community and a feel for the growth that I would hope would happen in this area, and the maturity thatthis community can have perhaps in the future. Now that I have gotten through the introduction let me get to my points. According to the staff report there is currently 9.9 acres out of 48.7 acres of this study area which is zoned CC and not developed. This represents 20 percent of the total . If parcels E, F and G are zoned CC as has been recommended, then we would have 16.8 acres added to the 9.9. This establishes a total of 26.76 acres undeveloped out of the total of 65.56 acres . That would represent at that point in time a 40 percent level of zoned and undeveloped. Sounds like a lot; however, it seems very likely that parcels E, F, and the 2. 1 acres north of F would be developed either by Fred Beyer stores or a comparable developer, not necessarily Fred Meyer. They may get ticked off and say Kent go fly. But someone else will probably develop it if this proposal is accepted. What would happen would be that . . . that would probably be developed within a year or two of making this change. That would leave a total of 8.3 acres out of 65 plus , which are undeveloped, which would represent 28 percent undeveloped. Our plan says 75 percent developed, that is a 25 percent undeveloped level , and we need to come back to the planning -15- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 stages again. It means that if that happens, only a little over two acres, 2.03, would need to be developed to trigger additional hearings such as we are going through right now. It has only been two years since we accepted the current long range plan. This plan was to be quote longe range. . .that is ten plus years. By being too restrictive we will be creating another two-year short-range plan which will need new hearings and more changes within ,lust a couple of years. Therefore, I recommend an expansion of the zoning areas where possible in order to create a true long-range plan which could last for more than two years . Specifically, I would recommend that parcel D be included in the commercial zone. Further, I would recommend that J-1 and J, K and K-1 all be included in the CC zones, and that the property east of K-1 and south of G be included in the CC designation. This last parcel would represent 8.76 acres . This would add a total of 26.08 acres more to the CC zone in the plan and would at the same time begin to move away from strip zoning along the main roads . We are tending in that direction, and I am concerned about that. If we are not careful , we will end up with strips reminiscent of Highway 99. I would further recommend that parcels L and M be left in the long range plan in the office limited commercial zoning. It has several benefits. First of all it would create a buffer between the residential zoning on the west side of L, and the not too distant future five-lane Benson Highway. This would also help create a buffer between the residential zoning to the east of M and the same five-lane future Benson Highway. Further, this would provide a transition zone between the office zoning south of 248th S. E. which the City Council last night affirmed and the CC zoning north of 244th S. E. , which we are discussing this evening. It seems to me to make a lot of sense to provide the L and M as a transition area between residential, office and commercial on the various sides. If all of this area were in the City and zoned as I have recommended, we would have a total of 95.89 acres zoned CC with 44.5 undeveloped. This would leave 20.53 acres to be developed before having to go through this process again. Hopefully, that 20 acres would last five or more years , which would then be approaching the end of the life span of the current long-range plan . I hear a lot of testimony this evening that seems to be focused on the next six months , year or two years . I would like to look a little further afield and say ten, fifteen. And we need to accommodate that. If not, we will be back at this within just two or three years. One last comment and then I will quit. The James Street traffic question that Mrs. Holst mentioned... I happen to own a piece of property on Prospect Avenue on the north side of James Street, Just a couple of blocks from where Mrs. Holst lives . Thattruly is a lot of traffic up and down that hill , but my feeling is. . .if we provide additional commercial shopping area on the East Hill , those of us who live east of, and the future residents in the new homes that are being built there who live east of this Benson Highway shopping area, will not have to go down James Street to go to downtown Kent or perhaps Southcenter to do our shopping. We would be able to stay on the hill and avoid having to go down all the time. Recommend that consideration. Any questions. Yes, Mr. Ward. Ward: You're recommending that H also be commercially zoned. Hall : No, not yet. Ward: East of G. -16- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16 , 1984 Hall : No South of G and east of K-l . This block right here. We would end up ; with a four-block square area which would all be commercial zoning in that case. Any other questions. Ward: Yes, one other question in point. You don' t like these hearings . You don ' t want us to conduct them every couple of years. Hall : Well , I thought a long-range plan was to give us a long-range goal . Ward: See, we have a chance to meet, otherwise. . . Hall : I appreciate . . . you are a nice man, you really are. But, you know the long-range plan was to be something to long range, so that we can avoid having to come back and have community arguments on a regular basis about what to do, that we could, as property owners in the area, everyone could plan appropriately. If we are changing it every couple or three years, no one knows what is going to be next. Just about the time the plans are made and financing arranged, all of a sudden we are having another community hearing to change the plans and change the direction. Lambert: Later on this year we are going to be looking at the zoning we have been promised. Are we going to be looking at possible rezoning too, Jim. Harris: Later this year you will probably be doing industrial , not going to be up on East Hill . Lambert: Maybe that would be the time to. . .the more the merrier. Hall : It sounds to me like the Planning Commission is pretty busy without having to schedule in every year or two additional meetings . And I think it would make sense to try to avoid that for at least four or five years. Lambert: Miss all this fun. Hall : Yes, really. I know you are having a good time. i Stoner: Thank you Mr. Hall . Is there anyone else who did not sign up on the sheet and would like to make an initial statement before we break and begin with rebuttal testimony. Our rebuttal procedures are that we allow everyone three minutes to speak. We would really urge you to think very carefully about your comments rahter than summarize what you said in your initial ten minute statement. We would really like you to comment on things you have heard in other people's testimony that you do not agree with. That is the purpose of the rebuttal time. We will begin with staff and will move along to anyone else who would like to comment on what they have heard in testimony. (Tape changed. ) (8:45 break) Stoner: Let's begin. Is there anyone else who is not signed up on the rebuttal signup sheet who would like to do so. We will begin with the staff presentation. Harris: Fred Satterstrom is going to give our rebuttal . -17- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 Satt�om; Some new arguments have come up this evening, the public testimony at the last publi hearing and thoughtIahadiaWgood public of the issues that were raised at that meeting, and sore of those were repgrasp eated tonight. But then there were some new issues that came up tonight, and wh would like to do is go over some of the main issues that have happened at I meetings, and then go through some of my notes that I took tonight pand r at espboth this particular planning and zoning study is too narrow to some issues. It seems that there is a big point with several people thaond t in scope, primarily in geographic scope. It has been criticized that it only applies to one intersection out in the East Hill area, and it should have been applied or should have been broadened to include a much larger area . No one really criticized the fact it was a commercial study. As Planning staff we also thought that perhaps its narrow in that It looked at only commercial land use, but you might argue also that not only is it narrow in geographic scope, but also It is narrow in the primary land use that it' s looking at is commercial . We have wrestled with that as an issue since the study was assigned by the City Council . It is a very good argument to say that It is narrow in geographic scope. Each time that you try to define any kind of a planning area for any king of a zoning for planning purpose, you ' ve got to sit down and decide what area and what issues you are looking at. And you always, I think, are left defending what you are looking at why you are looking at it, and why specifically that geographic area. because the study such as the�East it �Hill s a vZoning ery oStudy uthat You ohave rbeforelyou this evening is narrow in that it looks at only one square mile of the East Hill area and only primarily looks at commercial land use does not itself make it We are following precisely the dictates of Resolution 1027 inappro- priate. We feel that the logic behind the direction on this study is sound. not only in terms of what area we are looking at, but for the reason that we are looking at this area and that is to look at whether or not commercial zoning would be expanded in the East Hill area. The City Council gave us that direction, as I said through that resolution. They defined the area. At first they indicated a very sort of a guideline to staff as g Look at the expansion of commercial zoning near the intersection 104th and James Street. " Well , we had a problem with that, be- cause that really didn ' t delimit the area too much, so we went back and looked at what we felt as staff. . .what area was related to that intersection. They didn 't instruct us to look at the entire East Hill , they said an intersection. So we attempted to define what area in the East Hill area was related to or associated with that intersection, and we proposed and the City Council agreed with the study area boundaries that you find around this study. that the argument about expanding this study to include a broader I agree, also, area, also perhaps to look at more than a single land use, log�callygeographic resides with the City Council . The Planning Commission pretty much is, as you are well aware of having dealt with the agricultural land study and many others, following the dictates of the City Council in their directives to look at land use issues, this being one of them. Should the Council agree with future public testimony that the area should be broadened, we may be looking at other commer- cial areas on the East Hill . Another large issue in the East Hill area obviousl deals with two sites which are in the county, sites L and M. Testimony has been given that the lot depth is not sufficient.multifamily development. It is too shallow to afford effective I think that 260 feet was given as a lot depth after 100 feet would be provided for the improved Benson Hiqhway. It is also said that -18- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 multifamily along an arterial street is a bad location. Noise and child safety were cited, but there was little difference in the amount of traffic generated between commercial land uses and multifamily, so that wasn't an argument, and since it was such a bad location that you' d probably have to build cheap apart- ments to order to realize a satisfactory return or in order to provide the type of environment that would be there, residentially speaking. Obviously we differ with that or we wouldn' t have proposed sites L and M for multifamily. I think I said in the original staff presentation that we had a hard time dealing with the fact that we were proposing on the one hand replacing nearly 16 acres of potential multifamily land open for development with commercial and not on the other hand proposing any for multifamily. Thus sites L and M presented themselves as potential candidates and we proposed them for high-density multifamily. If 100 feet is provided for 104th Avenue right of way, you will find a typical lot depth of between 275 and 280 feet depending if you are on the east or the west side of the road. We feel that is deep enough lot to provide for multifamily development. Figuring 10 to 15 feet for landscaping along the right of way, 65 feet for a double row of parking and then another 50 or 60 feet for the depth of a multifamily structure, you are left with a total of about 125 to 135 feet, roughly half of the lot depth. Given those kind of figures we feel that there is probably adequate room to design that site for multifamily development in any one of a number of ways : either providing parking in front or providing parking in the middle; providing park- in the rear; or providing additional