Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 08/28/1989 4 . KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was collod to order by Acting Chair Stoner at 7:30 p.m. Monday, August 280,, 1989 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Stoner, Acting Chair Anne Biteman Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Leona Orr Raymond Ward COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Linda Martinez, excused Elmira Forner, excused Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning. Manager Dan Stroh, Senior Planner Lauri Anderson, Planner Stephen Clifton, Planner Janet Shull, Planner Scott Williams, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF AREA HOUSING STUDY - WEST HILL Commissioner Greenstreet MOVED and Commissioner Ward SECONDED a motion to approve the Findings and Conclusions .*:f, the Planning Commission for the City of Kent Area Housing Study4 West Hill. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Harris explained that the findings will go to Council and that the Comprehensive Plan is open for amendment 'ate, any time the Council chooses to assign study or when the Planning Commission desires to reopen the issue. It is permanent onlrp until further study is requested. Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 EAST HILL ZONING IMPLEMENTATION CPZ 89-3 (verbatim Transcript) _ Acting Chair Stoner: We will now open the public ,hearing on the East Hill Housing Study. Because there is such a laage group this evening, I'd like to be very clear about our proceuresd and how we need to do this. First of all, we are going to have about a 15- minute staff presentation so that we are all currontk-and know what the information is, and this may answer many of your questions if you have questions about what is going on. Then I will be interested in hearing testimony from you. There is, a� sign up sheet circulating, and 'I will call people off that sheet:- until 10:00. At 10 o'clock if we have not heard from everyone, we,-Will make a decision. . .if there are just a couple of people lent, we will finish. If there are more people left, then I thank, we will move to continue the meeting, and we will give you the date at that point when the next meeting on this issue will bex I want to make it clear that we are operating under Appearance of Fairness guidelines for this set of hearings. What that, se"wis that we need everybody's comment as part of the recoxd. .Ve need your comments and your testimony on the record, so we. ,weaOt you to come to the podium, use the microphone so we make sure we have a clear record and a tape of what has happened and 'we , khow what your, concerns and questions are. The other thing I would ask you to do, if you have questions, if you have items you want .cl,# rified, would you please direct your questions to the chair. We.�Oen will ask staff to clarify for you, but that is another matter that will make things go more smoothly. At this point. . .I assume.tbe signup sheet is circulating. We will circulate that and we have ; e people on it and we will start with the staff presentation. James Harris: Madam Chair, before we get i4o, the staff presentation I'd like to have the Commission enter, into the record three letters we have received. I will quickly go through these. The first letter is from James C. Tracy, Actinq-,,, i ctor of King County Planning and Community Development Divis$+RAU09 the Parks, Planning and Resources Department of King County. ;He simply has a letter discussing. this matter and would like the Appportunity to more fully respond by September 15, 1989 after t 4J*irJng the area housing studies. The next letter is from Donna D_.,, 4apson. The subject matter is in response to your letter data4'! 5ALugust 1989 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF KENT ZONING CgDE. The next letter is from John Meinzinger, and that is a ,-lent 7� concerning the East Hill Sub Plan and zoning changes. Commissioner Ward: I don't have the second one. ^.W re supposed to have all three of them. ' 2 ,r Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 James Harris: Which one didn't you have? Commissioner Orr MOVED and Commissioner Greenstreat , SECONDED a motion to accept these letters into the record. Motion carried. Dan Stroh: I'd like to say just a few words about whore this study came from and some of the history behind this issue. , And that will be followed up with Lauri Anderson also with the Planning Department who will lay out the specifics of the staff proposal. This is old hat to a lot of people here, but the ,mix of single family and multifamily housing in the city has changed radically in the last 'several decades. In 1960 the city had about 2,700 units of single family and just under 250 units of multifamily. We were about 92 percent single family housing. ay April 1989 when we did our annual census the figures were very, vary different. We had about 5,400 units of single family, but about 10,450 units of multifamily. This is about 62 percent. The balance of what was not single family was in the mobile homes. So about 62 percent multifamily, 32 percent single family, and about 5 percent mobile homes. Rapid increase in multifamily units has been reflected in recent building permit activity. The last two years are indicative of the kind of growth we've seen. 1987 saw almost 900 units of multifamily permitted in the city. At the same time there were only 34 units of single family housing permitted in the city. In 1988 we saw almost 1,600 units of multifamily permitted within the city, and only 27 units of single family. So there has been quite an imbalance in recent years in the rate of ;development of multifamily versus single family. This rapid growth is also reflected in the projections by the Puget Sound Council of Governments. They do regional growth forecasts for all the localities in this area. They are showing for the; year 2000 for the Kent area, which is roughly the same as the city limits, 11,217 units of multifamily. But with the existing units we've got, plus the units that have been permitted and are in the pipeline, we've already reached that figure which the COG said we'd have by the year 2000. City Council has become concerned about some of these residential development trends. In December of 1986 they passed a resolution which actually called for a 20 percent, reduction in multifamily. They cited that this was the overcrowding and profusion of apartments as the main housing problem by Kent residents. They also cited the problems of uncog;1trplled growth on the city's infrastructure and its ability to 4e*Wer efficient services to residents. And they also said theytwere concerned about the projected proportion of multifamily to{ single family residential development, about environmental suitability and neighborhood preservation. This was followed up ley a resolution that actually launched the study that we are e4gagod in now. The 3 Y Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Planning Department was given the task, you might say a rather difficult task by the City Council, of doing area-by-area studies of multifamily densities throughout the city. This was in Resolution 1172 which was passed last summer. The Council cited the increasing imbalance between, multifamily and single family. They cited a concern about the city's ability to provide in a timely manner the public facilities and services necessary to support this increase in multifamily development. Then they went on to direct the Planning Department to conduct the study that is before you tonight. They asked us to do it in three steps, first with each of the planning areas. We started with West Hill, then East Hill, and we will finish up with the Valley Floor. They also asked us to do an update of the City-wide Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan which, of course, is the general document that guides growth within the city. That was accomplished, and there is an updated housing element 1 of the Comprehensive Plan, and various policies in that updated housing element are reflected in the document that is before you-- 'tonight. This has been a very public process as we have gone through trying to implement Council Resolution 1172 in both updating the housing element. The citizen committee we worked with in that process, series of workshops and open houses that we've had in healing with these area housing studies. This is where we are tonight. We've been through this. We have on the table here a series of draft recommendations for actually accomplishing the Council's intented 20 percent reduction. We appreciate the people who have come out to the meeting tonight. This is a very long, involved and drawn-out process. It is very difficult when you get into talking about rezoning property to the scale that we are working with tonight, but we do appreciate you bearing with us as we go through these hearings. The Planning Commission will be getting a lot of the public testimony, making a recommendation to the City Council, and then later be heard by the City Council as this goes through the process. I do thank everyone for coming out tonight. ,, That's my brief summary of this process and I 'd like to be followed up with Lauri Anderson who is going to provide the specifics of the staff proposal. Lauri Anderson: ' Good evening. Can you hear me? Okay. I 'll try to speak louder. My name is Lauri Anderson. I am representing the Planning Department. Now that Dan has given you a general introduction to the study, 1 am going into a little bit more of the specifics. I am going to talk about the process we use to identify the potential rezone areas, the criteria that we used as we were going through our review, the alternatives that were devised to achieve the City Coumcil's 20 percent reduction, the general East Hill impact over the whole East Hill, the staff recommended option and then the staff recommended actions that are before you tonight in this hearing. I am going to start by talking about the process that the Planning Department went through to get 4 e t e dl uj., Planning Commission Minutes s r, August 28, 1989 to this point. This is Phase II of the housing" s' uoy. It was launched with a public meeting that we held in Feb ,tary at Kent- Meridian High School. And at that meeting we ga ►e), c .tizens the opportunity to give us their concerns to tell us b3Y tt' the issues on East Hill were in terms of residential densities a nd ,'the housing areas. We then, taking those concerns, went to the next step which was to determine where the vacant and underdeveloped ,nand was on East Hill and determine what the density potential' Wag b. ' Now I want to clarify when I am talking about. . .underdevekdi land, I'm talking about land that is not built out to its potential under existing zoning. This doesn't mean that an indiv,ldaaal' would ever change the use of their land, but under existing p6r4pq they could potentially put more units on their property. For 4,*ample if you had a single family residence on two acres of mul itaamily-zoned land, we would consider that underdeveloped, and that if you chose you could put multifamily development on that prape�ty. So using the city's computerized mapping system and some Undiuse data that was collected and then entered into the system