Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 08/14/1989
4 1 4 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 14, 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called 'to order by Chair Martinez at 7:30 p.m. Monday, August 14, 1959 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Anne Biteman Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Carol Stoner, excused Raymond Ward, •excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager Dan Stroh, Senior Planner Stephen Clifton, Planner Janet Shull, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 24. 1989 Commissioner Forner MOVED that the minutes of the ,July 24, 1989 Planning Commission be approved as printed. Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Chair Martinez reopened the public hearing (Verbatim Transcript) Dan Stroh: Good evening. I'm Dan Stroh with the Planning Department and I would like to inform you about the wo facets of what needs to be discussed tonight. One change i4 i-the scope of the items being discussed, which is a fairly impax-#4nt- change, is that the staff recommendation of what would be r ,ewed at this time would include only ''the three multifamily' areas, the multifamily areas that have been studied on the WeOt •Hill, which include essentially all the vacant and underdeveloped land that has been identified up there. This would not inclbds the single family areas that have been identified earlier in the study. At this time we would propose that the Planning Commission hearing Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 look specifically at the multifamily areas and . t,14tthe single family areas at this time. This is somewhat of anca4justment in the earlier work. We were planning to carry thi*.;-thrqugh for all three planning areas so that the scope of the work would include the multifamily areas throughout the city with single family areas not reviewed at this time. Chair Martinez: Can we stop right there and ask some questions. Dan Stroh: Sure. Chair Martinez: Do you want to talk about why, p].0660. Dan Stroh: Sure. We have done work in looking at the single family areas and the vacant and available Ja 1a that could potentially be developed in the single family area$ as well. The major scope of Resolution 1172 that set up the stu y ,iO toward the 20 percent reduction and the site-specific, review tgWard that end. We have a lot of concern that given the timing and the amount and the time that has elapsed between when the Council first identified this as an issue and a priority and the current d t_ a is a long, long time that has elapsed, and that the process. pt" , Oking at all single areas as well as the multifamily area really just pull this out into an unacceptable length cf+ tom.; So we do recommend basically looking at the multifamily areas"O We feel that we are looking at accomplishing some things through the study still that would address the single family issues. For instance, the single family designated overlay zone. . .would continue to recommend that that be established as an overlay in the comprehensive plan. The creation of the R1-5 district, which would,, be;, A new zoning designation, we would recommend that the Planning Commission go forward with a recommendation on that. Would also,. include . other work we have been doing with single family day .opment. For instance, right now the city has a Single Family Cittee that has been meeting to look at a number of single family 4spues. In fact they just had a meeting thi,a evening. That stork will continue. They will be coming out with a range of recomndtions towards encouraging single family in the city. Also, .the first phase of this project in response to 1172 was the Housing Xlement Update. In that process there were a whole new range of po]4ries that were introduced into the comprehensive plan housing,- element that addressed number of single family issues. So-r ", Feel that by moving forward on the multifamily areas we can a44,V**,s much of what the Council resolution asked us to address with -tpo,*44ition of the single steps that I mentioned. We will be movinq;:fogv4rd on really providing a lot of the encouragement to single fami4y that Council asked us for as well. And by doing it, limiting ft basically to these two areas, we will be, bringing this forward,toithe Council r3 2 Kent Planning Commission Minutes x August 14, 1989 in a much more timely way than would otherwise ocauri The Council would then have the opportunity to decide how it wants to go on these issues while there are still decisions to be made, Every day as we talked about last time that decisions aren't made on this, more and more sites get tied up by becoming vested through the building permit process. So we do feel that it is; important to move along and take action, whatever that action a,4y be, on the multifamily issues the Council asked us to address 'as soon as possible. Commissioner Greenstreet: If we feel that it makes sense to concentrate on the multifamily and not deal with the,,single family but we don't want to recognize the 5,000 square foot lot until we do address the single family, can we focus just on multifamily and not have to address the 5,000 square foot on all ' these West Hill. . .East Hill. . . Dan Stroh: In the West Hill area I don't believe we are recommending the R1-5 for any of the three areas. In the East Hill we are. For the multifamily areas I think the first time we will need that is in the East Hill planning area. For the East Hill we would need to create that, because we are recomst- dipg a rezone from a multifamily designation to R1-5 in the East Hill Area. Commissioner Greenstreet: ©h, all right. Dan Stroh: So we would need that for. . . .that would be at the next set of hearings which right now we are projecting to begin on August 28th for the East Hill area. But you would need to do it for the West Hill area, given the current. . .at least to put into effect the staff recommendation that is before you for the multifamily areas on West Hill. Commissioner Greenstreet: It wouldn't set a precedent or undermine any efforts to protect whatever zoning for single family on West Hill though by creating the 5000 lot. . .and that -doesn't really change that it is already zoned 7200 or whatever. Dan Stroh: If you were to go ahead and create �t -� R1-5 now and not put it into effect anywhere on West Hill, it really wouldn't have any effect at this time. It probably wakes seipe! to go ahead and withhold action on that until the East Hill ew and when that R1-5 is really needed. The other thing is. 4?d i ' this meets with the Council's approval. . .or with the CommissbomPs approval, we'd be actually recommending that it is possible yibuld be moving , towards taking action at the earliest phase possible. If that is possible tonight, that would be great. There is another date that is possible. Set aside next week if you need to continue this 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 further, but given that basically the review is limited to the multifamily areas, it may be possible to do your deliberations tonight. In whichever case, there are findings and conclusions that would be drawn up that would summarize your deliberations and we would be able to do that. For instance, if it were tonight that you came up with a decision, we Mould be able to provide whatever staff support you needed for that to have something available on the regular meeting on August 28th. The other thing I wanted to add is that Stephen Clifton will be following me with some other information from the staff. We'd like to respond to some of the points raised at the last meeting both in terms of. . .I think there was some concern about notification, and also specific concerns brought up about some 'of the site specific analysis and he'll be able to provide some summary comments on some of those fronts. Chair Martinez: Before we go on though, do any of the Commissioners have any further questions or comments regarding the recommendation. Elmira Forner: I have some concerns about it. But if we (unclear) don't somehow take up that number of housing units that we prevent (unclear) and we don't offer some substitute for that, we are going to create a housing shortage which is going to drive the price of houses up which means that affordable housing in that area is going to be less and less. I have a real concern about that. . .saying that we are going to reduce multifamily but we are not somehow going to substitute something in the single family housing that would be comparable. Dan Stroh: I don't think it w - ever the staff s intention to substitute single family units on a one-to-one basis for the multifamily units. If we were to be able to put into effect some of the single family recommendations we are looking at, it would provide for, I believe, something°on the order of 200 or 250 units of single family. . .ioot sure of the exact number. . .but versus. . .we were recommending to reach the rCouncil 's 20 percent target on multifamily taking of€ something�. on the order of 950 or 960 units or so of multifamily. I don't have the precise figures. I was never my intention to really have a one-to-one swap of taking multifamily areas development off;and being able to replace it with single family. The single family is so much more intensive. . .or uses so much more land per 4nitt,,,,, .t, is not really possible to do that. We have been aware . certainly of the affordability repercussions of anything we dog that would modify the housing market, and that is a concern, 4nd it is an important concern of the study. 