buffering space or structures out front to protect that residential environment. As far as an arterial street being a bad location for multifamily development, literally all of the multifamily land in the city is found at or near arterial streets, at least when I went i to planning school , that was one of the things that made sense, that multifamily had direct access to collector or main arterial streets primarily to avoid a situation where that higher density traffic would access lower residential areas in order to make it to the arterial streets. In addition to that it also provided the single family residents with a buffer from, in this case, a five-lane arterial street. In terms of traffic generation some average daily traffic figures, for example outside of L and M right now on the Benson Highway are around 14,100 vehicles daily. Now that compares with 20,400 vehicles per day on 104th Avenue east of the shopping center at James and 104th. There are many multifamily units out there, primarily King 's Garden. . . King's Place is located out there adjacent to that arterial street. . .it with a higher traffic volume than what currently exists on Benson. Of course traffic will increase on Benson Highway as a result of being improved to five lanes . If that would Sump to 20,000, it would be even. There would be a 6,000 ADT increase. If it got to 22,600, it would equal what the traffic is now on Kent Kangley Road outside the Lincoln Gardens and a number of other apartment structures that exist out along that arterial street. So the positioning of multifamily along arterial streets is not a new thing, and in our view is not a bad thing, either. As far as building cheaper apartment units, I would hope that it would not be slum apartments as I heard the term used, but at least cheaper units that would perhaps meet more of the affordable housing goals that the city has and attempt to meet that housing demand need. In addition the designation of sites L and M for mulfamily development in our estimation also provides a situation where multifamily does not have to avoid any severe incompatibilities with other land uses if -19- r Kent Planning Commission Minutes Y October 16, 1984 planned appropriately in the future. Multifamily on . . .high-density multifamily on L and M would, futuristically, be compatible with medium density multifamily that is planned for areas to the east and west of those two sites. Were we to go commercial on those two sites, there is a possibility that we would again have to buffer the edges. We realize that there has been a lot of public input on L and M and there is a lot of opposition any time you are faced with a peti- tion. Where I ' ve heard 95 percent of the property owners are against it, you know that your recommendation is not popular. We make our recommendation on L and M for multiple family in good faith and ask that the Commission consider that for the reasons that we have given, but I would request that if you deviate that you at least consider office designation for that site, deleting the limited commercial for some of the strip commercial problems that we wish to avoid there, Office designation on that site may be more compatible vith some of the traffic and circulation situation and may be more compatible than commercial land use with eventual surrounding land use. Fred Meyer. This has often been referred to as the Fred Meyer amendment. In fact I talk with people and they talk about " the Fred Meyer amendment study, or the Fred Meyer study. And ,lust for a minute I am caught off guard because I don' t consider this the Fred Meyer study, I consider this the East Hill Zoning Study and directive from the Council to look for areas of expanding zoning in the East Hill area. I have tried to specifically avoid doing too much thinking about the Fred Meyer proposal . In fact, when it came to analyzing their site, it became more practical to analyze it in terms of thirds rather than a single proposal . So we have been trying to get away from that label , but I don' t think we are going to be too successful . The fact that a Fred Meyer or a Pay Less or any sort of major developer could come in and locate on any one of these lots to us is beyond the scope of what we are looking at. We are looking at pieces of property that may or may not be developed under any one particular developer, and we tried to take in the ramifications that might occur should other developers develop sites which we presume might be in this instance developed by Fred Meyer. Hence our recom- mendation on D, E, and F where we recommended E and F for commercial land use, and D. . .because we couldn 't live with it as a transition area to the school , did not recommend it. And we stick with that original proposal . However, you are faced with a developer who is proposing to shift a line between D and E as arbitrary as our study was in defining those sites , so is that proposal . It is not a bad one, the shifting of a line 75 feet one way or another is perhaps meaningless if we can still maintain that site D, what remains of it, at 225 feet in depth at perhaps an office zoning as has been proposed. That does a couple of things. First, it restricts any use that would occur on D, and there is a development site that has been reserved on that particular piece of ground for a future use. Even in the Fred Meyer proposal , it was not in- tended to be part of the retail store but was intended to be reserved for future development. It would restrict that site to an office use. If you have looked at the office zone as I have, you may, as I have, also come to the conclusion that that would be more compatible with the school on the west side of D across 100th Avenue than would a free-standing. ..for lack of a better term, commercial use locating on site D. 225 feet on Site D also allows sufficient depth for office development. Now office development were it to be proposed on site D for, in fact, all of the site accessing off 100th Avenue, should find 225 feet to be sufficient depth. In addition were the additional 75 feet zoned CC, offices could also be allowed on that to make the entire lot open for development under one ownership. -20- a x Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 Stoner: Would you go back and clarify that. I need help with that last sentence. Satterstrom: Shifting the line 75 feet. . .the zoning line between office and CC zoning is going to move a zoning line in a different position than a property line. It will not follow a property line if it is moved 75 feet. What I am saying is that suppose someone comes along and buys site D. Now that is going to also