in 1981', we targeted these parcels. Since the information changes cohsti'otly, we next looked at the maps which showed building footprints,, In other words if you could look at this map, it would show these little squares. . .actually where the buildings are. We loced at that to see if there might be any parcels that the compu*r system had somehow overlooked. Then we Went out into the field'. We drove to those parcels to make sure that they were indeed vacant or underdeveloped. We looked at the surrounding uses. ' We looked at the environmental constraints, such as slopes and thins like that on the property, and we found 96 parcels. These are tax parcels of vacant or underdeveloped Land on the East Hill. ' �We placed 93 of those parcels under consideration for zoning char. es. The three additional parcels we either knew of a permit that �ae already in process or they were so isolated and had such a limit d& development potential that we did not feel that it was appropri a to consider them for a zoning change. We grouped the 93 intO 21 different option areas, which, are the option area you see in the' report. We felt that would ease the analysis. . .these were psrpols all in the same area that made sense to look at as a whole. fo avoid a sort of hop scotch or spot-zoning pattern, we included an`4doitional 102 parcels to even out the, zoning boundary. So some, percels which were vacant or underdeveloped were included with' t'�j#oI to void, as I said, a fragmented zoning pattern. After we'd i+ ntified these parcels, we took the citizen-expressed concernslrr�om',the initial meeting at Kent-Meridian, and we looked at a variety of other criteria when we were looking at zoning possibilities for those properties. We looked at environmental constraiillt,8,4' such as steep slopes, ravines, creeks, all of those things which riijOire setbacks or which limit the building potential of a site. 'W� booked at the surrounding transportation system that was a citizen concern that was expressed over and over in the amount of traff$c on the roads 5 b Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 and the ability of the infrastructure to serve that traffic. We determined major traffic corridors and calculated the average number of trips generated by different zoning options. We looked at- the proximity of these option areas to commercial nodes and community facilities. We looked at the surrounding zoning and existing development. We considered the adequacy of infrastructure, such things as sidewalks and street lighting. What were the physical features of the area that might limit a more dense development. We looked at water and sewer availability, the adequacy of fire and police protection, the adequacy of city schools based on their projections to 1993. We also took a look at the Soos Creek planning process, ' Soos Creek is the unincorporated area in the county that is just to the east outside our city limits. And we wanted to look ,'at what they had targeted for the area and how that meshed with what we were planning. Arid then we looked at the Comprehensive Plan', which Dan mentioned is the general policy document that we"in the Planning Department use to determine appropriate land uses, and the East Hill Subarea Plan, which is part of the Comprehensive plan that specifically looks to East Hill. After that we came `up with three alternatives that we could use to achieve the Council's 20 percent reduction. The first of these was a site-specific teduction, and that is the staff recommended option. In this p*bposal an individual option area was analyzed based on all these criteria for very specific zoning change. The next option that we considered was a text reduction. This would be a continuation of a policy that the City Council put into effect last year when they, passed the resolution. This text reduction would reduce the allosrble number of dwelling units you could put on a per-acre basis for the multifamily zoning categories. The third option we looked at was a 100 percent East Hill multifamily reduction. In this option all of the multifamily zoning on these vacant and underdeveloped parcels would be removed and converted to single family , Zoning. For comparison to these three alternatives we looked at 'a, no--action alternative so that we could compare and contrast to see what the effects of these 20 percent reductions would be verse no action leaving the zoning as it currently exists. , We presented these options to the public at an open house at East Hill Elementary School in May and approximately 40 citizens attended And they gave us quite a bit of feedback about their concerns, which options they liked, which options they did not like. Tha,,�,people who attended that meeting overwhelmingly favored 100 pere ' Bast Hill reduction. Again, that was the option that removed all multifamily zoning and replaced it with single family zoning. As I mentioned earlier, the staff recommended alternative is to achieve the CouncillIs Resolution 1123 and 1172 is a site specific reduction. We believe this alternative responds most accurately to the ' citizen-expreased criteria along with the characteristics of the individual areas. , The other options, the text reduction and ,the 100 percent East Hill while 'IX Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 achieving the goal treat all these parcels identi ' lly without looking at the individual characteristics of those 9i �tes. In some cases it may not be appropriate to rezone a multi ly area to single family if it is completely surrounded multifamily development. In other cases it makes sense to-wad'' for a lower density. We felt that by looking at the individual ,'aroas that we might get a more precise determination and make a battier judgment in terms of what the zoning Should be. If we were to, follow the staff recommended site-specific reduction, the potWitiol number of multifamily units that is in the analysis area voulA decrease by about 50 percent. We'd lose about 704 multifamily grits, under the no action alternative 1407 units could be const#ucted in the analysis area. An additional 123 single family' u6its could be developed through rezoning some of these areas for single family development. The total potential housing units for the analysis areas would equal approximately 827 units, which o ' d 'be 580 less than under the current zoning. So with this reduct �i we also lose the number of potential housing units on East Hf�� .' Lastly, the transportation impacts. . .using a vehicle-trip-per4day figure from the Engineering Department, under the existing ibAing'I, about 8500 vehicle trips per day would be generated if the 21 analysis areas were built out to their current zoning. The 44s specific reduction would reduce this by about 3,000 vehiops per day, which is about a 35 percent decrease. In terms cif recommended actions, the proposal that we are presenting before you,is outlined in the report on pages EH-101 through EH-107. ,T *re are four actions that are proposed. The first is an amen eat 'of the East Hill Subarea Plan Text to bring it into conform'nce with the updated housing element which Dan mentioned. In se I of this study we updated the housing element. We are now looking at the subarea plans and adjusting the wording so tint they are compatible. The second action proposed is ameadment of the Comprehensive Plan map in creation of the single fa* ly designated area overlay. the comprehensive plan map change -woul'd be needed if the zoning changes are implemented to bring those two into compatibility. The single family designated area is; an overlay to the Comprehensive Plan which Mould be used in police Aec�isionmaking to protect existing single family neighborhoods. ,This is not a zoning change nor does it imply that any of th6 '] n4tul of uses that are not single family in these areas wouio' required to change their use. Rather the intent is to providoli" , ` indication to staff and to the general public that thk ingle family designated area has an overall single family chal�1 'ir' which is to be protected. The third change that is in the 1 ' proposal is amendment of the Zoning Code for one area to­cr rp an R1-5.0 zoning district. This would be a zoning district' t, would have a minimum 5,000 square foot lots. Currently our m3 b. um lot size is 7,200 square feet. Standards for this lot wol ire identical to those of other single family areas except for, t', ' things. The 7 `t Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 minimum lot width would. be decr%4sed .from 70 feet to 50 feet, and the maximum site coverage wouldIIe3 increased from 30 percent to 40 percent. The setbacks in all of' the zoning districts, residential zoning districts, the 20-foot front yard and 5-foot side yard and 8-foot rear yard setbacks would be preserved. , The same height limit would apply. The solar' aczcess regulations would not be put into effect because of the difficulty with a narrower lot width of achieving a large setback from the north property line. A description of the R1-5 standards is on page 10 of the overview chapter of your report. As many persons have asked about the quality and size of homes which can be put on R1-5 square foot lot, I have some slides. These were taken of some in Federal way, some in the Klahanie Development out ikear Issaquah, some in the Seattle area. Seattle, unincorporated ling County, Auburn, all of them have a 5, 006 square ffootminimum "lot size in their code. So I just wanted to show you a few of these. The first thing I want to point out is that the R1-5 is sort of ;an historical zoning district. In some ways it is what we think of ,s,ingle family neighborhoods. This is a small lot size up on Capit6l Hill in Seattle. This lot is probably about 51000. . .many lots are smaller than that. These homes are also on a smaller lot size in the Seattle area. Newer homes are also being built on lots this size. The next three slides were taken in the Klabgnie Development near Issaquah. Again, the predominance of the garage in modern houses change the appearance. We don't have the ,gerage in the backyards. You are going to notice a lot of garages, in these slides. These are new homes, fairly expensive homes tl►at are going in on R1-5 lots. Acting Chair o e : Would you' �like to talk about setbacks. !&,Uri Anderson: The various other jurisdictions which have this lot size have various setback requirements. In the next slides we are going to be looking at the Yederal Way area. They don't require a setback on one sides yard. I'm not sure what the setbacks are on these lots. In the propo441 that we're making, the setbacks would remain the same as are cu2' e6ntly in effect for the other lot sizes in the city. Theses next two slides are down in the Federral Way area. This is new development. Kany of the homes are up for sale. This gives you kind, of an indication of what can be done on a 5,000 square foot lot. The fixAl change that staff is proposing is an amendment of the zoning me , for the 21 analysis areas. And those are listed on pages EH-10T, through EH-107 of the East Hill report. There are 4 variety pf changes. Some areas we have indicated that we recommend nod."