4 • • Kent Planning Commission Minutes { August 14, 1989 ���' Elmira Forner: What do you feel (unclear) multifamily and not the single family. Dan Stroh: I think that. . .sawveral things on thatorit. one is that we are doing some things other than the site- -ific analysis on the single family to address the single family iiic rusagement and that some of those potentially could actually help i6'bolster the single family market and provide for additional. .,.sort of spur the market on for single family development in Rent:' !Oo some degree the affordability question is a little bit differant, for the two markets, because many of the people who are in . . . hot everybody, but many people that are in multifamily don't hoirejth6 option of becoming single family occupants. And so. . .and ii`i ' not the case across the board. Some people could have the 'opbi of becoming single family owners or renters and choose to live i�"multifamily, but for a large portion of the population that lives in multifamily, they don't have that option, so what we 'do with single family really doesn't directly impact the afford""-I,i�y of their housing. They were talking about what happens with the`"hultifamily rents. � Commissioner Uhlar-Heffn2r: What happens (unclear)" notification on East Hill since you had this change in scope. ' Dan Stroh: What we have done on East Hill and becausS these things have to be done so far in advance, we have alread 'I all that into play. The 200-foot radius and the list of afto ad properties includes only the multifamily properties. . .multit' lyy properties that have been studied and the 200-foot radius frome 'multifamily properties, and the report only deals only with tho' ;multifamily areas. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffngr: `One other question* "Do you (unclear) mail and update of what the housing (unclear) as far aspencouraging single family housing. Dan Stroh: Sure. 'This has really been a year of ou6sing in the Planning Department. We've had a whole series of t 4Ags going on. We had the committee, as you-' are well aware, that *t to discuss and come up with strategies for the updated housing`, ent. They met last fall and that resulted in the new housin' q #t ent of the comprehensive plan. Subsequent to that we havb '34 ?'three other committees appointed all dealing with housing. We Iwjdlone meeting on assisted housing, one meeting on the issue of'9' rO`Up homes, and we had one meeting on the issue of encouraging ;single family development. They have all been meeting simultanacly and are all pretty much into their deliberations. The Single P*'i .y Committee is at a stage where they are beginning to actually, develop some 5 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 recommendations on actions, so we could send you kind of a digest of where they are at and what kind actions they are looking at. Commissioner Uhlar Hpffner: �n a -way it makes sense to delete looking at site-specific cone4k;no for single family (unclear) recommendations for single family parcels until the Single Family Committee comes up with (unclear recommendations. Chair Martinez: Okay. Thank YOU. ' Dan Stroh: Stephen Clifton is going to follow me, and along with providing some response to things heard last week, he also has a digest or summary of, the actual comments themselves that is an easier way than reading all theyarbatim transcript to review what people said last week. Stephen Clifton: Hi. My name44 Stephen Clifton. I am with the Kent Planning Department and 4i am here to partially respond regarding the last, meeting's comments. We had 13 speakers at the last meeting and one submittal via a phone call which I received and I submitted the comments to the Planning Commission. Most of the speakers were against the singlefamily recommendations to rezone the two areas, SF4 and Srf, to Single Family R1-5. Many of the speakers. . .there were four. . .the recommendations of rezoning the multifamily land to a lower , nsity. Some of the issues which were raised were opportunities. .,this was by Mr. Mike Larson, the loss of opportunity to builk, affordable housing, need for multifamily housing and wants a .portunity to serve these people, and that was for Multifamily Ar4aa 2, which is on the northwest corner of the Kent Highlands lakAdfill. Other residents who were against the R1-5 zoning, their7'concerns were regarding traffic, regarding school overcrowding, water supply, utilities, police patrol and a couple of peo;4e who were worried about the devaluation of, their homes due t4 RI-5 zoning next to their larger lots. What you have before ypu is a summary sheet of their concerns and, like Dan had mentioned, that is a lot easier than reading the minutes. To respond,,to those issues, I did talk to the Kent School District and the tiaeral Way School District once again, and some of the Kent city.*egns were very concerned. . .but Kent Schools don't serve Kent, residentp or Rent students. Unfortunately that is beyond our control. ThoWmentioned to me that the people who do define those boundaries a the State Boundary Review Board and the Educational Service Dia"trict. The stater divides those areas into service districts , ,and both work at trading the boundaries for these dietricts.>,.,, I asked her what we could do as a city as far as �nfluencing the boundaries or how to define the boundaries for the school districts. Unfortunately it is beyond our jurisdictional control. She, Said that these boundaries can be f ,i Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 amended or changed, but it is an extremely difficult process and it is very lengthy and whether or not they will be ,changed is another issue. Part of the problem is that school districts are not synonymous with city boundary districts. The ,tity of Kent, especially up on the West Hill, is serviced by the R*ghXine School District, the Kent, School District and the Feder*1 'Way School District. As far as cities being able to agree wit# .Qne another as far as what density are we going to get in this area, and what density are you going to provide in that area, in ,or4er! to get the proportion of kids to fit in certain schools, it is extremely difficult to do. More county or regional planning,„weds to take place. Unfortunately that doesn't happen right ftoV4,, I did do a break down of how many students would go to schos As a: result of our recommendation. With the�zulti family reductions Vey would have a reduction of around 37 students, and that is within the Kent School District. It is estimated that with ioalt4f*mily units approximately .405 students per unit is the calculation that they use. So for 90 some units we would have a reduction -of around 37 students. Now with the single family recommendations, of course if we are not looking at single family areas at tbJX time, there is no reason to address it, but I think I should since there are people here who are from the West Hill area. In the ;ateas SF4 and SF6, those students go to Federal Way School Districts. We would have an increase of 22 students with those recommegtions. So overall for the West Hill area, we would have a reduqti4n of around 15 students. The increase would go to Federal Way+Schadl District, and the decrease would be taken away from the Kent,'Sc ool District. I tried to get a hold of Federal Way School District; officials, but I did not receive any calls back from them s40 4afortunately, I could not tell you as to whether or not thesestu400ts would be able to be accommodated in those schools. It VoUld equal 12 students for Star Lake, five students for Totem Jui$ior High, and four students for Thomas Jefferson High School. So yoot can see it is only a few students per school. But just to i.et,l',pieople know, that would be the breakdown. We did have another gcrtpei�n .regarding notification. These were people in area SF5 pr$aa�rily. We did find the errors is to why those people werq; *wt notified. Subdivision activity had been input into the systr tlbut somehow those parcels. . .those people who mentioned that,LA,t#ey did not receive notice were not put into the system, sm � have taken measures to rectify the situation. We would just-alike to thank people for bringing that -to our attention, because 0 we are going to have any kind of mailing system in the future,•th is efficient and effective, we need to know about these things. 'f Chair Martinez.: Stephen, a question that I :,ha *4e, is did you identify the problem just as .:far as West Hill, of is,,it so that we can fix it for all the other mailings. 