include the 75 feet that would also be zoned CC. What I am saying is . . . is that that person would be able to develop an office on the entire site D as it shows up here. . .the full 300 feet width, but you would not be able to develop something on the CC portion that would expand across D. O.K. Stoner: So office can be developed in that CC strip, but community commercial cannot be developed in the office. Satterstrom: That is correct. That is correct. Stoner: I understand now. Satterstrom: There were some other issues that came up tonight. I 'd like to briefly respond to some of them, particularly the traffic on James Street. City Council toyed with the idea of not allowing any more development out in the East Hill area, because they felt that. . .or there were some projections that traffic on the James Street corridor had reached the saturation point. They didn' t like that position and are opting to, instead, to research to analyze the addition of another corridor. They won't put any digits on it. . .as we've joked about. They won ' t put a label on where, exactly where, that corridor will go, what alignment it follow, but it will be somewhere between 208th Avenue and S. E. 240th. So there are some plans in the future to try to mitigate some of the traffic problems out in the East Hill area . In addition, with respect to any commercial development that is proposed out there, their development plans are always reviewed not only by the Planning Department, but also by the Engineering Department. If there are either on-site or off-site traffic improvements that are mandated by each one of those developments, they will be required either through the permit process or through SEPA compliance. There was a question that. . . about the 75 percent threshold, why must commercial land use be expanded once it gets past 75 percent at the expense of single family residential neighborhoods. That's a real good question, and it is one that we often thought about when making recommendations on each one of these particular rezone sites . The protection of the residential character of the area was an important consideration in the recommendations. Any one of these potential or candidate commercial sites. w'e did not recommend certain sites because of their impacts on the residential neighborhood, particularly those residential areas that are on the East Hill Plan or even zoned in the long term for single family or, in come instances , multiple family residential use. So that definitely was a consideration, and I don' t think we were saying that we are in favor of deleting single family residential area, only to provide additional area for commercial land use. I think that one of the reasons why we didn't propose a lot more commercial is that we do start to infringe on certain single family areas if we just wally nilly propose additional areas for commercial land use. There may come a time when the area out in the East Hill area is what you might call fully. . . and it may be 100 percent developed with multifamily, single family and commercial -21- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 land use. And there may be no area within this study area to expand commer- cial land use. And we will have to look beyond that. In conjunction with that, I guess my last comment deals with the allegation that this is not a very futuristic sort of a study. Bear in mind that the geographic scope of this is limited. Were we to look at another commercial area, we may find larger tracts of land that might more naturally lend themselves to commercial land use and we may have come up with a recommendation far exceeding 16.8 acres . We don't feel that is real short sighted. Who would have thought two or three 1 years ago we would be back looking at this intersection again when the East Hill Plan was just. . .the ink was barely dry on that plan, and Fred Meyer was coming in looking at a very large site out there. I agree that were a Fred Meyer proposal to actually occur out there on its proposed location, that we would be left with only about another 28 percent of the commercial area that would be available for development. There is in that area at this time a very § preliminary feeling for a potential annexation. If you 've had your ear to the ground as far as the water situation is concerned, it may be in the next year or two, possibility, I 'm not saying that it is 100 percent People have to agree first, but there is a possibility of an annexation in that area. Were that annexation to occur, we would be back here with you once again to look at potential zoning and potential comprehensive planning in that area, and we would have sites. . .perhaps have sites J , J-1 , K, K-1 , L and M within the city limits, and we would be looking at that in terms of potential . . .planned designations and zoning designations. Therefore, we would have an additional . . if J, K and K-1 were rezoned to commmercial land use, we would have an addi- tional 13 acres that would be available for commercial development were the Planning Commission and City Council to recommend or establish commercial zoning on that site. And you and the Council may decide at that time, also, to expand it. So while we may be not thinking in terms of the year 2000, I i don't think that we are necessarily shortsighted, and we may be able to deal with that problem at that time. I think that in all good faith we propose as much commercial land use as that area will bear, given the circumstances that we see at that time. i Stoner: Are there any questions. I Lambert: Did you also take into consideration, Fred, the percent of multiple zone and office zone that is undeveloped at the present in this study area, or was it just commercial that there is less than 25 percent left to be developed. Is there less than 25 percent of office and multiple dwelling to be developed? Satterstrom: Obviously our main concern, as was directed by Resolution 1027, was to look at commercial land use. So, that was our primary consideration. However, while studying it, we could not avoid having in the back of our minds what was happening to. . .or what the situation was with multifamily development and multifamily zoning as well as the office zoning situation. As far as multiple family is concerned, I would hate to just throw out a figure, because we never relegated that to numbers, but to my knowledge it is more restricted in terms of available, vacant, multifamily-zoned land than is the commercial zoning situation. With office there are some office sites , but discussions with our own Planning personnel revealed that most of the demands for the office site, particularly