-bhange. Some areas we go from multifamily to a lower density raxatifam.ily. Some areas we go from multifamily to single family. That concludes my presentation. Acting ChAir Stoner: If you have come in late and have not signed up or you decide later on' in the evening that you want to get on 8 Planning Commission Minutesa,�+, � August 28, 1989 the signup sheet. . .could we have a second one, or could I give you a second page. We have a new member of the Plan*bg� Commission tonight, Leona Orr, and she has a statement she needs to make to comply with the Appearance of Fairness guidelines. Commissioner Or Thank you. As many of you know, have been very active on the East Hill regarding land use ' issOaeO and I was concerned about there being a controversy with MY s rV'ing on the Planning Commission, so I had discussions with the gity Attorney. While I was told that although the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine is not technically applicable to the Planning Copmission, the Planning Commission is currently operating under those guidelines, and to that end I would like to make clear to a eryone here that I do not live near any of the areas that are being Considered for change. I have not formed an opinion one way or �t ;other about any of those areas. I did attend one of the hearings as a citizen because I do live on East Hill, but the area that I have been most involved with since I 've been involved with this ciommunity is a newly annexed area that is not part of the changes thalt are being proposed. I did come down and look at the documents thit are being shown tonight that were at one of the open houses that L was unable to attend. I completed a surVey just as many of you jdid, but I did not form any conclusions as to how I might or might"Zot vote given the opportunity that I have been given now. I did have one conversation with a gentlemen named Rick Turner who does not happen to live within the city limits; however, he was concerned about property across the street from him. When I .talked with him, I made it very clear to him that while I encouraged hiv .o come down to this meeting and make his views and concerns to this Commission to get him on the record, I could not offer him any opinion or give him any idea of a way I might vote regarding the proporty that he was concerned with, which turned out to be an aual piece of property that is on this agenda. I will be looking at all of these areas as I am sure the other Commissioners will 'with an open mind and with regard to what is happening within the city,*ight now, and I believe that I can be objective when reachinsg , a decision regarding those areas, and I just wanted everyone, to, be assured of that. Thank you. r Acting chair Stoner: I will start with the first4,pgrson on the list. I have the first four people on the list as Aarked to be just on the mailing list. Ralph Wright, M. Wiso, 49dward LaBolle and Ethel Jaber. Is that correct? You do not wish to speak, you wish to be mailed to. The next person is Miles Dry. Would you please come to the microphone so we can make sure we have everything on the record. Miles Drake: My name is Miles Drake. I live at 302 Scenic Way in Kent. I don't know if this is the right time for iis to talk or 9 r, Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 not. I am interested in one or,4two particular areas on the East Hill. Acting Chair Stoner: That's appropriate. Miles Drake: And they are Areas­5 and the one south of there which I believe is 21. . .5 and 21. Looking at 21 first, that's the south one, 5 is immediately north of it. . .I thought I had it marked but I guess not. . .that is some property on the east of Summit and it goes back 200 or 300 feet, I guevs. : .I think that is proposed to be changed from multidensity .to duplex. The part that I an interested in is the :riddle where it is shown as white there. That now is multidensity and the parcel immediately north of that is used as single family, and I think the one south .of there, the larger parcel, is now used as single family residence. I guess at the time that the one in the widdle being white is owned by me together with the parcel immediately east of that and.also east of the one which is north of the first one. Those are. . .there are three apartments in there and I think it would be better if it was left the same zoning as it is or at least not split up. I don't know that it would affect me that much if they don't change the rules because I think the thing has been there so long that it would probably at least until it burned down or something. . .but I think that it would be better fear it to be zoned for the use that it has rather than some projected maybe use 50 years from now. There are several reasons for that. I just think it would be better. . .I have had some experience where they have changed the zoning. . .usually it is where they upgrade it to some zone. . .this wouldn't be the case here, but sometimes they do that and upgrade the zoning and you get your taxes raised and the zone they upgrade it to, why it is not feasible to use it as such for any foreseeable time, so it creates a hardship for the owners of the property and I don't think that it is right to do that. That's about what I 'm thinking of here is that I just,,, .would like to see it remain the zoning that it is, especially- soince if they change it would make part of the property one zone And part of the property another. It's all one parcel. Now. . .referring to Area 5, that is, I believe, a five-lot area, and I- think it is mostly now used as a single family. The cross-hatche4. . .both diagonally each direction, does that mean single family. J)oes that mean single family does anybody know. . .exissting use. . .is that what that is. Lauri Anderson: It means underdeveloped. Mips Drake: Where it is not developed to the potential even though it is used. What is the one where the diagonal is running northeasterly. 10 Planning Commission Minutes ' August 28, 1989 1 Lauri Anderson: Vacant. Miles Drake: Well, it shows, .maybe that's differ* parcels. Is this. ;there's a house there. —there I s a house haar*. O"s that mean that there are two parcels here? This one is veca : 1'. I see. I suppose the parcels that are'vacant. . .and even part 6f' 1the parcels that are used as a single family. . .these lots -are., ,rather narrow along Summit Avenue and probably 300 feet deep, or ,.' land some of that property has been purchased. . .not vitally 'interested in myself. . .but some of it has been purchased with a th0u%ht that you could use it for duplex, and then when they say -yoO caa,n't use it for duplex, that's a hardship on the people that 'boughi it in good faith and there would be , a matter of fiv ,,''-m ote families permitted. . .no there could be more' than that be nuoe $t could be platted into smaller lots, so there could be a few more families, but I don't think it would be significant and I think for that reason it should be left as it is because. . .one reason is because the people thought that was what it was going to be,, ,and purchased it under those conditions. That's all about what, ,%, 4ave to say. Thank you. Acting Chair Stoner: Are there any questions of 'Mr,i',Drake. Thank you. Commissioner Orr: One question, Mr. Drake. Mr. ,DrAko, on Parcel Number 21 you mentioned the center portion that is white. What is that current use of that middle portion. � Miles Drake: There are two buildings on that. . iieq ; ,' there is a 12-unit apartment building on one of them and a 9'1 ',ithe other, I think it is. And the other one is 11-units. . .the bna,,ehst of there under the same ownership. . .where those three buildings are shown is all one ownership. That's 11 units. That'a not, 'Vreiy dense the way it is used now. Commissioner Orr: Thank you. ' Acting Chair Stoner: I did not remind you before,,.$r-{: Drake came up. We would ask you to limit your comments to, I-Oi .nutes so we can get through as many people as possible. The he' t� person on my list is Grant Wells. �' 1 7C Grant Wells: My name is Gwent Wells and I l °1a �.123409 100th Avenue SE. I'd like to talk about MF-2 and MF-3. �',,, .va directly across the street from MF-2 ,and we would like to.,,. eithat become single family as opposed to the site specific. 41, - tive which favors a change to a duplex. Having been a long-ti- Kent resident and having lived on 100th since 1958—the tra !�% hass increased tremendously at the intersection of 100th, and 4 h is becoming 11 f ti I 1' 4 131 i IF, Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 very difficult to use, plus the intersection at 104th and 240th. The other. . .MF-3 initially for the same reasons. We already have several multifamily apartment calplexes on 100th and, again, the traffic has been steadily increasing and we are concerned for the children because they typically walk out of the -block back and forth to East. Hill Elementary on-the streets, and right now there is. . .100th has become an alternative for folks that are trying to get on to 104th and bypassing the whole Benson intersection at 240th and 104th. And that ;is basically my concern. Acting Chair Stoner: Any queati*ns from Mr. Wells. Greg. Commissioner..Gree greet: Yes, �,y°ou are saying for Area 2 and Area 3 you favor Option C. . .East Hill, reduction in the plan. Is that correct? Grant Wells: That is correct. Thank you. m_ Acting Chair Stoners Tom Dtal. -. I Tom Deal: It's not Tom, it's Lou, Lou Deal, 302 Summit. Acting Chair toner: Thank you. Tom Deal: My concern is also the same area that Mr. Drake spoke to, Area MF-21. I own the parcel of land, the large parcel just south of the white block which,I.when I purchased it,,, I purchased it because it was multifamily. as an investment for me and my family. It is surrounded by a rtments, it always has been, and I think it should stay and remain the same. When I develop it, I don't know, but think it shculd>'stay. Acting Chair: Any questions. commissioner Green 3;reet: Yes, ,Looking at the map now 21, you own what part. . .what I am looking at-Map EH--46. Torn Deal: You see the large poi Lion in the center. I live just south of that, and it, is the apWtments all the way around. It's a goad area for it. commissioner Green street: Can those options, Option A, B, or C in the text, what. . .do you favor o specific plan over another. Tom Deal: I would favor, leaving,it the same. . .leaving it as it is, not changing the zoning in that.L�area. Commiss,ioger Greenotreet:- Thank you. 12 ; fi'` 4,%! A ? Planning Commission Minutes 3, z August 28, 1989 ,,��,ti,! ,Acting Chair Stoner: Mr. Peterson. Frances Peterson: Well, firat I would like to than# the Planning Commission for not giving us, a bunch of baloney ,aj►ojtt ;the traffic up on East Hill. Kind of nice for a change. James Harris: Madam Chair, we need identification.. ,;; Frances Peterson: This is Frances Peterson, 105.