7 0 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Stephen. Clifton: So far-we did t4entify it for only the West Hill. it is very likely that we ,won't find out about the East Hill or the Valley Floor until the hearings.., Then if there are any mailing mixups or if the -numbers wren't »into the computer system, we'll find out at that time. It is impossible to find out at this time whether or not. . . Chair Martinez: Who is responsible for inputting that information? Stephen Clifton: We take our,,-information off King County tax rolls, and then in addition to that we also input information from people who haves done ,short plats�.so that, for instance, they have one parcel of land and they short, plat that into five parcels, we take that information and put it .into the computer system. So it is . . . the majority of it is taken from the Ring County tax rolls, and another part of it is taken-' from our GIS Information System because we input the short platfJnto that. voice is unclear. +T atephen Clifton: According to.what we are required to do, we are required only to notify people., vithin a 200-foot radius of the affected areas, and so we also .Ai.d advertise for this meeting -in the paper as well and we did a4rtise for the other meeting in the Times. And we did talk with�Teople who -did not see it in the Times, but we had other people : o said that they did see it in the 'limes. So it was in there. w.. We used several types of methods of advertising. Okay. Let's som. In regard to the multifamily areas then, as Dan had mentioned;,, that is what we are hoping you agree with as far as looking at..the areas at this time. I dial break down some figures to help,you with further analysis. With the West Hill recommendations, of reducing two areas from MRM to MRG and one area MRH to MRGt we.would have a reduction of around 535 vehicle trips pir day for the a three areas. Obviously without the single family being analyzed at this time or recommendation taken on those single family arteas, the increase there would be insignificant , at this time. :31ust for your information, the difference between the single fa11.y increases and the multifamily increase was a reduction of" around only 180 some vehicle trips. So, I would like to address. .r .exise me, I already did address the student population and where thetAtudents would go. In looking at all areas combined--West Hill, East Hill and Valley Floor--we would have a city-wide reduction, and ;phis is important to ,know because you need to know how the West �Hill fits into this, city-wide reduction of as many as , 6,115 vehicle trips per day. And so the West Hill constitutes 5.35 of those trips. 8. Kent Planning Commission Minutes , August 14, 1989 { (Voice unclear) Stephen Clifton: That was when you combined the multifamily decreases with the single famdly increases in vehicle trips. (Voice unclear) :y Stephen Clifton: 6;115 are the total vehicle redo+ i�nsl city wide. When you look at multifamily reductions city wide. (Voice unclear) Stephen Clifton: Correct. And I quickly also did some calculations right before this meeting and when y*u do not analyze the single family areas. . .before we were looking et ,111,31 percent increase in potential single family units over what would be allowed under existing zoning. Under the recommendation of only looking at multifamily units, that drops to 9 percent, so you only have a reduction of 2.31 percent, so you can see, tt' the single family zoning or the single family areas in Aich we were recommending single family increases was only 2.31 percent of that. So you can see that most of the increases are,' Co ing from the multifamily reduction, and with that reduction the ;,s,.ingle family increases on that multifamily land, Okay. I believe that is all I have at this time unless you have any other questions. Chair Martinez: Thank you. t Stephen Clifton: You're welcome. Chair Martinez: A couple of things before we begltv. The first one is that we are working under the rules of the Appearance of Fairness which was explained to us last time, but,.,that is that whatever needs to be said to the Commissioners ae ito be said in this forum add not outside, because we Oill ask the Commissioners report back and things get confusing. 41,oSo, say what you have to say to' us tonight. The second thing ins i that there should be a list going around. . .a sign-up list, • Has it been around? And has everyone who wanted to speak sign"? , Fred Satterstrom: Has everyone had an opportunLty to ,sign this? Chair Martinez: If you are interested in getting any additional mailings as we go along, we also use that list for , ople who want to get minutes of the proceedings and that sort Hof Abing. So, you can indicate whether you want to speak. (unclear vrb*ces) Elmira would you like to make a comment. {; 9 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Elmira Forner: At the last meeting there were two people in the audience, Cindy McReynolds and male Dodrill had asked me to get them information. Cindy had asked for information on why her child had to go to a school in Federal, Way, when she was. in Kent, and Mr. Dodrill had asked for information on how the boundaries were formed. And I actually got information from the state and did send that to them in the mail with a correspondence, but it only had to do with school formation and sty their kids went to a certain school district. Chair Martinez: Now we would like to hear from the public. The first one is Jane Kolar. Jane Kolar: Good evening Commis*ioner Martinez and members of the Planning Commission. � I am Jane Kolar and represent Kentview Properties, Inc. My address is 18th Floor, Pacific Building, Seattle 98104. At the hearinga ybich you last conducted about the rezone process you stated that ylau-had adopted a very generalized approach to the rezone process.. And I think that it is important to clarify that when you are engaged in a planning process or a legislative process, such as aiding your comprehensive plan, it is perfectly permissible to have a generalized sort of process where you don't delve into a- site-by-site analysis of the properties you are going to rezone. However, in a rezone process Washington law obliges you to „do a very intensive site-by-site analysis of the properties which are going to be rezoned. Under Washington law a rezone process, whether its an area-wide rezone or a site-specific rezone, is a quasi-judicial proceeding. Washington law is very, very protective of the rights of individual property owners. And because of that they say even if you are rezoning, oh gosh, there are ca*".. .let's see, Woodcrest involves 500 acres, they say that is ail area-wide rezone and its quasi- judicial proceedings. There is;:a case involving 900 acres. the Washington courts say :yes, th. ; is a quasi-judicial proceeding. In some jurisdictions. . .in some, her states area-wide rezones are legislative proceedings, but no* in Washington. So I think—by virtue of the fact that-, a razor proceeding is characterized as a quasi-judicial proceeding, .your.have to accord the,;property owner certain due process protection.,,, And those protection Include a quasi-judicial hearing before the zoning classification of property is changed. Now quasi-judicialp roceeding. . .hearing is basically a hearing where the property o"6r has notice, a full opportunity to present all evidence bearing-,.on the rezone, an opportunity to cross examine opponents of the :rezone or proponents of the rezone, whatever his position is, and a1ftll opportunity to be notified of the date on which this prodding will take place and the opportunity to have the decision, maker to enter written findings and conclusions that specifically support that rezone or the denial 1.0 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 .',, of that rezone. Because a rezone in Washin9t pp,-,: p1 a quasi- judicial proceeding even when it is an area-wJ4e-,, ,,"zone, it is imperative that the Planning Commission, when yapli"ate going to rezone property, accord the property owner a full + uapi-judicial hearing. And consider very .carefully legal regpi-rq nts imposed by Washington law and by the Kent Municipal Cqo, , the rezone process. Before a property, can be rezoned in T a*** #on and in Kent, certain legal requirements have to be met. In,,,,Fact the,Kent Municipal Code actually has more rezone requ 'e;ftents than Washington law. And you ,have to meet both , ei� of these requirements. In the Kent Municipal Code the,',;rq irements are codified at Section 15.09, and the Washington leg requirements are that the proponent of the rezone has the burdonn� proof. That means that the proponent has to come forward withjall kinds of evidence showing that the rezone is justified« , There is presumption of validity accorded to the present, zoning status of property. So if you are rezoning property, its ipu ,a really big deal. You've got to come in and you've gpt� �o show that circumstances have substantially changed at the *,",, and in the area of the site and that the present zoning claeaif,i, tion of the property is no longer justified because of a subpta 4Al change in circumstances. You've also got to .show that the r4o ie is in the public interest, you've got to show that the , Me 4 is of the particular parcel of property is in compliance .t ; S,BPA. Then