with site C, was not for office use, but was for -22- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 commercial development. We do have a significant amount of office zoning down at the 256th intersection. But again, since that wasn' t really our main direc- tive, we haven' t devoted a lot of time to analyzing that situation. x Lambert: I was wondering why D, J-1 , K-1 were designated office. I mean, why were those picked? Was it to balance out, and why L and N was recommended to go from proposed limited commercial or office to multiple. . . was that to bring it into balance, too? Satterstrom: To clarify your statement, we did not recommend J-1 or K-1 for office. We recommended that J-1 remain at its present medium density. We are recommending J and K for community retail , not office. Lambert: O.K. and then J-1 and K-1 for multiple. Satterstrom: K-1 for community retail , also, J-1 would remain the multiple. Lambert: O. K. , now I 'm old and getting forgetful ... Then this was to bring everything into balance, that is why you recommended these zones. Satterstrom: Yes. That' s partially the reason. Yes. Stoner: Any other questions? We had asked Jim Poston at the last meeting to get us a memo listing specific improvements that were going to occur. . .that he knew were planned for that intersection. He has given that list. Jim would you like to come up and give us a quick rundown, and if anybody has any questions.. . Poston: There were a couple of things the Commission asked me to explore. One was the traffic improvements that are projected in the vicinity of 104th Avenue and 240th. The memo I have handed out itemizes those projects, and I believe there are two additions from the list I gave you at the previous hearing. I 'll just briefly run down. I think they are well explained on the list. First one is the Benson Highway widening. One and Two actually are the Benson Highway widenings . The first one from 242nd to 252nd. . .as stated...it is a State Highway { project. It would widen Benson Highway from two lanes to four with an additional two-way left-turn lane. That project is planned for 1986. (Voice inaudible be- cause he is pointing to the map. ) Currently the Benson Highway is five lanes j within the City. The two-way section. . .(voice inaudible) . . . That is the first project. The Benson Highway widening. . .the construction date is 1986. The second project in line is the Benson Highway widening north of 240th, from 236th. .. up to 192nd. The Highway Department recently completed widening. . . which is off the map, but actually the 192nd . . .up into Renton. The remaining portion of 192nd south, down through the city limits of Kent, is still a two- way road. The second portion of the Benson widening would go from approxi- mately 236th Street on north through the Benson "S" curves and continue on up to 192nd. That project is planned for 1987. Again, that would be from two lanes to four, with a two-way left-turn lane, sidewalks , street lighting, and underground utilities. Third item on the list is 240th at 104th S.E. intersection improvements. This one I don ' t think I mentioned at the last hearing, but we do have intersection -23- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 improvements planned for 240th and 104th. Those would consist of additional turn lanes , right-turn lanes in particular. That one is slated for 1987. The fourth item is 240th from 116th to 132nd. Again, this is a King County project. It would essentially continue the widening of 240th from 116th east. . . 240th from 116th to 132nd. Now that area right now is in the county. There is a portion of 240th from 108th to 116th that is not widened now, and in some portions it is three lanes (voice inaudible in spots as he is speaking from the map area) . That area was recently annexed into the City, and as yet we haven' t developed plans to improve that section. The county did have on their six-year transportation plan a project listed for that area, but magically the date disappeared and the money also disappeared when the part was annexed. So, now it is the City responsibility. We haven't set a date for it, but this probably would occur in conjunction of the widening of 116th east, or 1987. Looking farther into the future, number six, 240th at 102nd D. E. . .this has been an improvement that has been on the books or in the plans for a long time, but we have waited for some development to occur right in that area. Fred Meyer happened to come along, but this had been planned for a left-turn lane and 1 possibly a signal at the intersecton. As I noted in the memo, the project would be constructed in conjunction with development in the vicinity, but the exact year is unknown at this time. Seventh improvement listed is one that is not within the jurisdiction of the City of Kent, but would be an important one to aid in getting people down into the valley and out to Seattle or Tacoma, and that is a Park and Ride on the East Hill . Again, the exact date is not known, but it is in the long-range plan. I think I 'll stop here and ask questions on these improvements. And, by the way, I know there are a lot people in the audience who are interested in this area. For my conversations with the county and the state, if you are interested in this memo, there are extra copies available up at the front desk. The second part of the request was. . .what kind of local improvements are we going to need, and what costs are associated with those. And if you look at your memo, there is no reverse side, there is no information on the back. That page was intentionally left blank. In discussion. . . I 'm not an expert on costs or improvements and costs of improvements , but in discussing it with our Engineering Department, I tried to pin some of the engineers down on what the costs were. They almost refused to discuss it unless I had a specific improvements in mind. They'd ask what' s the soil conditions . What is the property adjacent? How wide would be needed? So it was tough to come down on a realistic estimate. So, struggling to at least get some information to you I'll try to relate this story. I know that Fred' s pointed out that this is not a Fred Meyer study, but we did go through the Fred Meyer Rezone and it involved a portion of the property that we are talk- ing about. What I wanted to point out was that a development the size of Fred Meyer, which was about 11 or 12 acres , I believe, was capable of supporting the following improvements: the turn lane and its signal , that I mentioned at 102nd Avenue,were included in the transportation mitigation measures for Fred Meyers; eastbound right-turn