�,S #1 1264th. Our parcels. . .I am speaking for Jeanette, too. . .are �' t7'i,,and we are now MRM, Medium Density, and we have this propdaeOL 14RG, Garden Density, which I haven't quite figured out yet. ,,�jAe4r as I can tell, we have to have a spot for a garden or sox+ h �4- I am not sure. But, anyway, the thing I don't understand, au;t the whole thing is why if it was zoned MRM 23-units per ac;p when he put 104 apartments next to me, why they don't leave it tha ,,,,way for now. Evidently that was five years ago or something,;,** nothing has happened so far, but it would be nice if you cou3,1 a that type of zoning that we have been putting up with you }��g say, the way it was zoned, and the way it is now it should szt*y, 4r at least go back up to MR-23. ; Acting Chair Stoner: Let me ask of staff a ,clamAing question., What is the difference in units per acre betweew, and MRG just to define it more clearly for, Mr. Peterson. " Lauri Anderson: I'll speak ,into the micropho s you can all hear. MRM, Medium Density Multifamily, allows,,up t13 dwelling units on an acre of land. The Garden Density Mti3ti ily reduces the potential to 16 dwelling units per acre. Acting Chaim Stoner: Thank you. Frances Peterson: So basically when it goes from 2 to the 16, we are goingto lose 7,000. . .,weall at least 7 00 � t 6 00A so that 42,000. Like I say, At's so screwed up low' "at the, thing you can do with it is Dither MRM or comme;gia4. It's right next to the Sears Shopping Center and across from: thy'Target Store. Acting Chair Stoner: Are there any questions f;qw, Commissioner, Biteman: Do you live near there? Frances Peterson: Yes, I live 10518 SE 264th, about two blocks south of the Sears shopping mall. Acting Chair 'r gam_ Stoner: Any other questions. . .Ray.;,, ;; ; Commissioner Ward: Do plan you on developing Y P P g �� ���a d? 13 is >n a; y Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Frances Petgrson: Well, I don't, but you never know. It's the idea that I 'd like to leave th4,=`ioption open, you know. It's 'not hurting anybody the . . . like' Ir^1scay there are 104 apartment units right next door,' across "the street is not in the city. There's Jeanette Mulchins and the land of Norders that the City of Kent stole part of hers, practically, and to 104th, you know, so. . .like the guy that developed next to me said he wouldn't do anything in Kent again, but evid6fitly somebody sure, has because it is filling up fast. Acting Chair Stone: All right. Thank you Mr. Peterson. Barry Quam. Q U A M. Barry Quan: I'm Barry Quam, 23111 100th Avenue SE, and `I want to thank the people who put the 6ftdy together. . .it is good, and I think we all favor reduction i multifamily types of units. I think just a general concern would be the lot size reduction with the R1-5. 0. I understand, probably, the basics and the ideas behind providing a smaller lot, therefore you can provide a smaller house and maybe people can afford a smaller house and it would gage them an opportunity to purchase something like this. But I look around and look at the lot that was developed on the corner of 240th and I think it is 98th, andd,'I really get concerned at looking at that thing. And I tell "you- honestly that as soon as I looked at that lot, I started thinking about things like Timberline and maybe something like. . . "I think it is Falcon Ridge in Renton. . .and they spawn a lot of problems, Olite frankly. We have a very nice city here. We have: good polio 'protection, good fire protection, but I cannot understand the thinking behind the smaller lot like that, the. . . (unclear) . . .thinking that if these types of lots are allowed, the congestion that oacurs. , .you cannot get police and fire department units through these areas. You are actually, I think, cheating the people that ;&'CU*lly buy these houses, and you certainly probably run down the property value of the people around these types of units. Another' acern of this whole °type of thing is traffic. I understand redubj g multifamily units= will probably reduce traffic on East Hill, bu '--it's really bad now. If this type of lot were allowed to be used, .Ve are going to develop a lot more traffic in the area. w� Commissioner Ward: Were you e� king of some particular area or just in general. Barry Qualm: Just in general, ' `but probably the most noticeable example was right on the corner of 240th and 98th on the southwest corner. There are three houses`' h.at were put in right across from the corner of East Hill Elementary School that to me. . .I cannot understand how that type of thing was allowed to happen. 14 Planning Commission Minutes ;�. r I+ August 28, 1989 ;f ,Acting Chair toner: Any other questions from Mrcooa,lm. Commissioner Orr: Can someone on the staff to mat those lot sizes are at that intersection? Lauri Anderson: That is the Strawberry Lane develops* t, and those three houses are built on 7200 square foot lots. Acting Chair Stoner: Excuse me, please. Staff goo& PQut there with their rulers and measures all these and they knc ^:. Barry qualm: May I have further comment. Just o, question in response to that. If those are 7200 square foot,lgts�,, maybe I'm misunderstanding, is that a multifamily type of dovelopment, then. Acting Chair Stoner: Lauri Lauri Anderson: That is Single Family R1-7.2. 'l'heNpl,ans came in and I reviewed those plans, and unless the develops* alas lying to me, those are 7200 square foot lots. Acting Chair Stoner: All right. Thank you. Mr�,!; Qhalm. I'll summarize what she said. She said that those throe houses were built. . .she reviewed those plans and ,they were built pn 17200 square foot lots which is 7200 in our Zoning Code. Mr. ,:Qua�v ido you have any other comments you would like to make. A,,,. Barry Oualm: I hate to be rude, but that is hard tosOolieve that that is a 7200 square foot lot for each house. a Acting chair Stoner: We'll all drive past on our,way home tonight. I have Florence Lien and Cortlan Betchley as wanting, #o be on the mailing list. Cortlan Betchley: I'd like to speak. Acting Chair Stoner: Yes, please. Courtlan Betchley: Okay. This is in general. I IQ Betchley. I live at 10213 SE .228th Street. It is closest to Area 1, but I don't really live right next to any of these arpas4; n is just a general thing. I am not in favor of the R1-5.0 ,now *one. I lived in Seattle for a long time and I was not favorably ,twpressed with the density of single housing in that kind of zonipg',; aod I was not particularly impressed with the slides that were sh t' of the types of houses that could be built on those kinds of 1pt$,. I do think you will have a crowding problem and you will havot6ar4gestion for it. I think it is better to not fragment the housrgvi� Rent. . .not 15 a Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 add additional type of housing, but to add the necessary units in terms of apartments and the already existing R1-12 through 7.2. Acting Chair Stoner: Questions.,,, Thank you. Brad Bell. Brad Bell: My name is Brad Bell. I live at 26034 142nd Avenue SE. And before I get started tonight' I ,,would like to put in a request for some parks on the East Hill of Kent. We've heard some talk of those; however, the latest reading I have done in the newspaper is actually they are cutting back the park budget up there and that creates a big concern. . .traffic problems and other issues that many, many property owners including myself are concerned with. I am not going to talk about the merits of multifamily units in Kent primarily because I'd like Ito get out of here with my life tonight. I've talked until I VasO blue in the face in the past and nobody has listened to me, so X'd like to talk about a couple of other issues. The first is property-owner rights. I would appreciate it very much if each one of you commissioners would be sensitive to property owners, who have owned their property, many of them for 30 or 40 years abd have had a zoning of perhaps multifamily, and because of that the property adjacent to their property has been developed multifamily. Now we are finding ourselves asking these people to not only switch their zoning from multifamily to single family, thereby reducing the value of their properties substantially, but we�!are asking them to develop single family property or housing units right next to . an apartment complex, you see. That in addition brings down the value of that property. If you couple that w1th a 5000 square foot minimum lot size, you will find yourself in & situation possibly similar to the army barracks. The slides that the Planning staff showed were great. This is not Seattle, this is not Issaquah. We are not dealing with necessarily the lsame types of neighborhoods. Certainly you can build a nice Mouse on a 5000 square foot lot. I challenge any of you to. . .this is Kent. I challenge any of you to drive around and show me a house that resembles those houses sitting on a 5000 square foot JMt. You won't find any, because this isn't Seattle and this ist%lt Issaquah. I'm a little bit confused about this process. I don't know if the purpose of this is to amend the East Hill Comprehensive Plan or the purpose of this is just to change immediate zoning on site specific properties.. The comment was madi_� that the zoning and the East Hill Comprehensive Plan have to be the same. It is my understanding right now that there are some Aiscrepancies between multifamily being shown on the Last Bill Comprehensive Plan and Single Family zoning being shown on the zoning; map, so I don't understand first of all why they have to be the. same, and number 2, why are we bothering to amend the East Hill-!,,Comprehensive Plan if we haven't amended it in the past. The °'-StaffIs recommendation for sites specific is tremendously unfair. If we are going to take a little 16 T�l j! t ;.fj Planning Commission Minutes ;°�, 1 August 28, 1989 r` a,• away from these people, let's take a little �bWi o* everybody rather than going to certain property owners in t#JAi � munity and saying we are going to pick on you and we are, go g �►'_ hange your multifamily zoned property as single family zon :patsy, I think it should be done on as equitable basis as pdf ;bl In other words let's take everybody with multifamily zopin#+` # Kent and reduce it accordingly to come up with the same re d. ;. Thank you. Acting Chair Stoner: Mr. Bell, I don't knovlh i ,�Ve have any questions or not. Anyone on the Commission. Ray. Bell. We have a question for you. J Commissioner Ward: I'd like to perhaps shoot cam .' questions that perhaps the staff should give an answer to- * ' this given point. My particular question to you would beT,,thotalwe have in effect now an ordinance passed by Council to reduce ' uXtifamily by 20 percent. We are attempting to do that in evroryjth�ng that we review, and East Hill being one of them. I th3 i*, fte�,�net result of all the suggestions that staff has come up, wiO ?here is an approach to this given end. I think it has beep gpressed very strongly by many citizens that we have too many muit; f4mily within Kent. All we are attempting to review and do he e. ,*Xour portion regarding why some property owners have bed ",�nged from multifamily of varying degree to a residential, 1 ,tbink the staff should perhaps give an answer as to why in some c f� ?tl is. happened and other cases it wasn't, as compared to a 20 'Verpent spread across the board. , : { Acting Chair Stoner: Any other questions before I40 staff. Any other questions of Mr. Bell. Greg. ;,a,. I ' Commissioner Greenstreet: As you were talking ycxWwe'rea•saying that everything should be reduced fairly all the way-,4"Ps the board, like a 20 percent reduction or something like- t t�, at do you feel of the duplex zoning that has been talked about as a substitute for some of the multifamily. Y. i Brad Bell: Well, it brings down the density. I a* .*at. . . of all I am not an advocate of this 20 percent reduckj*: . 