the City has to enter findings and conclusion4ii specifically supporting the rezone of the ,particular parcel of aperty. And you've got to give the property owner a quasi- j;-4 +ni�l� hearing. Kent Zoning Code also is very, very protective o i�;, a right of individual property owners. The reason that Kent.,, ;created the office of hearing examiner is to inject more due,*VV_pcOss into the administrative land use regulatory process. The ;adlinance which creates the office of hearing examiner states tit* the hearing examiner is to provide and I quote from the ordinta a, greater of due process in land use regulatory hearings. ordinance also says the purpose of the office of hearing a*iner is to separate land use policy , formulation fro*i, , h land use administrative process. Now the land use ,admin t4ve process is when you apply specifics provisions of the ' fig text to specific parcels of property. So, we are dealing, n then you are sitting and contemplating , making a recommen t4onl � about map amendments, you are performing a land use regulat�o �fupaction. Now the hearing examiner ordinance and the ordinance,'1wilaW preates the Planning Commission and defines your authority,, s that the planning process should be separated from thw, Ind inistrative process. So the way the City of Kent is set; r the Planning Commission, it envisioned that this body would iconsidering policy changes and making planning decision, bOt,�{0,6t, a separate body would implement these policies and apply;;, ito specific li e Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 parcels of property by doing map4bendments, and that office is the hearing examiner, which perforze administrative functions. There is a problem with this present O*ocess. Chair Martinez: Can I 'ask a ' stion. * I seems that you may be arguing with the wrong people, d it may be well stated that you want this on the record; however we have been directed by the City Council, who also looks at the hearing examiner's proceedings and we have also had it research by the City" Attorney, as I understand it, before we were -'erected to do that. And I don't know whether you're right or wing. I do know what our task is, though. Jae Koler: For the record, since we have been deprived of a hearing before a hearing ex-amirAr, which your zoning code states you have a right to if you have'#property which is being rezoned, I'd like to state some specific. ;pt0bb'lems which I see with ordinance 2796 which interests the Planhing Commission in this specific instance with the function Hof, performing a regulatory function. It states that the Planning •Com*4,esion when implementing a rezone which involves the municipal policy of reducing the density of multifamily development that the Planning Commission rather than the hearing examiner will consicWt such rezone decisions, such map amendments. It 'is 0ontrary to lava due process is what we are dealing with to accord citizen " in most circumstances with the right to a hearing before that, hearing examiner before theit property rights are chahgedo and then to single out one specific instance in which you say well, this is a different kind of rezone. It still involves a rezone, it dtill involves a map amendment, but we are changing the process ri4ht now. For these hearings the Planning Commission is going' to bonduct the hearings, you are not going to be given opportunity t6 come in and present a bunch of evidence, cross examine the ci*. It's a different proceeding. It offends due process to do that. You have ``-to accord equal process for similar"-types of aett-vitiee. So for map amendments you can't say in some situations we V going to accord citizens a right to have a hearing 'before the heering examiner, and in this one specific instance we're' abandorrl-A#' that procedure. We are ignoring the zoning code. We're ignorirq the provisions in the ordinance creating the office • of hea.rin+jN -examiner. We're ignoring the provisions in the ordinance creating the Planning Co aission which state that the planning function,** the regulatory function should be separate, and we're going ahead' and enact this new procedure which provides for a' sort of different process. So there's a constitutional problem with 'tha •,ordinance which has directed you to hear amendments concerning moo amendments, and it is contrary to other provisions' of the 'munIA i:pal code. Because this rezone significantly affects the -° owners of Kentview Properties and 1� Kent Planning Commission Minutes d August 14, 1989 significantly changes their property rights, them '`development rights, they are requesting officially that they be accorded a hearing before the hearing examiner and to hav;, �ord '' , the hearing examiner consider this rezone. So as part of rye tonight I'd like the record to reflect this official req l�# W,6 are making to the city. There are a few other considerate. I d think that must be considered, and one of those is gff!k*b+e housing. Everybody. . .when you read the papers you see the ttsjing cost of single family housing is a great concern. And cer '*inly a lot of people in other years who would purchase single fati;lylhousing are forced to live in multifamily housing. And there is a strong concern that there be affordable multifamily housin . The City of Kent beginning, oh gosh I guess, in about (uncloar =�Ibas radically reduced the amount of property that is available for; multifamily development. They rezoned a lot of property along a- Green River for agricultural use, which was a holding zon6` tot, more intense future development, including multifamily de!00l, ent. That property no longer is available. Now you are re # q' the density which is allowed in multifamily zones, and I thi" ' ' that all of these decisions are going to create a sort of� I�� gue' ss a fancy bedroom community without much affordable multifami fir housing: So it is important to remember that when you rezone property, there is a public interest in having. . .you have to shb 4tkha.t it serves the public interest. Certainly there is a stroi4 1il.ic interest in having affordable multifamily housing availabl*. ' Also, there is a lot of talk about not being sufficient, you"know there are transportation problems and that sort of thinglk , Whenever a developer does a development, you always can impose mitigation through SEPA on that developer and have them proN44e4e=,Avkfrastructure improvements that are necessary. Kentview Pro ties is very concerned about this process and about having their �b ity reduced simply because they are very close to the landfill.'; site, and that will perhaps be h hardship on their abilities 6 develop the property, will make it more expensive, ' and 'thiey'-',A're certainly interested in having the maximum amount of density -that they can at that site. Does anyone have any questions? Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I do. You have t7#e0e procedural concerns about the staff recommended site-speR;cifjti alternatives for multifamily properties, do you have the 4'"o procedural objections to the text reduction which is �tl' =*Z1, ss-the-board reduction multifamily by 20 percent, irx�i + ss of site characteristics. ' '� � Jane Koler: Okay. The text reduction. . .I haVoiil, ll�ooked at that specifically. . .the Planning Commission does he , e''authority to enact text amendments. You don't have the aut rrity under the zoning code to enact map amendments. If the text *endment amends 13 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 the zoning map, them it seems,,to me, that we are dealing with something that is tantamount to•.:� map amendment. Com gissione Unhlar_-ijeffner; ,-text reduction, as I understand it, is simply following the ordiiOnce Which instructs the Planning Department to reduce across-the-board multifamily housing by 20 percent. So it is not looking, at' site characteristics. Jane oler: I think that is, , ,�lly when you get into that sort of text amendment it is really ntamount to amending the zoning map. Commispioner U_hlar-H9, ne : So,-, ,you would see that as Amending ' the. . . !;Ea,De oler: Whenever you chance, development rights, there is a long line of cases stating that you've got to have a hearing, because the property owner hap, wen, paying taxes, he's purchased the price in reliance on zoning` classification. So when those rights are changed, he has, to haa0 the opportunity to come forward and present all the evidence that he wishes to. Commissioner _F rD=: You re not questioning the hearing, you're just questioning us acting as a wring. . . Jane Kole r: I'm questioning rwt having a hearing before the hearing examiner. k4fi; Commissioner Forner: But this ii ;a hearing. Jane Koler: But this is differea�' than when you can come in with experts and you can spend as muchltime ,as you need to, like cross examining the members of the city that are presenting conclusions, like. . .there are some very inter"ting conclusions of this whole rezone proposition." Commissioner Forneri So you are , stioning this as acting as a. . . Jane Koler: Quasi-judicial hear*q- CommissioneX Forner: l haue onq, re question. You i4entioned an RCW at the beginning.. Do you ;have th+e number of that RCW that you quoted. . .the state Jane Koler: The state require s on the rezones process. You find the state requirements are arilculated in cases beginning with Parkridge v Seattle. let me get yogi the citation. . .Do you want the citation for these. 