lane at 104th on 240th. Now this is half of project -24- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 number three, in that it would be just the eastbound direction . Reservation of approximately 30 spaces for a park and pool or mix-use park and pool lot, and also improvement of 100th Avenue S.E. for the entire property. Now 1 won' t say that Fred Meyer was excited about building these improvements, but what I wanted to point out was a development about the size of Fred Meyer is capable of supporting that type of improvements. Through our environmental process we do require that developers support their development and traffic generated from that development with traffic improvements. The ones that are mentioned for Fred Meyer are just prime examples, turn lanes, signals and that sort of thing. Normally, when we are behind in system-wide improvements, we have a lot of through traffic, for instance, that is causing a bottleneck at a par- ticular intersection, the City handles that or tries to handle that themselves. We do not ask the developer to correct existing problems . We ask the developer to correct or at least mitigate the impacts that they cause, the direct impacts. Also, I wanted to clarify Fred' s statement about the new arterial that is being proposed at the Council level . The Council has not decided on whether they are going to add this third new arterial or seventh east-west arterial into the transportation plan. As a matter of fact, they continued the arterial hearing to November 5th, which would be the first meeting in November. Now there were a couple of reasons for that. We had a late mailing, the notice was wrong on the mailing, and there were a couple of questions about the appearance of fair- ness for a couple of Council members . But in any event, the Council is still considering that matter, and they haven 't settled on whether a new arterial should be included in the plan or not. The last item I wanted to delve into, and I don' t know how deep I 'll get into it, but it is on traffic counts. There has been a lot of talk about. . .are the commercial properties going to generate more traffic than a residential or an office. And that is pretty hard to tell . If you take a driveway count of someone. . .or the amount of traffic going into a shopping center, for instance, or a commercial property, it is going to be very high. In fact, it probably exceeds residential or office-type use; however, when we look at mitigation measures, or look at improvements that would help support a development traffic- wise, we look at the amount of traffic that is actually added to the system. Now a lot of the traffic, particularly in a commercial sense. .a lot of traffic is coming out of peak-hour traffic already. . .just happened to be going by and they are either dropping in or they are not going to another store. They just happened to be already on the road and they are going to this particular i development. So when you take those counts , you have to take them with a grain of salt, because they are not all new traffic that is added to the system. Also, the type of commercial is very important. The high intensity . . . I could take the example of a Seven-Eleven, which is a retail site, but for the amount of i square footage it generates a lot of traffic, but it is distributed pretty well throughout the day. If you look at a shopping center such as the East Hill Shopping Center which was recently constructed, you are probably looking at maybe 60 trips per 1 ,000 gross square feet, but that's 60 trips for the entire day per 1 ,000 gross square feet. The item that we are concerned about j is the peak-hour traffic, because that is where we generally have our problems ! and there, because the residential traffic is heavily peak-hour oriented com- pared to a commercial site, the trade-offs there are relatively slim. Depending upon the type of use, it could be anywhere from equal to 15 percent over. What -25- i s r Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 I am trying to point out is those figures could be in question. We can't really say with certainty that the commercial area would generate . . . say 50 percent more traffic than residential site in a peak hour. Novi that I think about what I Just said, it probably doesn' t mean anything. I don't want you to think that the commercial sites are suddenly going to triple the amount of traffic as compared to a residential site. I guess that is all I wanted to cover. Are I there some questions that came up that I could answer. Stoner: Can I ask you to respond to Mrs. Holst's comments about living on a dead-end street north of James? Ward: Could you put out a traffic light so she can cross? i Poston: Good question. I could say that I don't have an answer for them, but I f do. There. . .We are not going to put a signal there, and the reason is that James is a major arterial , and we are trying to accommodate that traffic in some way. A traffic signal on James . . .James is a steep hill and it would be probably a bad location anyway, but a lot of traffic signals on all those dead-end streets would end up bogging traffic down more than helping it, even on side streets. The relationship of the dead-end streets and the problems they have getting on to James and this commercial site is that, I believe Mr. Hall pointed out, that in many cases the traffic during the day, or maybe on weekends , would be oriented to some commercial sites on the East Hill and not going off to another area, South- center or whatever. Then there is also. . maybe on the other hand you could say some of the traffic is generated or attracted to this site because it is a new place. But on the whole the weekend or the traffic situation on James is not going to be helped at all by a commercial area such as this. But then, again, ` any growth that we have is not going to help the traffic situation on James. It is a bad situation. There is a lot of traffic there. We only have certain areas that are signalized. So, my answer is, I can' t help Mrs. Holst or people like her that live on these dead-end streets. It is a situation that has developed over the years and will probably continue to get worse. i Stoner: Any other questions. Thank you. Jerry Baysinger. (Tape Changed) Baysinger: My name is Jerry Baysinger, principal in the architectural firm of Jensen, Krause, Schoenleber of Portland, Oregon, speaking on behalf of Fred Meyer. We' ll limit our rebuttal to Just the testimony which is on the record. First, in the last hearing we said we would like to reserve the right to object to the participation of the Commissioners who testified against Fred