11 know most of you people and I knots you to be fair, honest, 'roA stable people. Greg, what I am asking you to consider, if we .tom have a 20 percent reduction, ' let's, be fair about how we ;" �' 014 kbecause we know very well we are taking money, not out of dove4 's pockets, not out of investor's pockets, but people wh+o ,! lived ,here longer than most of us, and I don't think that�lpsi. tr. I don't believe that you think that is fair, so I 'm aski �.s'OUl Ito consider if we have to have a 20 percent reduction, let. '0�tu^!� to do it on an equitable basis with everybody. I have no� ; omel ,, around and looked at all the sites, by some of the comments ;114f, ard, I hear 17 r ' r t r i Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 that some of these downzones or,} single family rezones 're being done right next to commercial and apartment property. You will not see those homes you see in the +slides sitting on those pieces. What you will see are lower and izexppensiv6 homes. That's fine if that's what we want. But if �(4 want it, let's say it and not pretend that we're going ,to� be F:04tting up something on the wall, because that is not what .is going to happen in those areas. So ,I am just asking you, if we have -to have a 20 percent reduction, let's be as equitable as we can in terms of how we institute it and fair to as many people as poible rather than going out, for whatever good reasons the staff had,- and I have no doubt that the staff has very good reasons for it, and say, okay, let's pick on this guy, this guy, this guy ands-this guy and basically reduce the value of his property significantly. Those people aren't in favor of apartments necessarily eitheri but they own property. And if you ask them to rezone their property to single family and it is sitting right next to an apartmdt building, that's unfair for two reasons. They've been downzone*�:and their property is worth less now because we used to have a pin that said that you could build multifamily there.- You see, that is really not fair. If that is the way it has to be, fine. I'3a not thoroughly convinced that it does and I would rely on your judgment to take a look at it and do it as equitably as possible for everybody concerned. Acting Chair Stoner: Any. other,:guestions? All right. pan I ask staff to respond to the concern-.,about are we amending the plan and the relationship between the site specific issues and amending the Comprehensive Plan. I'm asking staff to respond to the concern about amending the Comprehensive Plan on East Hill and -the site specific option that they recommended. Lauri Anderson: The proposal for the zoning changes. . .1111 try to speak up. The proposal for the!zoning changes on some of the 21 option areas would result in- an incompatibility with the Comprehensive Plan maps, not necessarily the text. The text of the plan would support some of thessoiahanges, but in order to bring the Comprehensive Plan map and the 9pning map into compliance, that's why we are asking for the Co hensive Plan changes in certain areas and those are,.outlined in ,oe�tActions Recommended section of your report. Did you also wan to respond, relative to the 20 percent versus the site specif_ivr '. It is my understanding that the straight across-thim-tboard 20 pettont reduction was forwarded by the Planning . Commission to the - City Council last year as a recommendation and that the City Council at that time instructed the Planning 'Department to takiF,•an area-by-area approach to the study so that while we present'! the 20 percent - reduction as an alternative, we were also specifically directed by-Council to look at individual areas and 4etermihe what might be an appropriate zoning for those. is 1� 1 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Acting Chair Stone: The next person on my list,,-io 44t}ty Acheson. Betty Acheson: I'm Betty Acheson. I live in ;l' 1�'i SE 248th Street, and I want to thank Mr. Bell. He did ,m ,',s already. I'll just give a little more'�,pinpointing of wha d,,1 ,happening on our street. there are four of us homeownerio f� that own property, and I was going to use a nasty word, m"bWV0,,-were going to be called the scapegoat, because this is what, ee�oilty has done to us. We have put up with these apartment da" pts for the last 20 years. Okay, there are four of us 1efti°' wish you had a projector I could show what we got here. And,it�p* you come out and say you've lived 20 years with this mess and -jt041i4ib longer can sell your property. You have five lovely home*{-' a1id dive lovely trees and you have an acre, but I 'm sorry, we're goo* to tell you now it is single family. I agree with Mr. Bell. � lt,�AO not right. We would love to get out of there. We are waiti#t ,;for one last developer to please- relieve us of our property. I av* 'written a few comments here on what it is like to live there' .,,r. Acting Chair Stoner: Do you have a designation.'. . Betty Acheson: I have this one. . .EH-100 ­ Olngle family designation. So you are going down in oJ�' cbperty from multifamily housing to single housing. And with a projector let me show you what we live next to. We como, og'f the Benson Highway. . . Acting Chair Stoner: I think we could see it if you would just show it to us. I think it is clear enough. Betty Acheson: I'd-like to have the audience see crrAisl it just for you folks mainly. i Acting Chair Stoi)er: Yes. Betty Arpheson: All right. Okay. Come off the Bensc �,T�ighway, you get approximately 300 feet of commercial property; ik ' :' g. Then we hit the lovely Meadows Apartments. Then there are=,f�l -of us left, four property owners on SE 248th. Then we hit 109th;. Might behind us in our back pasture we have Lakeville Apartmentsi,4ithree stories high overlooking our property. Behind them we havO'�the East Hill Apartments. When 109th came through a fewi!'yY4 rp ago, the hotrodding road of the apartment houses, we have ise Pointe Apartments. Then we have the large Shires. A I itf bit east of us we have Redwood Square, and then the newest one !Walnut Park Apartments. Now you try to live in that. Let you a few of our problems. First we have such increased traf1i,clwe now have difficulty getting in and out of our drivewt]?W.w N, is almost impossible to walk across the street to get 'dU9i`° it in 'the 19 's Planning Commission Minutes 4 r August 28, 1989 afternoon. Excessive noise. - .the increased traffic and the car noise. . .we have a lot of extra hot rodding down our area. We now keep our windows closed to sleep at night. At times we have to close our doors and windows to t.k to our neighbors on the phone. We now have a higher crime rate.,. We must keep everything under lock and, key. We have many morn -robberies in our ,SE 248th area. Last week alone Rent Police told, us there were four robberies at the Meadows. Our mailbox contio%;ally gets knocked-down at night. Again this last weekend it was bgtg bang bang. Look out the window at 9 o'clock Friday night. . .mal4boxes once again, all gone. For the lack of respect for privata, property we now have continuous apartment dwellers going through our property and across our properties. We have vacant land. in the back that used to be for horses and cattle is now garbage., We continually get bottles and such from the neighboring parking lots of our neighborhood apartment buildings. We also have now become a property on one side of us which the. . . (unclear,) . . .of us is now called the potty run. . .dog potty run. All day lorq' people or their little dogs from the apartment house run along our properties. Our driveways have become the fast food dump, and also with the .fast food paper accumulated we get broken bottles and beer cans. We have lost all of our privacy for private living up there. We have apartment buildings on all three sides of ,Us. The future costs to come will be great. If we stay there we '*re going to soon have to pay for improvements on the road. The = ad is not large enough any more for the apartment dwellers. The apartment dwellers are continually out on SE 248th without any sidaialks. It is very dangerous road for the pedestrians. We definitely need street lights and the city has not yet put street lights :g and we have been in the city on our side since 1970. And at same point in time sewers are going to have to be put down on SE 24ath. As Mr. Bell said, I hate to discriminate against the last four of us, we would like out. And if you say single homes in our area again, our value has just gone down from multifamily housing down to probably half the cost we were hoping to get from one more developer which has not yet come to approach us. I liave one last-istatement here before I sae if you have any questions. Prcbleme heated by the developers of the , apartment complex in our area okpse, to..our properties and abutting our properties we are saying that, the (unclear) type of single homes is now gone forever; in out-,immediate area. So :be it. The land has now come to thq pointxt ; no return. We cannot go back to single houses. We_ are just just anpi4sland in the sea'-of apartments. Our only salvation is to once .a in soon, one last developer will come in and please relieve 'ups o�our five pieces of property. We will then move on to- single ho s " in other single areas- Do you have any questions. , Acting Chair Stoner; _ V d like 'tp ask you what the total acreage of the five of you is. Z0 , I J Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Betty Acheson: Six acres, approximately a l ,ttli , , .t more we figured. I have the names for the record of all ofu•j;u.s and I hate when they put us into the city they said that you #4d to have 75 percent. This time we have 100 percent. We do not to go down, to single family. The first property coming off a �er�son Highway there are two parcels there owned by Jean and Daxroll McClarren. All right. The next property is owned by my husba and myself, 10717 SE 248th. The next property is Leona Wisterr, t 10723, and the last property is owned by Charles and Gloria Xos�ey. We would all love to see it left high rise apartments or, XuIttole housing. I'm sure it is not feasible or practical to haVff ,;s ri+ le homes in that area. Acting Chair: Any other questions. Leona. Commissioner or I'm not clear exactly which p�opprty number you're referring to in our study. Betty Acheson: I think it is EH-100 where it t�bese little islands in the sea with all ,the apartments arout „µid 'right here, and they want to put us down .from. . . (unclear) . . .1ao�Ing to single housing, s Commissioner Orr: You are currently zoned mujt�,,f4m ly, Betty Acheson: We are currently zoned Rl with theki Ccrpprehensive Plan going into MRG at a time we would sell or;, it pit rezoned. We would like it to stay that- way as long as we i.'iw ;there, but. . . (unclear) . . .we were going to put it up for sale and ,try to get out of there. Any questions. Commissioner Greenstreet: Maybe staff could look,rt ?or map there and fill us in where it is on our text please. James Harris: What is the number of the map? a .. Lauri Anderson: The map that she is looking at is� :the single family designated area concept. The area that is indicated. . .this is a Comprehensive Plan map ',change, this is not. *qAA ng change. The zoning area that is most closely tied to her��p, arty is Area MF-12 where we are recommending that a portion. �.aa triangular portion that is currently vacant be rezoned to Ojogle family. Currently the other parcels are zoned single fai*41y'j#,, ;fiaid since we have not been looking at single family land, we verq, of proposing a change for that area. Betty Acheson: This time you have your rezoning. . .your little red marker on the property saying that we are rezon, ng 419Wnward. 