14,- 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes ald' "A ` August 14, 1989 ` 9a� commissioner Former: What general topic would it b : under. Jane Koler: ' lt's 89 Washington 2nd page 444. � I ho*e ``it over at my seat. I can correct that. This is an area ViW6' stand that the city justifies as being a legislative proceeding, on the basis that it is an area-wide rezone. Woodcrest Investar*,,$s' a court of appeals case, and it very squarely addresses the''U e� of whether a rezone which covers an area is a quasi-judicial, prvideeding, and the conclusion of that case is yes. And I can also. ! .I'll just give you a note that has the citations. Then the bity has also said that this is legislative, because the zoning ada� ' ' nts. . .the map amendments were initiated by the city. But' +y v Kitsap County addresses this issue in its annexation zoninf.'' � It is city initiated, and it is even initial zoning which is;3 hjq imposed on property which is being annexed into the city. U4 ' e; court very clearly says because specific property rights 61+0 itore affected than the rights of the populace at large, we've :,q'ot to consider this a quasi-judicial proceeding. It just se that these proceedings are so protracted. They'll be at ithe Planning Commission and then they will go on to Councils a - 1 think it makes good sense to do it right because it is, affe ing property owners' rights, so why not have hearings before h rlhg� examiners. Or else if you want it before the Planning Commission, I think there is a problem with having a Planning Commission hearing simply because your Planning Commission ordinance and =-your hearing ordinance are so emphatic about separating the planning and zoning functions, the planning and administrative functiona4, twat I think that is a real problem the way Ordinance 279&.. 4 ines those functions. Commissioner Forper: Probably this is rhetoric, but, you say that the Planning Commission cannot act as a quasi-judicial committee in this hearing. Jane Koler: The way your ordinances are set , I'like in some cities Planning Commissions do perform. . .they do� donouct quasi- judicial administrative hearings. In Kent you ham to have set your ordinances up so that the Planning Cou*$$i a performs planning functions, policy-making functions, and t1 the hearing examiner performs administrative functions. Then�,"*en you think about it, it makes good sense because policy deois pno everybody is all fired up about and they want to see th4*;+ implemented straight across the board. Hearing examiner has a ,little bit more distance from the planning process and he is able4to * ty, well now, is it fair to apply this policy in this situation. 'f's consider all the characteristics of this particular pr and balance those against the city's need to apply these new? dtas. And it can work the opposite way. . . the property owner d111b4 "ying yeah, 15 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 yeah I want my property to be rezoned, and the hearing examiner can be balancing and say wait, this is what the comprehensive plan says about this area. This is what #be city's planning objectives are for this area and balancing' th ; with interest. Commissioner Forner: But apps►rptly the municipal code says that we could, otherwise we wouldn't °lxaye,been given this job. So you think the state. . , - Jane Koler: No, not the stat, the city impermissible enacted Ordinance 2796. That's the 6zdinance which entrusts you with performing this quasi-judicial function. I think that in doing that, you know, first of all,, there Is a problem with having different processes for a map amendment. For saying to most of the citizens in Kent, yes, if yr want a map amendment, you get to have a hearing before the hearing examiner, which usually those hearings last two or three houa . Then to say but if the rezone consider. . .if the map , amendment pertains to the reduction of multifamily density, then you 'have to go before the Planning Commission, everybody is going to be given 10 minutes to speak and that's your fair hearing. So tre are inherent problems with the task that you have been asked ,, to perform, because you are not considering all the charactegistics of all the individual properties. That would be tod 'tough. I think that's whir Kent divided the planning functions , rom the administrative functions. Commissioner Forner:, We'll hav*,Yto go back to the legislative body and ask if we are legal. Chair Mai, inez: We have, actually. Commissioner_ t-filar-Heffner: lust one more question. You are representing which property owners. Vane Kole r: Kentvier Propertie , ,Inc. Kentview Properties Inc. , they own the- Kent Highlands siii,. Commissioner Mlaar, Heffner: T t'-s Multifamily Area Two. Jane Ko er: Yes. And because his is adjacent, the property they own is adjacent to the, Cent Hiq nds, they are very concerned with having a decision maker consi�, all the complexitie's there are at this site rather than just,hav+w sort of a generalized approach to map amendments in this case. co-m-missiQner Gam : Apt oximately three gears ago or sib, remember, Kent Highlands spons ' d a large contingent before the Planning Commission and they ,Y1 engineers, lawyers, experts that 1g Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 0 had done landfills from San Francisco, up the coamt� U of W, and so they recognized the Planning, Commission back thdo0japd addressed them as so. . . about six so-called experts, and g dFt hear the , statements that you are makes then. ,bane Koler: I can't comment on what they said, then+?; Commissioner Greenstreet: All I amp saying ' i*,,i;A*at the Kent Highlands was the owner of that property and haL ;a Very large, almost a community such as the Lakes that he wawvv4,isri:oning, and so they recognized the Planning Coamaeission back . ; I am just putting that in. You arei making your start " and just remembered this owner before had approached, body in, a different way. ,;#�; Jane Koler: I guess I have very strong feeling sett this. I have been involved with a zoning appeal of patt,, ,,of the Kent Highlands property, and if your zoning code , p#W, a.des for a procedure, it makes a lot of sense to go with ' ttt procedure, because why spend the city's time and money on an oxive appeal : ,�process, and why spend the property owner Is timea eyy. There is better stuff to be doing with money than grifidi 'through the Washington court systems. Commissioner Greenstreet: one question I guess I'd JAave is asking Fred if we can just follow through on the procedu s that we've been going through on this and she can address thj*iA#: another way. Chair Martinez: As I understand it, we have already4ddressed that with. . .the Council addressed that before it camo*eto fca . Is that correct? Fred Satterstrom: You can stay closer, Jane. Peaaps something I say will spur some thought on your part. For;' UjOi record I am Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager in the PlanniAq Oppartment. I want to have the Planning Commission rest assured *h*t the City staff and the City' Council have reviewed the o: rAi npe that Ms. Koler has cited to you that authorizes the Planniapq ,Commission to hold hearings on this zoning,matter. : our city_ati;6*aoy. basically drafted the ordinance that directs the Planning-Coo4stion to hold these hearings. The City feels, the admai.nistrattow.tools that the process it has directed the Planning Commission to,t4p is in fact a legal one. It is not unprecedented either. done the same process of having the Planning Co>mmissionE !