Meyer previously. And upon consultation with the City Attorney and Fred Meyer's best minds , we would like to object to their participation. Responding to the staff recommendation this evening with regard to parcel D, we indicated before that we could live with office zoning. And staff has pointed out to us that the ordinance does indicate that parking would be permitted on that, so I' d like to amend our request with regard to parcel D to just say that office zoning would be acceptable to Fred Meyer provided that the boundary line is moved as previously described. Responding to Mr. Winkle' s comments regarding the develop- ment of 100th Avenue and the driveways thereto, we concur with the school 's position. We felt initially that our first proposal was our best proposal , which was to build the street, provide some improvements to the schoolgrounds, -26- :*9 Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 and to allow a certain amount of Fred Meyer's traffic to use that street and take advantage of the signal which exists there. However, we don ' t think this is an appropriate issue for the Planning Commission to wrestle with. We are willing to build the street or not build the street and not use it, and we'd propose that issue be resolved between City staff and Fred Meyer and the school . Mr. Brown had an interesting point that was regarding the marking of documents, and we did leave all of our exhibits which were presented at the last hearing with the staff, and they are here and you are free to mark them however you wish. They were referred to specifically in our testimony, however, Several owners involved in parcels L and M testified and Fred Meyer's position is basically neutral . We think that they. . . if they've got office zoning, we don 't see any reason to change it. Regarding Mr. Oswald' s testimony, basically he is right in that the Fred Meyer Rezone did trigger this study and the study area. We believe the way the City has gone about this is very fair. It does differ from other municipalities in that the Comprehensive Plan does not provide any mechanism for a developer or applicant to come in and revise the plan, and this was really the whole problem with Fred Meyer Rezone. We proposed something that did pot conform to the Comprehensive Plan, and there was really no way to change the Comprehensive Plan. We proposed a rezone and showed that it was consistent with many planned policies and objectives , but it was not consistent with the map; therefore it was not consistent with the plan. And that, we believe, was the primary reason that the City Council established the study area. Stoner: You' ve used your three minutes. I 'm going to have to cut you off. Are there any questions? Lambert: Yes. A Fred Meyer building is designed to. . .how long a time are they built to last? Baysinger: This type of buiding would normally be considered to be about a 40-year structure. Fred Meyer's first suburban store was built in about 1934 and it is still in business; however, the store is obsolete. It is on a site where the store can' t be expanded to do what Fred Meyer considers to be an acceptable level of merchandising, and it is thus being considered for replacement at this time. They have a number of stores developed in the 50's, 60's and 70 's which have been periodically updated or remodeled, but they still make a strong attempt to keep their facilities current. Lambert: Are you referring to the one on Sandy Boulevard in Portland? Baysinger: Yes. Lambert: Is that being replaced, torn down or remodeled? Baysinger: A new store is under consideration about two miles from that store. The disposition of the old store hasn't really been determined. They are con- sidering a whole range of options from closure to continuation in its present use to continuation in a changed mode. . .limited retail outlet. Lambert: Why I am asking the question, if you do build, you plan to stay. -27- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 Baysinger: Yes. Stoner: Any others? Thank you. Bob Clemens. Clemens: I 'd like to take just a minute to respond to Mr. Russ Hall 's comments he made earlier, and I won't be able to quote exactly, but I think I will be close. Mr. Hall expressed the desire to have the Commission consider increas- ing the acreage zoned CC. His reasoning was so that the East Hill Plan could remain intact for ten years as originally planned. My comment to this is you as Planning Commission, if you were to follow Mr. Hall 's input or act in favor of the plan that I see on these maps before me here, that you will essentially be putting a future padlock back on the East Hill Comprehensive Plan that will prevent other property owners within the East Hill Comprehensive Plan area but outside the special sphere of influence from having equal oppor- tunity. The term special sphere of influence. . . I do not mean Fred Meyer. I mean it in terms of influence on future commercial needs for all East Hill Plan areas. This is not fair. Thank you. Stoner: Are there any questions? Glenn Votaw. Votaw: I would like to keep this just basically brief to about three points here, and I think the points have been rebutted to some degree. I think first of all the discussions that came up regarding why are we are limiting this area, I think it was right to consider only this area, because this is an area that has the potential and probably has the demand for commercial service capability that still does not have that much in it. I recall when we were going through the East Hill Plan considerations way back at the beginning, at the conception of this whole thing. .. consideration of a lot of areas out east of Kent or larger areas of zoning that would be commercial , and the feeling was at that time. . . no, that would not be a proper consideration. If there was any consideration of expanding commercial zoning, it would be within this area that we are looking at right now that you are considering. So I feel that that is appropriate and proper for both the Council and this Commission to take that position. I cannot argue considering more than we had recommended from the Chamber and the areas that you would consider zoning, we indicated C, D, E, F and G, certainly J prime and J and K and K prime would be worthy of your consideration. However I do feel that any changes in the zoning for L and M would not be appropriate, par- ticularly considering that the initial discussions regarding that whole area down through there between 240th and 256th. . .were that it should be considered as office or limited commercial , mostly office considerations in that initially. . . when the discussions were