21 . a . �i Planning Commission Minutes =' August 28, 1989 Lauri Anderson: Ma'm, it is this triangular area here. Betty Acheson: So you are sayino that you are going to leave the rest of all our four properties to be MRG in the' Comprehensive Plan? Lauri Anderson: I meant zoning .the zoning would remain the same except for this triangular paktion right here which we 'ire recommending to go R1-7.2 in , tandem with the ' rest of the properties. So in other words, since the majority of these properties are zoned for singlet" family, we are not addressing single family land in terms of making a change. So the bulk of those properties are not affected by this action. Betty Acheson: You are saying that overall Comprehensive Plan is still MRG. Lagri Anderson: Right. There is a difference between the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning. The zoning is the- legal mechanism that we use to ,enforde what is allowable on a piece of property, and in this particular case the zoning would remain the same except for, as I mentioned, an MP-12, the small triangular portion. This single family dignated area overlay is in the Comprehensive Plan and as proposed would affect - this property; however, that does not change the zoning on the property. That would only be an indication that as staff and the general public were to look at that property, they would consider that there are single family residences that Wight deserve some protection if so desired. Betty Acheson: Are you saying that we are allowed to eventually sell and leave with a developer. , Lauri Andersop: Your zoning would. . .m'am, I'm not sure exactly which piece you are here. tty Acheson: All' of it toget1ger. Lauri Anderson: All these. The'�,Voni;ng would not change. You could still do whatever. : .the zoning i -,ndt proposed for- & change on your properties. Betty Acheson: That:is not what e'understood and that is not what this map shows. Lauri Anderson: That's because this is the comp. . . Betty Acheson: Okay, all right; okay. 12 � I Planning Commission Minutes , August 28, 1989 a Acting Chair Stoner: . . . (Unclear) -I think,, ;'-has happened here is that the single family areas have been pul out of this and they are just looking at multifamily. I think, s important that you get that clarified so that you are rball is sure that you. . . (unclear) , 4', Betty Acheson: what we are concerned is for tha.� Comprehensive Plan. We are all living there now in single, 14 �.s fine. But we are all hoping to leave very shortly. Okay. _,,t � Acting Chair Storer: I would suggest. . . (unclea �,.�, .7� think that your property is not going to be affected by, O ,4 ion, and I think what you need to do is, clarify that with _, Ong. Thelma McCann. Robert Baird. She asked for the maili, at, I think. Howard Bromley. Howard Bromley: My name is Howard Bromley. �, ),iv*,iat 15501 SE 276th Place in Kent. I'd like to thank Mr. Bell. f is comments this evening. I probably would have said somei gj,;; ke now that all the stock is out of the barn, you people a4*. ;fining around trying to slam the doors. I've lived in Kent mo,�}t jmy life and never intended to live in an industrial mult,.i+ apt a*--type area. I put my roots here, raised my family here, ano,fl!, l invested in this area. My property is just a few feet, 40,. t.a elieve, off the Kent-Kangley Highway which is given to office; „ngs, retail outlets, stores, that sort , of thing. I bought.. AjkAi "property 17 years ago. It had apartments on it. It was ann ;, to the City of Kent in 1968 and at that- time was zone, .f , _ -three-story apartments. I've made payments on it and paid tia:x +fin it for 17 years bared on the philosophy, that with my retires ;,..,:might build an apartment complex there, and find it to be axN; ' , g fast that the City wants now to come and take my zonings rom me when they have taxed me for 17 years and tell me I onger do my long-range goals. 41 Acting Chairman Stoner: Could you, identi€y 04rPel in terms of the study. A"' Howard Bromley: I was just going to �r�a j + g y propy' �,n your map area 14 designated on your .,st as MF-18, it wQgl ,,�t:ax parcels 231 and 232. This propertyr,j as I pointed out,,,�,w gpnexed as an apartment property. The zoning was ahang ,, a (( 1973 again indicating that the city was;,keeping that prope0y. r'apartments. New zoning changed to MRM, which is multifam,"yl ,, ; ,,juap surrounded by apartment complexes, a day care center, reta,4; eta. I find it hard to believe that anyone is going to live Q� T' -square foot lots in that area. I also find it hard to, bel4lev , ,, at the city now having built apartment complexes all around .caing to tell 23 ,11 'r Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 me I can no longer build apartmonts on my property. _ That is all I have to say. Acting ChAirman Stoner: I Any qdestions. Thank you. The next people on the list are John and Jean Marshall who have said that they want to be on the mailing list. All right. Ann Eggers. Ann Eggers: My name is Ann Eg rsss j I live at 9806 South 2 48th Apartment 24, considered th*r Kentbrook Apartments at the intersection of 98th and 248th, Formerly Strawberry Lane and 248th, and I have three items I'd kilt,, of ' like to cover. I think the first item that we all need to o4hoider here is that we really are considering people, you know, w&w, re not considering just buildings but we are considering people. '=I've lived here in Kent for eight years, seven years in the Kentbrook Apartments. These years on 248th have at the beginning been very happy, enjoyable years, but within the last four to five yew it has been a tremendous impact on my life in terms of a' feeliz of overcrowdedness. The impact I have seen "on the neighborhood,--has been one of overcroVdedness. We've lost our space in terms o 5our open space. We've lost the feeling of spacialness and the-- ,natural beauty around us. The impact I 've had personally on mylf when I watched the apartments east of the Kentbrook Apartmentiolgo up was quite literally shaking as they tore down 15 beautiful trees and picked them up with .the big. . . it was gut wrenching. AnW not only that, when the 'developer said that the red fox' that used ;0D go through the field could find somewhere else to life. I just'.iabout punched him out. But. . .,the biggest impact again I think w*" are talking about is on people. The second factor is that affordable housing may be a goal of all of what we have been talking abVAt ,tonight and I don't know if it is making money. . .if we are' l00%,Jhg at our goals backward or not. Is our goal to make rioney or td4 et the most amount of money off the land that we are talking about,. or is it affordable housing. The parcels that I have intere in is MF-7 and MF--10, both east of the Kentbrook Apartments an&�, est of the Kentbrook Apartments. And as I heard some of the others " talk tonight, I agree that it is extremely difficult for single family homes on the 248th property, specially on the south side, ta` be surrounded by these enormous apartments that are gbing� up, and "I would be in favor of zoning in terms of duplex, certainly not vis -large as a multifamily housing that is going up near unit 10. $�*d �also like to speak to the fact that I am a schoolteacher for th iKent School District, and the big impact that we have felt' on ouo �chool has been tremendous. We opened three schools 'two "years *go,I 'approximately, and we hope to open three more schools in appt tihately one year. They tell us that even with those three schools built, we are still, _going to need three more if the multifamily housing keeps going the way it is. As a teacher, that 'Impacts us right now as we do not have the teacher-to-student ratio that we would like, and more students �'4 h� I Planning Commission Minutest;, August 28, 1989 ! coming in with less buildings is a big impact. 1,,,vi also like to address the issue of what I call Kent being. us4ok ,friendly or non-user friendly. As a walker, I feel that it �:sxq qx ry non-user friendly. Until 104th, the Benson Highway, did coty-�,siadewalks on; either side . .before that I did enjoy going up "t Q the hills on either side of the road trying to slosh througb,�,"e mud. Now it at least has sidewalks. But 248th I find v0" :,hAzardous to walk, and in fact just today was clipped very cl+ v*e by a car who thought it would be cute to come over towards me .eVoo� though I was off towards the side. I'd also like to say their, n't seem to be any busses going throughout Keent in terms of sty busses. r­:_ I personally would ]pike to see that in terms of &a­ ,6 i.on of some city traffic that could connect up with the downtrawp '"areas or the commercial areas, and I'd also like to see somta,,�+*"* of youth or boys and girls club activities in areas where the,',yothi of our city could have places to go to. If multifamily uni $Xe getting as large as they are, there doesn't seem to be any aress �where these youth of our city can go to enjoy themselves dung,'r day other than to make problems and to just use their skatebcpar4s for eight or ten hours and drop their trash wherever they;,wA# to. I think that is all I have to say. „ a; Acting Chairman Stoner: Any questions, Greg, Commissioner Gregnstreet: You were talking about:_the teacher- student ratio. What do you feel if you allow the;.�,gla�velopers to a build out their land but, charge fees to „ ' for school construction, hiring teachers, .more busses, de'v 4; nt fees is what they call. . . Ann Eggers: I'd be in favor of that if the o sPhoglo , were built first and if the teachers were hired first. it , *%, that we sort of have it backwards. The developers come in and -# develop the land, put in all the units, and then they go gvgs&:„� t schools. You need this many. more classrooms and this Vx4WMVV1 ; ' ire teachers. It seems that we are playing .catch up and we haves - anywhere near caught up. Commissioner Gregnstreet: Thank you. Acting Chair Stoner: Any other questions. ThA`*1' ' Tom Sharp. Tom Sharp: My name is Tom. Sharp. I live at 24W­ 3*d Ave SE in Kent. Before I begin. . .my, nature is not to be-*,, antational- type person, and so I don't want you to this as a confrontational measure, but I, along with my pa J and the City, of Kent, have been named in a litigation brought;. y„ , 9►rganization that Mrs. Orr is an officer of, and think that=,,s f e Planning Commission operates under the Document of Fairnq* att I think it 25 N9} a Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 is only fair that she not hear 'anything concerning any properties that I own on the East Bill 'either in the zoning issue or the Comprehensive Plan. ' ,r Acting Chair_ Stton I I wouldt -like staff to note Kr; Sharp's concern. I think we need a legal opinion and we will get that. Tom sharp: I'm waiting for theylegal opinion. Acting Chair Stoner: You knc °:, that we do not have the City Attorney here. 