�, i' 1 ;the public hearings on zoning six or seven years ago in coro ion with the agricultural zoning on the west and south sides of, �t1 been River. We did it also in conjunction with the subarea a up on East Hill where the Planning Commission rezoned a numb' ,!of commercial 17 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 properties out there. Ms. Xcrbar has suggested that perhaps a separate hearing be, done on each: separate piece of property, and really were that the ideal situation, I think . . .or if that were feasible, then perhaps we could 4a-that. If we fully analyzed 744 vacant and underdeveloped parceX:a, and were we to hold individual hearings on each one of tho €, ,individual parcels which are scattered throughout the city iv, all of the three subareas, we'd be here until doomsday holdingwl'h wrings in front of the hearing examiner. The Council directed -the planning, Commission to do this study for good reason, and that is because you have a broader, more general approach to these matters. The city believes it is a legislative type of process atA erne that would designate the Planning Commission to hold the-hearings on. So we can look* at it through that broader prospective. So I would urge the, Planning Commission not to spend too Mch time on whether or not this process is legal or illegal. TUN simple matter of it is that the administration would not have directed the Planning Commission to do it if it didn't think itiwas, the proper process. commissioner, Forner: Still •one ;question. Is there a, passibility of it being challenged individually for constitutionality over a technicality. Fred Satterstrom: Certainly. I Mink the opportunity to challenge this action on a number of grooms is available. I don't want to play lawyer here but I leave tit to Jane and the attorneys, but I suspect that a number of prop4 ty owners may in this process be concerned enough certainly to at least hire attorneys to look at it. And the possibility of a laftuit on this as well as countless other matters that the commission may deal with are always susceptible to lawsuits. Jane Kolar: Those sites that',`�you were talking to me about, Parkridge is 89 Washington 2d 4 &41 that reiterates all the basic legal requirements 'imposed on hones. Woodcrest Investments v Skagit County a9 Washington App 2 �addresses the issue of whether an area-wide rezone is legislative or quasi-judicial proceedings and concludes that it is a quasiodudicial proceeding. I can't ask you to analyze the legal merits * ,:,-`whether you should be conducting these hearings. I an convinced-tAktithdre are significant problems with this present process,1§ oar4ihance #2796. I would � like to request either a hearing; befoare,,." he Planning Commission, a full hearing where we can present a bu h` of witnesses and cross examine the city's witnesses, because wii'are entitled to •a quasi-judicial hearing. There is no doubt aboift that. Thank you very-much for your patience. :'` q'f" YEA' Y t '7 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Chair Martinez: Thank you. The next person whoahao,,-signed up to speak is Kim Wise. Karey Wise: For the record my name is Karey Wisao,,, 'A! R E Y, and whether it is Karey or Kim, either way I'm he. My, � 4*ss is 26841 Downing Avenue South. I come to this meeting a littlgk bit cold and with quite a bit of tunnel vision tonight. My $kerns deal with parcel SF6. I've been told that the 49*24as" for that development is going to be doing directly ins-:,front of a school. . .the only ingress and egress for that parcal will be directly through a school zone. The main purpoo-o tit my being up here is to request the Planning Council to take a " �,,careful look at the vehicle trips back and forth in front � dt''-0104 school in considering the increased density. Chair Martinez: If we go along with the recommendations that have been made tonight by the Planning Department, ,:, toe' density recommendations will not change in single family p10t` 6. That is the new recommendation that has been brought' ' tO - ihas by the department. Karey Wise: Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you for your concern. Patricia Rommick, unless I've mispronounced it badly. Patricia Rommick: No, I didn't want to speak. Chair Martinez: Are there any other people who hbv4* , signed up to speak tonight. Then I will entertain a motion toa,1066 the public hearing. Commissioner Greenstreet: So moved. Elmira Forner: Seabnd. � Chair Martinez: Discussion. All in favor. Commissioners: Aye Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) Chair Martinez: We� have several things before uwIt4ttIve need to discuss. How would you like 'to start. Commissioner Greenstreet: The proposal made by the9 staff as far as multifamily and not addressing single family. . .I ;'am personally in agreement that it would speed up the process ofa the lWest, East 19 -+ I ---- - Kent Planning Commission Minute* August 14, 1989 and Valley Floor as ,Ian � overall, way , to deal with this. It looks like it would be better for us getting through this and then review the single family, because that seems to be the burden that we have in this. . .West Hill especially. , I'm sure we'll run into it on the East Hill. So I have: no proble - with that recommendation. Comtmissioner.i, gar--Hef her: I would agree with that. I would like to see some recommendati6ns ,y aeom ,the single , Family Housing Committee before we take up thavApsue of single family housing. CgWissigper Forney: I still have the concern, even though I've been assured that the purpose of this is not to trade off apartments for singles family, but I still have some concerns about availability and affordability of single houses if they don't deal with it. Chair Martinez: However,, do you;think that we may be mixing apples and oranges here to the point.wre we would never actually make it through the process. Commissioner Forney: That's probably true. Chair Martinez: That's a concern of mine that we get through the process. . . Commissioner Forney: That we deal with one issue at a time. Chair Martinez: Yes. They aren't going to get any smaller without it. And they will either be brat on, it at a higher density only if we make sure it comes to us Gain. Commissioner Greenstreet: I make a move that we accept the recommendation. . . ;} Chair Martinez: ' With the Oxclusion of the single family consideration. Commissioner Greenstreet: Correct. Chair Martinez: Which reco ' dation. . .we have actually four before us. Commissioner GreenstrMt: WoXj* it did includes adding the 5000 zoning change to the plan, but�, it is not using it in a single family review. 20 i Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 E ' Chair Martinez: Okay. We have no action, we hgve,dite specific reduction, text reduction, or the other which 4-tHwoft� 4.,xactly apply to the West Hill. So which does your motion speak #o. ` Commissioner Greenstreet: I didn't realize that th*;s ,had to deal with these alternative plans* Commissioner Forner: We were just discussing whethe;r,, to deal only with multifamily housing. We weren't discussing','-�wftAOhi. . . Chair Martinez: I thought you were making a motion,jto. . . Commissioner Greenstreet: No, I wasn't. > : Chair Martinez: I'm sorry, I misunderstood. Would,. U ,repeat;your motion again. Commissioner Greenstreet: The motion was at the original start of the hearing was staff made a recommendation ,i at ;wq limit our review to multifamily reduction and the creation of, the 5000 lot size. Isn't that correct? ' Dan Stroh: Yes n Chair Martinez: Just to the multifamily Dan Stroh: (Unclear) Commissioner Forner: I second that motion. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: They did bring up the,,,'-sIpgle family overlay zone that they would like to have that cons4dered as well as the R5. a commissioner Greenstreet: Maybe I should have- that clarified because I'm not sure. . . (unclear) . Stephen Clifton: Stephen Clifton, Kent Planning Pep ,rtment. What we are asking for is only the ,.review of the three amily areas and recommendation on those. We are asking for mme ,Vngle family designated overlay area to be approved. We are as'kizothat the R1- 5 zoning classification not be approved at this� ti , knd to wait for the East Hill hearing instead. We are the text reduction for the West Hill Comp Plan as is stated in the back of the report and the comp plan changes in rega ,�'Jto the three multifamily areas. 21 Ai 'Y Kent Planning Commission Minutes' August 14, 1989 Commissioner ,Greenstreet: I'm; gaging to table my :notion just because it is,more complicated: , Chair Martinez: Will you move tq table it? Commissioner Greenstreet: The overlay, are we addressing WH-12? Chair Martinez: Just a moment. Let me get a second on the tabling before we go any further. Commissioner mar-Heffner: I second that. Chair Martinez: Now where am I . Now you would like, tb discuss. CommissionerGreenstreet: Yeffii I just want to clarify it. I didn't know it was going to be . . . one whole. . .on one motion to decide the whole thing. That was not my intent. Chair Martinez: Why don't you make the motion that you intend. Commissioner Greenstreet: If that's the proper procedure to do it in bits and pieces. Chair Martinez: We can decide. Commissioner Greenstreet: That"s fine. My intent to move that we just address the multifamily, that we create the $000 lot size (unclear) for the single family homes in multifamily-zoned areas. Those are the two things that I ,thought were the starting blocks. gtgphen__Clifton: Then in additidn to that you do want to make sure that the comp plan reflects the -zoning changes which are taking place. In other words, if you .are changing Multifamily Area One from MRM to MRG, that area would need to be MF24 or 12-24 units an acre. MRG zoning is 16 unites &411r'acre; thereforer it, falls within that range and so therefore that's why you need -to identify that as being MF24. Commissioner F,opng Isn't thtti, a technicality that goes along with the change? m Stephen Clifton: Well, you wantgthe, comp plan and the zoning plan to reflect each other and to ma sure that. . . Commissioner Greenstreet: Thata:;they are in tune with each other. (Unclear) . . .nothing drastic there. 