had regarding that. And I think you will remember that, Jim. The point that is being made about taking away residential areas, j part of the whole idea of the whole East Hill Plan was that we recognize there would be some single family residential areas close into town that would probably get greater and better use by rezoning to commercial or multifamily residential . The idea was that east of Kent was the prime target for single family residential , although recognizing that there were some areas within the City of Kent and west of the East Hill , or going down the East Hill , that that was single family residential , that we should keep, but we did not feel that there would be anything taken away if there was some reuse of the land in this area that we are talking about because of real strong desire to keep the areas east of Kent residential and single family. That' s it. Thank you. -28- Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 "s Stoner: Thank you. Is there anyone else who did not sign up who is interested in making a rebuttal statement? Mr. Hall . Hall : The two representatives of the staff made a couple of comments. . . Stoner: You need to give your name. . . Hall : Oh, I 'm sorry. Russell Hall , think I gave the address earlier but I will give it again, 12518 S. E. 232nd in Kent. The two representatives of staff made a couple of comments that I want to have some clarification in my own mind, and I think it might affect your deliberations. First of all the zoning on the plan, the East Hill Community Plan for parcels L and M. —the gentlemen from the Planning Department kept referring to it as commercial zoning currently. It is my understanding that that zoning was office and limited commercial meaning small businesses, particularly like repair stores , insurance offices, this kind of thing. Am I mistaken, or am I misunderstanding what the qentleman from the staff was saying? Stoner: Would you like to clarify? Satterstrom: You were misunderstanding what I was saying. L and M are both j presently designated limited commercial/office. The recommendation from the staff is multifamily. Hall : O. K. O.K. Thank you. I wanted to make sure that that differentiation between community commercial and limited commercial was kept clear, because we have been real sloppy about it in this hearing, I believe. Mr. Hansen. Hansen: Jim Hansen from the Planning staff. Reference is made so often, and you just did, to the commercial zoning, and again, this is an area within King County currently zoned suburban residential that has been designated in the East Hill Plan, and only designated for commercial/office, and that is the only power that City has at this point. . .to render a designation and not zoning. At such time as it is annexed, of course zoning would be established. Hall : I recognize that having just been involved with the Rowley Annexations, which leads me to my next point. And that is. . .again staff representative made the statement that if the area that is outside the City is annexed due to this water supply question, that we will probably be back here in front of the Planning Commission. Having just been through Rowley 3 and 4 annexation, Planning Commission was not involved in establishing zoning in any way that I am aware of. What was involved was a hearing before the Hearing Examiner, and the Hearing Examiner kept referring to the East Hill Plan to determine f what that zoning is . So what is done tonight from this hearing will affect { L and M significantly, and probably the Planning Commission will not have another opportunity to review that if it is annexed in the near future. So I 'd like to make sure that that point is clear. In response to Mr. Lambert's questions regarding other uses in this area, multifamily and office, in last evening's City Council meeting the City Council said to take G and H and make them multifamily medium density with the provision that they would have option for reviewing what the Planning Commission recommends regarding parcel G for -29- 4 r Kent Planning Commission Minutes October 16, 1984 commercial zone. So there is a large piece of property, property H, which extends beyond what is on the study map tonight that has multifamily or residential zoning which can be developed. Those are 629 feet, plus or minus a little bit, deep and that can provide a lot of additional multifamily development for this area. Lambert: That's east of H. Hall : That's all of H. H is designated as multifamily dwelling. East of H, I believe, is single family under the proposal . . .that is east of 112th for what has just been annexed. I am a little bit of a perfectionist and a detail person, and I would like to make one other point. And that is 240th between 108th and 116th, contrary to your transportation staff's statement, has no three lanes and no turn lanes. It is a two-lane road period. I drive it at least twice a day since I live east of there and I work here in the valley. There are no turn lanes between 108th and 116th. Hopefully the City will soon widen that whole section out to 116th at least. Those are points that I think are quite important. One other point regarding L and M, the staff said. . .they gave figures to give the setback for parking lots and landscape and all that, ended up with a 50-foot building and then 120 feet beyond that. Well , as I recall, he said about 60 or 65 feet for a double row of parking and 50 foot for a building which just about uses up the other 120 feet, which means that in essence the only logical development under multifamily development under what he suggested for L and M would be two long buildings running parallel to the Benson Highway with a parking space on one side and a parking space between the two buildings. And I don' t think that would be a desirable use for multi- family dwelling. As I stated. . . Stoner: I need to call time. Any questions. Lambert: You might pick up this sheet here which I believe is laying in front, and it will tell you all . . . item #4, S. E. 240th from . . . no, item number 5. You can read that at home tonight. Hall : I appreciate that. I was going to pick it up anyway. Thank you. Stoner: We will continue until the 30th. Mr. Baysinger brought up the issue of accepting documents into the record. We also have some letters and petitions that were handed out at the break. I believe that we have to wait until the 30th to do that, because that is an action that we must take, and I think we need to have a quorum to do that. (End of Verbatim Minutes) Adjournment Chairman Stoner adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, t" Ja es P Harris , Planning Director -30-