'If your concern-t is that Mrs. Carr not smear your comments on your property, then.'we are in a bind. James Harris: Madam Chair,' let'! ite explain. In a situation life this we would simply take it under advisement and you would proceed forward. Leona Orr participates; Acting Chair' Stones: If we fine out at a subsequent point. . . James Har is: He's challenged and that goes on the record. Simply go on with your deliberations. Acting C air Stones: At this -p6int we are taking testimony and comments. Tom s arR: Thank you Madam C116irman. I have another ,issue and I guess this has been . . . I've d the Ordinances 2796 which sets up the Planning Commission gas the hearing body for the Comprehensive Plans which it part of the scope of the hearing. . .Planning Commission, also I have read Chapter 2.32 of the City Administrative Code. . .6etsG the Planning Commission as the hearer of, the. . .heara changes td'•the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance changes and also OrdirMhce 2233 which sets up the Hearing Examiner and I just wish to stat 'that since the Council has passed Ordinance 2796, the Planning sstf has sent out basically a shot- gun notice. Item number 1' is to hear the goals.-. .is to hold a public hearing on the existing :goals, policies, additions, etc, which no one has spoken to this evening. I'm not sure everyone has the documentation concerning t2m ,t. Notice is also given that you are hearing changes to the subar4a plan, which is within the scope of 2796. The third item'- is the'2%oninq Code change, or additions to the Zoning Code R1-5000, an4 the fourth item is the zoning Change. Now it seems to me we -haves four items here, -in the shot- gun approach. I haven't heard any organization to the 'hearing of the testimony concerning° these four monumental changes to the ning Code and the ComprehenssiVo, Plan, and I just think that there should be some organization to ibis,• and this shot-gun approach is ' totally unfair to everyone out taiere, including myself, and 1 have read these things. To me it is beyond me how the' , Planning 2.6 b � Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Commission in the Planning Department can ' e people to understand what is going on with one notice. Thy Ynough of my confrontational items. The things I do like. After'' g a member of the committee that revised the PUD ordinance' , he City of Kent, after being involved in the first PUD County, I wholeheartedly support 5000 square foot lots. I �th�Ak it is long in coming and I think it is the way maybe some of these infill areas can get inffilled in the City of Kent and t 8tVl,4t be dune on an economic basis. I would like to get into areaa," �'' "�-3 in which I have an interest. MF-3 is over basically on 1 � Avenue. And if I understand that, maybe the staff can correct Te; at you are overlaying with the Comprehensive Plan change cry yting a single family over existing multifamily changes. Is that „ Srrect? Acting Chair Stoner: We need to direct questii*', through the chair. Tom Sharp: Oh, I will. Just assume that it is being directed to you, Madam Chairman. Acting �� Stoner. "One shouldn't assume ,hose things ri C�, necessarily. MF-3, and you are wondering specifloa ly the action that is. . . Tom Sharp: Right. 4 Acting Chair Stoner: Do you have other questions and other concerns because I am looking at the time and I t.4*nk you might want to use the time to get all your questions anc-cQhcerns out and go and have a staff response to them. 'L. Tom Sharp: Okay. And on rebuttal I, can pick thesq, xp! also. That is just a point of order. I also have an interest-If area MF-18 which is currently zoned MRM and which is proposed tot be changed R1-7200, I do believe. This is area is bordered)Y�' XK m- t Kangley, a major arterial, state arterial in the City of Kent, , �16th, which I believe is an arterial. As currently planned have no buffer between the apartments which surrounds ' thi site on two sides. According to the documentation that the -glsa, ° as put out, this would reduce the East Hill potential ;' ' '5.2-8 percent. However, my calculations may, or may not be wronq,l, I calculate that it would produce, if you would change it ftc�m to single family that you would be reducing a potential of 30 ' ent. Isn't it a little unfair to be putting either 15 perc' '",'*s the staff calculates it or 30 percent as I calculate it in can r p �,�� ��ck of land. What are we talking about here? The people I q ,, it are not large developers. I guess if I am considered �a*,'rO t I per, then I guess I am a developer, but I certainly don't Ili 6",, i'oer myself a large developer, and I don't understand why on the Est Hill we are 27 r A Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 picking on the small people who own this land, and down in the valley they are totally immune t! any changes. I'm.tal,king about the Lakes project. . .totally immune,. We have 'owned this property ten years, just acquired the last parcel in January ,to extend our apartments, and now we have a itte plan completed. We have not gone for an EIS assessment with' the city, but we do have a site plan and I have another one to go through first before we do this, and now we find out that after, owning this and paying taxes on multiple-family-zoned land that now we are looking that it is going to be single family. I can "arantee you that it will not be developed as single family. It - is a multiple-family area surrounded by multiple family, , accessed by major arterial in the City of Kent. It is beyond me. ,,�.It is basically, I guess, a knee- jerk approach to the situation, a 20 percent reduction. If you reduce these major areas in the,,City of Kent, the growth is going to move right outside the city, '� ight across on 116th. That's what is going to happen. You are not going to stop growth. Commissioner Busman: Do you own all that area. Tom Sharp: No, I own. . . I am p rtners, and my other partners are here also, .and the property that'.'is adjacent to the Colonial Square Apartments. There are two lots -there. Commissioner Bitgman: MF-18 or 10-3. Tom Sharp: MF-18. Acting, Chair Stoner: Any other questions from Mr. Sharp? Can we clarify his question about MF-3. Lauri. Anderson: If you will l k, at your city map EH-4, which shows the area MF-3, and then if, ou want to compare that with map EH-47, which shows the single f4k4ly designated area, MF-3 is not included in the single family designated area. ,r Acting Chair Stoner: The next person on the list is K Meyers. Kathy Meyers: my -name is Kathyr,, eyars and I live at 23829 111th Place SE, Apartment Pl. I dofil�t; have any interest pertaining to any specific property. Basically, I; just think that, if you drive along 240th you can see a differ4ce, I think, between some of the older apartment complexes, for :stance the one that just went up, the newest one. After , that rc�i'A Is widened, and certainly the complex went up I am sur4i when the, city knew they would be widening that street, I don't. , see, that there is going to be any buffer _ between the building and the roAd at all. They are going to be right next to each other. There is going to be no room for landscaping. I don't inow uiU4t kind of requirements there 28 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 ;' A' i •, currently are for a landscape perimeter, but I ti ,perhaps you could lessen the problems in the future if you r rId a better apartment complex, not so much as you do away with laaImr but just make them more palatable when, they are built. RO to landscape perimeter, for instance, ch more aggres4ir�pjt „, what is currently required, if anything is currently reg4troo. I think I read that Dent will allow in certain classi.ficat to a four- story apartment building. That seems like you ar , i.,,g ting into monstrosities. Maybe tone it down. I live in an o4der apartment complex that is two levels. We have trees around usJ ,­qreen space. It is a totally different environment. And 10tting down on the people that built the apartment compleg;a�,$i ' off, the way. They didn't rip down the trees. The trees wqrgJgone. The single family owners have ripped down the trees. ',,4 ;,� think that perhaps you could have a better apartment comple $� , anging some of the rules about how they are built and what ; to go into them. That is the first thing I'd like to say. ; second, I would like to address the 5000 square foot' son El! You showed pictures of really pretty houses on 5000 square, .' I had the misfortune of living in Southern California ai,J�0*10. of years. I am originally from Indiana ,from a very smalls tg,,,, And if you want to see what a 5000 square foot lot can be �Jks4,, just go down to Southern California and you will see abundant.; des of what- they can look like 20 years down the line. And -1Op-Op,,t't,saying that the ones in Kent necessarily would, but at least, bid pen to the possibility that you may be letting in what iq;, g r hi to end up being really trashy housing. When you get into­,�"" � er cost, I think naturally that is going ItQ be the first to ,o , ded if the city goes that way, not to ,s,4y that Kent would,.; ,�. 1 t certainly is something to consider, I think. And the last,,, a �'d like to say is just that one of the persons that spoke en, d a number, of problems that come with a higher-density ppul>; ' + n. . .crime, noise, another lady pointed 'out overcrowded sch 1% ,It seems to me that some of the people here seem to be saying"� jit has gone so far you can't do anythin4 ,iabout it. It's kir4',14' sme to give up on it. . ,if you can't beat ,them, join them. Tookt�t,' lust go with the flow here and let the trend continue. But I< there is a mistake inherent in that philosophy. If you d9q'� nk it could get any worse, I think you are very wrong. I thil ' t could get a lot worse than it is now. And if you people # t take action to keep it from getting worse, I think it will qth worse. Acting Chair Stoner.: Any questions. Commissioner Ward: I think that staff should p - respond to some things that you say would like to see, became, have -some things like this and it affects. . . (unclear) . . .wher scaping is concerned. Maybe one memberl:,of staff could quiway, "law some of the things we have already in place and it would. ;. 