22 �F Di Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Stephen Clifton: You are jpst making sure,; mat„' the two are compatible. Commissioner Greenstreet: Okay. I have no problem *ice that. So part of the motion is that the comp plan ate, i� plan are compatible or reflect one another. ;,; ] Stephen Clifton: • In addition to that you "wo4X,4-�aIso want to address the single family doo*gnated area overla' P ict. Commissioner Greenstreet: See now we are getting,<;-in (unclear) where we are not. . .I don't totally understand. ;; you say the single family overlay, now an I getting off the path. J James Harris: Perhaps that needs to be explaine4o .y am supposed to be up on this stuff and I a little bit confuiet #00. I think what we need to do is go through one step at a t4ma,. tZor instance, we are asking that multifamily only be approved ad ''we are not dealing with any sites specific single family. Tiro, we are asking. . .and I think we are asking 5000 text amertdz#pt,to also be included, although I heard someone say that maybe the could be put off until the East Hill hear$ng. Three, we are s ing also a large overlay that designates where single fami",l , , will be on West Hill. In other words there will be a lines:dr*tinl around and this is a single family neighborhood for West Stephen Clifton: Right. You can turn to page -49, and that shows the single family designated area concept. " James Hargis: The other thing is to bring the ,cam,, 11kn into sync with the thing we are doing also, or the other- ibe in line. Chair Martinez: Can't we do them one at a time 40, there is no confusion about what we are doing. James Harris: Yes, we're giving an overview of whpwl��inip' , are doing. Chair Martinez: By the way, I'd like to go ', back in the minute. . .just a second. We had a move to table a W X,,,had a second. Did I have a vote on it? Voice: No s ' Chair Martinez: I apologize. We should vote _oo, O ,so that, is clear in the record. Commissioner corner: When you table a motion, (on r) bring it up again. . . 23 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Chair Martinez: Nut 'we need to' vote on it. All in favor. Commissionerg: Aye. Chair Martinext Opposed.. (Sil**#c4) Thank you. Now you wanted to make a motion. Commissioner Qr_ee_nz&n eft: The tit-ird time Is a charm. We are goring to go out on number 1, number �4, 'number 3, number 4 and make a motion on each one and approve it. Chair Ma inez: That would prob*bly be the way I Mould recommend whatever way you make the motih`; we'll see what we think. Commissioner ree street: 'hat-mould be my intent. The motion is that we just move on the multifily development sites to disallow the single family problem and46iepazate them and concentrate on single family. ChairMartinez: Is there a sec, d to that? Commissioner 'Forney: Now Youlte just talking West Hill. Let's make sure we understand that. rrM , Chair Martinez: Is there discu ton? All in favor. Commissioners: Aye ` s C it Martinez: opposed. (Silence) Do you want to consider this before you go on to any other motion, which I think would be an excellent idea, because them yoU will know what you are making a motion on. Voices: Sure Chair Martinez: We have three 41ternatives in front of us. We have no action, we have sites s0ic1fic reduction, and we have the text reduction. What is your pliasure? Commissioner F rnar: We are 11 to go site specific. Chair Martinez: We have been told we are and we will act that way until we are told differently. Commissioner Forney: ' If this is{"dust for the multifamily that we are talking about text reduction* Chair Martinez: Yes. We are''',talking about. , ._(un61ear) or no action. Kent Planning Commission Minuteszia August 14, 1989 Commissioner Forner: That mesas that everybody 4 ;°t�e same Chair Martinez: Twenty percent reduction across trh - board. - commissiQner Fo ngr: I move that we adopt the, t+ duction for the multifamily zones on West Hill. ' " Commissioner Greenstreet: Now just let me revi ' ;for $, second'. Chair Martinez: Is there a second. Anne Biteman: I'll second that. Chair Martinez: Now the text reduction will be 20 09rcent across the board for all sites zoned multifamily. Commissioner Greenstreet: Now I'm looking at Multi ' mlily Area 1, 2 and 3 proposed zoning change on WH-19. Chair Martinez: Okay, I'm looking at 18. A Commissioner Greenstreet: And when you are loco ipg at that (unclear) . . .text. Chair Martinez: No, that is site specific. 5 Commissioner Greenstreet: Site specific. And the sa ei'when I look at WH-22, that's site specific also. Chair Martinez: That's correct. Commissioner Greenstreet: Okay. I guess my questloo is why do you prefer text to sites specific. Commissioner Former: Because it is more equitab b'. Everybody reduces 20 percent and you then don't get into the,h sle of saying you have made me do 'more and why did you make thi ' reduce more than that one. Everybody, is treated equally. Re4uc1 20 percent across the board. . .all multifamily. Chair Martinez: I would hasten to remind you - is why we have it back because the Council disagreed wit4; dear) . Commissioner Fornek: And you don't get in "' individual differences of why one would have to reduce more -1the other. Commissioner Greenstreet: I know when we were doingpItk, basically the theme of most of the people that we've heard is�;'Tat they are 25 Rent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 trying to establish .the quality; of - their neighborhood, and site specific seems^ to be more in tree with the neighborhood which is single family. Because there ,tan It on the hest Hill that much multifamily, and so to have a loss density is really into the flow of things than to be concentraCd. We've heard everything from moratorium where there ,is no ",building and less traffic, less crowded schools. . .everything points to less dense from everything we've heard. . .other than affordable housing. That's the only argument I've heard for more density. In (unclear) multifamily intent, I think the affordable y#ousing Kent has done its share. The community has done its sha,re. . .the schools, the roads and everybody that has to dead withh that problem are feeling that the community is doing more than its share. Commissioner Forner: we're just talking about the Vest Hill now. Commissioner Gr`g tMat: Right- _I'm on the West Hill traffic and schools. 1 . Commissioner Forne : So you r4commend that we goamore than 20 percent. Is that not enough? Commissioner Greenstreet: Looking at the sites specific plan and looking at the density there and I feel that is more acceptable. Chair Martinez: You feel it is more acceptable because it reduces density more or for other reasc . Commissioner Greenstreet: Thit is one of the reasons because of the way it affects the whole community. . ,overcrowded schools, hour-- late bussing. Commissioner Forner: But it doesn't reduce it more, does it. Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: It�,dods. Text reduction achieves an overall reduction of 3600 units. and the sites specific achieves 35. I'm sorry you hre right. Commissioner ForH2r: But that vias .including single family. Commissioner Uhlar-, He U: But .th4t is broken out separately. 'hair Martinez: But if you' look; at the totals, one of them. . . is this correct, staff. . .there is 4bout 85 more units. . . (unclear) two more here, nine more there and 40;more there. , .about 50 more in the sites specific for the reduction. Is that correct? 26 Kent Planning Commission Minutes �n August 14, 1989 Dan Stroh: There are more reductions for the et;,t#X area for these three areas that would be put into effeo ;,,.vt4 ; the sites specific reduction. Because ,we are going from Okxily Area 1, we are going from the current MRM zoning, MediuX J, o #y, down to Garden Density, that's 23 down to 16. Straight 124 "'l;C nt would be 23 down to 19. MF Area 2 in West Hill we are rgpo�ding going from MRM, Medium Density, down to MRG, again 23 gp. ,4; pr acre down to 16. Area 3 MRH, -High Density, recommending alc.*" ray down to Garden Density, that's 40 down to 16. In this ,p Xt uJar area it is a greater reduction. The city totals. . .whea- yO%it look at the city totals of course, our end result was to f t�A,,, trfAerent ways of achieving the bottom line 20 percent. So you a#,ffit take more off in one area and less off somewhere else, but it, all juggled to produce a bottom line 20 percent impact. So t ' is why the city totals look the same. In this particula, °;c a = the sites specific will take a little more than 20 percent, West Hill. Commissioner Foner: And thsother thing, I would er have the West Hill have more -apartments than the East Hill,,, Q*Ose they are closer to transportation, they are closer to thq frastructure rather than having to provide more services �R ',' part of the infrastructure further out in the rural area. , :T _.',think good planning promotes higher densities nearer public Iran pcprtation and facilities. a Commissioner Greenstreet: But that's just a philopj y. You can talk to one group of people. . .planners and they o4ibil Oay that at this intersection concentrate your people. You can get another group of planners and they at this intersection there,-v(ill be more people stopped at a traffic light, interacting and everything should be built off so that there is more view, mare-,,light because there is so many people there and things are bu :Llt,,4w�ky from it. So you can get two groups of people saying two, dif*Or ant ways to build. I'm not saying either one is right, but in is situation I happen to lean toward less,. When I review Eas# 14 „might not be site specific. on the overall plan and for the' good of the community West Hill; East Hill, Valley Floor, thlpl,p�eh I think is the best for the West Hill. If it's good for tlj ,i Mill, then I think it would be good for, all of Kent. If 1-2—J 'll reduces, I'm not saying add ,the people to East Hill. ' , aying that at all. I'm looking at it strictly at the pla4l, West Hill, a quality community. And for those people, a N,,eciools, that traffic, I think it's the best approach. Commissioner Forner: I disagree. Chair Martinez: The thing that has been uppermost , 4y mind when I 've been looking at this are things such as. . ., ra sPortation is 27 Kent Planning Commission Minute August 14, 1989 already in all three of these areas where we are talking about text reduction at level I and F. ' 'And you may say that there are transportation sites there, but in fact they are almost to capacity at the present time. Simply by, gbIng with the sites specific, it would seem to me that. . .I have tb admit in the overall city, the West Hill is not going to bear{ 4A brunt of (unclear) multifamily. It seems to me that we need to take into consideration that with an even hand theso- same kinds df' factors as we are going to look at the West Hill and at the Valley in that these people are almost at gridlock. They have no sidewalks, in many cases there are other parts of the infrastructure that' don't exist up there. Commissioner Uh1ar -Haffner: I guess I can see where adopting the text reduction across the boardils the most equitable and easiest way of accomplishing this; howei4r, you don't have the options for going from the multifamily -totasidential zoning with an across- the-board 20 percent reducti €. I think that is probably appropriate in ,some cases. We dOn-It have that being brought up, on the West Hill, but we do with the Bast Hill and the Valley Floor. And I guess I'd like to see that-'option made available. And I do like the fact that with 'the sites specific recommendations, the staff did make an attempt to lc ,k at impacts with transportation and impacts on the schools and Vtilities. Where with an across- the-board reduction you don't get that (unclear) analysis. So I guess I would favor the sites specific alternatives for the West Hill multifamily. Looking at those options rather- than' across- the-board text reduction. Chair Martinez: Anne, do you have anything you want to add. gommissioner Bi,temaw I gue s (unclear) I'm not for more apartments on the West Hill, bOt we have to have: them, I guess. So I would like to have the mos� �ardQunt of reduction. Chair Martinez: Is- there a -cal -for the question. Commissioner Qreenstreet:, What! the motion? Chair Ma itiez: . - The motion=,'r before us ' is to accept the recommendation of the text red '*''' which is an across-the-board 20 percent reduction in the thiie multifamily areas that we are looking at. Commissioner for er: We didn't get a second on it. Chair Martinez: - Yes, we did. Anne Biteman seconded it. All in favor. 2'B Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 Commissioners: Aye (Commiss,ioners Forner and Chair Martinez: Opposed. 4;� Commission s: Nay (Coiners Greenstreet;,. effner) r ChairMartinez: I'm looking';for another motion q , Commissioner Greenstreet: I move that we accept tbai0ite specific reduction for West Hill. Commissioner Uhjar,,gffner: ;I second that. p1 Chair Martinez: Is there further discussion. Commissioner Forner: Call for the question. Chair Martinez: All in favor. Commissioners: Aye (Greenstreet, Martinez, Uhlar-Hefg'per, Biteman) Chair Martinez: Opposed. i Commissioner Forner: Nay Chair Martinez: So that is- our recommendation ,og,he density reduction alternative. The, next thing to C04 is the new zoning. Commissioner Greenstreet: Where in the text cou d � a. t be found exactly. Dan Stroh: If I may lead you to pages WH-47 and..-WOJltt 0, at the end of the report are listed out the four actions staff was proposing to be done as part. of the ,review tonight.;, ,. a istill would be proposing that all four of those be accomplibih t6night with the exception, of course of the single family area ',` ir�`j m 4 zoning map amendments. Wd would continue to propose 'that oil_ s 1, West Hill Subarea Plan text amendments be made. Th ,, r needed to bring some of the text in the subarea plan r ' West into conformance with the recently passed housing elegy„ ;,A the city's general comprehensive plan. Item 2, Subarea and nsivd Plan Map Amendments, what these do is they do make ng and the. comprehensive plan maps consistent for the West H 1 ,0 r a. It also includes the creation of the single family design ted, 4rea overlay which we continue to feel would be an appropr,ata' action even without taking the specific zoning action on t .'10 gle family sites. It is designed to really protect the ar , J� Oically the area that is of the single family character on ;;W+ t Hill. The 29 Kent Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 1989 third action on page 'WH-48 is the zoning code amendment creating the R1-5 district. The Commision could take or could not take that action tonight. We don't nxied it for Area 1, 2 or 3, but that would be up to you whether or ndyou want to move on that tonight. Then, of course, the zoning ma ;r endments which, having decided on the specific way of ' doing zoning map amendments with the site specific analysis, you've a� eady partially moved on that one. Chair Martinez: What is the pleasure of the Commission. Commissioner Greenstreet: I moV we create a new zooming district, R1-5. Chair. Martinez: Is there a seed. n o Commissioner Forner: Are you talking about number 3, create a Rl- 5. Chair Martinez: Is there a seco2la. It dies for want- of a second. Commissioner Greenstreet: Okay,, ,number 2. Isn't that the single family area. I move we accept thsi recommendation #2 there. . .single family designated area which is shown on map 49, -WH-49. Chair Martinez: Are you moving-try' amend the West Hill Plan Map to create single family designated Apea overlay and to amend the West Hill Plan Map for implementation to site specific recommendation. . to multifamily ,.;a,rea MF03? Commissioner Greenstreet: Yes. Chair Martinez: Is thereva s ' Commissioner phlA= er: ' I r` ' ond that motion. Chair Martinez: Is there discuion. And we all understand that nothing (unclear) I' don't, knovi Aer-e that is going to be yet. Is there any,discussion on,this. " commissioner.Eon: We've alr*d� `dbne' part of it.' ' All we are doing is saying Is do ' vote We the overlay *hare^' the single families are. ' Call for the ion� Chair Martinez: All. ih ,favor. ' ` Commissioners: Aye ='E Kent Planning Commission minutes 'r �° August 14, 1989 Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) Thank you. ' to amend the West Hill Subarea Plan which we have not don+ ` T , Commissioner Greenstreet: Which is number 1. Chair Martinez: That changes the housing element Andlthe public facilities and services (unclear) . Commissioner orner: I move we amend the West :Rtl� ,_S"area Plan test as proposed in number 1 on page WH-47. Chair Martinez: Is there a second to that? Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: I second that. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion? Commissiongr Forner: Call for the question. Chair Martinez: All in favor. Commissiongrs: Aye Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) The last thing ves3really have to do is make the zoning map amendment to go along w*", ' the motion that we want to go with the sites specific recommwx�atlion. Commissioner Forner: But we' don't have to ame#4 it for single family, we only have to amend it for multifamily.' Chair Martinez: That is correct. Commissioner Forner: I move we amend the xooing map for multifamily areas MF01, 02, and 03. Commissioner Greenstreet: I second. Chair Martinez: Okay. Is there further discussi ? ' Question. All in favor. Commissioners: Aye Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) Motion ca ,,, Dan Stroh: For clarification of that motion. . .wss, U amend the zoning map consistent with the item 4 in the staff- roport which was from the current designations of MRM, MRM and, respectively to MRG for all three areas. 31 I; I Kent Planning Commission Minutest., �i August 14, 1989 Chair Martinez: It is designated can WH-48 in the last paragraph on that page. We have a zotico that was tabled and wo need to bring (unclear) Commissioner For-no r: How do we',," et rid of it? Chair Martinez: How do we get JA4 of it. Don't yoV bring it- up and kill it? Commissioner Greenstkeet: Do yc t need me to withdraw my motion? I withdraw my motion to accept . . .my tabled motion., Chair Martinez: Thank you. I wi:Ad entertain a motion to adjourn. (End of Verbatim Minutes) ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Forner MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Greenstreet SECONDED the motion. Motion carried.. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �'am s P. Harr s, secretary 9d w 32