0ally answer 29 f- Planning Commission Minutes r, t August 28, 1989 the question as to where it is °that the whole thing is trying to go. Lauri Anderson: I don't have tho*Yining Code in front of me. You ' want me to just talk'about some-�bf -the standards. Co ssioner, ' Ward: Some of the landscaping equiroments . . . (unclear) Lauri Anderson: ' Multifamily have perimeter landscaping requirements, I believe that is 10 feat. I don't have the code in front of me. Also they haVd' a requirement for a five-foot foundation landscaping against" the building. In most of the multifamily" zoning categories, 25 percent of the development has to remain in open green ar4a. There are requirements if multifamily abuts a 13bblic strut or a single family residential district.' There are some 'builAing modulation -requirements, in other words you can't have a bar .cks-type building. The building has to have some setbacks, for example roof-line changes, or something like that to provide a little more of an interest rather than a straight facade. Whose are the ones that' come immediately to mind. I know there are other"Multifamily standards in terms of building separation, distances. ::.'they have to be a certain distance apart based on their building height, and that kind of thing. James Harris: Madam Chairman, the thing I'd like to add is that most of you on the -Planning Commission recall, it's been about two years ago, that these more stri " tt standards came into play. And those more stringent standards � ! recommendations, you made to the City Council because of citizeha' concerns, and those citizens' concerns being made known to the'C'ity Council that they didn't like the continuation in�.Rent of thw types of apartment buildings that were being built at that time. what Lauri is talking about are some rather new standards. The tistimony that we hearer earlier may be about an apartment complex that >was in the- deseign stage before those new standards' came into play. So from this "point on, or say from two years ago on, the citiftns should begin to see changes in the way apartment buildings lodW6 Acting. ChairStoner: Richard K&ison. Richard Nelson: My name is Richard Nelson. I live at 434 Summit. I 've lived there 26 years now. : Mat you are changing here. I live at a lot just north of the fir . . .well I own the lot just south of the line on where you- are prdoosing the rezoning, and 'I, own the property right next door to , it. ,, , Acting Chg1r .6tone : Do you ha#e a designation for* it? 3b ra Planning Commission Minutes ,,; August 28, 1989 Richard Nelson: Excuse me. Area MY-5. I've; o ;Yfi at lot now for possibly 23 years. I bought it as more, +or ;a11ess a semi investment. Now that my children are grown u , 4i,4 d ;gone, I've planned in the next few year4l .to build some timp,gk tal unit on it and live in one of them myself and sell my of to my boy. well, if you rezone this, I can't afford to bui ,,,1& *iPgle family home on it, now with the taxes nowadays in King Count• And I have been fighting the County for four years over the taxes on this. They call it view property. It is not view px 4y� And if I can't build say two' nice duplex on it, and you Pe� the zoning from MRD to single family dwelling 5000 square, home, I'd almost be forced to build three cheap homes to. pay the rent and keep the rest of any property up thee, gre tirement. There is very little MRD left, and I don't knpWov .s little area is singled out, The tastes on all those 1p tremendous. I don't know what else I could say in my defense., x:3 st think it is unfair to rezone that little parcel in there. . I #ve access to Summit Avenue on it, and I could build two nice du,lpl tea, which I'd like to do and live in one cif them. I have no",;ia g, p1se, thank you. Acting Chair Stoner: Are there any questions ;4r Mr. Nelson. Alan is it Stoick? Alan Stoick: My name is Alan Stoick. I'm at 33 it. I will be speaking first about, I guess, the same pr©p� 'o XF-5, up on Summit Avenue. I like Mr. Drake, Mr. Deal, Mr. XeJ$ ►n all bought the property thinking about, developing and apl', 4 'investment. Currently it is zoned duplex, and I'd just li ne. '!address the Planning Committee on the subject of fragmentatiou,y guess. Right now if you change it, there will be a duplex xo oda , the north, multifamily to the south and then single ff1 n between. Doesn't address. . .kind of goes against the fra ion part of it. Going €orm. duplex to 72000 if I, like Mr. , would like to develop it, I could put three single family 7200 'on in lieu of the two duplexes I also plan to build someday, yp, would be one unit difference. I don't know how big an impa ,� teas going to be. . .very little. Pertaining to that I guess I!d; Cto keep it simple. I think. . .shown on the one map you are ems ' Ito create a fragmentation. It would be a nice straight line, *t ' would leave it as it was coming off 244tth going straight , ,, duth to the multifamily zone. if you just leave it the samei,i a using the KISS method. . .Keep It Sin le Stupid. The ot� � uld be the , reason why M-21 was even put„into this study. Mkl property owners has already said that he would also liaap .develop it. That's. . . (unclear) . . .sounds like serial 92 Mr. D ►A. ' ,t,think. One of them listed there is already multifamily. ' = ! , would want to zone it to duplex, I have, no idea. It would; , g'3randfathered , anyway. The only other one that would be, affda .would be a 31 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 property just- south of me, Joe Biaing, and that property couldn't be developed into a duplex anyw&�, more than one duplex. So that area doesnIt - make any sense t& even be on and even have the Planning Committee worried about {it any more. ' Just keep that one out of it. And the 'last thine,-I guess 'you ran out of-the Area Housing Studies books. I guesa. 7 wonder if I could get a copy of that. Bill Dinsdge: My name is Sill 61nsdale. I live at 13700 SE 266th in Kent. I don't have a lot of`,,the data, a lot of the .property descriptions, but 'I 've been list6ning to the comments by some of the people that I consider -the "mare of the City of Kent, some of the people who have lived her*` for , a long time, and who have elected to make their investments -in the City of tent or within an area surrounding the City of Kent. And most of' us 'know that the average person who doesn't have the time and energy 'ta ,study the stock market or the time and ergy to study banking systems so you know were to put � your mdfi6y. . .everybody has always been told. . .put your investment in r1 estate. And that is what a lot of these people have done, including myself. I've made a lot of sacrifices to build up equity in property and some of the sacrifices I made were listening"'to comprehensive plan studies, the Soos Creek Plan, the City of Kent Comprehensive Plan and I put some faith in those things. When we have a Comprehensive Plan that says that property is going to be dtVoiloped in a certain way, the City of Kent develops their utilities to facilitate that kind - of development, including roads, serer, water, we've got water mains and sewer mains into these areaAfthat are zoned multiple family. And to throw that away and to 04-y to come up with a new plan at this point, we've gone so far and'to just arbitrarily downtone this property where we've got the'-` utilities in place. . .we've got everything in place and to top mall off the citizend of our city have invested their money over *'?period of many year, have paid taxes to guarantee that someday-t-they would be able to make some money on their property and not 6�ly that but provide a' good stable income for themselves. For 1hi� -city to think. . .the ' Planning Department to think that they b hi just arbitrarily- take that away without some sort of compensatioh is wrong. Now when King, County came up with the idea thet 'they� were going to keep some of the farmlands 'in the valley in" place" -some of their remedies was to buy 49 the development rights froX th a farmers so that the property wouldn't be developed. I don'-t tbink there is a citizen in this city that would say° that somebo ; shou'ld come and take my, property make it worth half `what it is vi6rth now when I in fact" paid for that property even ten years agd a' price that was at that time Was considered to be multiple property and that's the price- we paid for it. . .to ,come along and take that away from me without' some sort, of compensation is not right and isf,,not the American way. It is just not something that I think that-, should have to suffer. Now if 3`2 NIL ' Planning Commission Minutes '+ August 28, 1989 f all the citizens that are here want to pay me hir, development rights, then I will walk away from it and 'c, ` ' dear that my investment down through the years has been camp�,�e� But for somebody to just take it without any compensation i riot right. I have listened to everyone here who has any invest *(; ii land feels the same way, and I just can't see this thing goia the way the Planning Department has recommended that it go.,', ' �'►k- you. Any questions. t,. . Acting Chair Stoner: Are there any questions? Commissioner Bateman: Where is your property lacat4d , Bill Dinsdale: I have some property in the 18 iteali I have just put up a chain-link fence on part of it because It'lld surrounded by. . .and it was a major thoroughfare from 116th� tt "I VI t-Kangley, and we are. . .that was an effort to cut it down ,66m, *`,' trot traffic area. And I didn't squawk about that, I didn't ask tb*' City of Kent to do that, I did that at my own expense, and it is',b ered on two sides by multifamily property. Acting Chair Storer: Any other questions. That* you. I have no one else on this list. Do you have other people"!I,dn,;�40other list. Yes m'am. (Voices Unclear) Yes you may. ' I Ethel Jaber: My name is Ethel Jaber and I live East Titus Street and I am talking about the Area Map 20,live! family. My home is the second home over from Cemetery Roaatdethere on East Titus Street. There are four houses in there. . . single family residences. To the north of us is the Farringtonwlk, ;irement Home, then up above the third home in is an apartment- uoe, then up behind are two homes, and there is a lot with justy -tjittle small house like shack but it is , about 1.1 acre back t tO, and then there are apartments up in there. We are zoned 'a$ , iple family high density, and your plan is to zone us dotfi , �l+ rden, which would reduce us from 40 units down to 16 unity " ? mere we are situated there with the apartment houses and the' Bement home, it has really taken down th,6 value of our home.,;,:1'Ih� got my tax assessment for 1989. My land was valued at 16 9^„ t° up to 25 1. My building, my home, was 57 8 and they loll down to 49 7. And I think it is going to go down lower and ,1 ° "'because of being in this high density -area where there di a°, rtments in there. Right now for me to back out of my driv6ai . .it is going to be really tough to sell my house as a single d . . .backing out of my driveway in the morning to go to work it ' really tough because the traffic is so bad there. Across �k eet from me now is a beauty shop, and then just recently in *�,I next to it went into a financial planning business. So w ' ' !just really being surrounded by . . . we are surrounded by �i Ile units and 33 gar=, r � y Planning Commission Minutes r August 28, 1989 businesses. And to go and lowe �,�this down to a lower density, it is going to lower the value of a ur property and I've lost already because my house is assessed at •lower than what I paid four, it, and it is going to go down, down. And I'd rather it stay at where it is. . .at the 40 unit- zoning. Acting Chair- Stoner: Any questions. All Right. Thank you. I have one more person who has signed up on the list and then I'll call for any other testimony and we will go until 10:00. Paul Morford. Parl Morford: -My name is Paul Morford and I live at 21264 132nd Avenue SE, Kent, Washington. I would like to address the fairness thing as much as Brad Bell has.-,, ' I probably wouldn't be quite as nice in the terms I could use if I would use them. I was on the Planning Commission when the exif#ting Comprehensive Plan was done, when Boeing was going out of bus$pess we were going to turn out the lights. Mr. Harris -preached and preached to us, we can plan now with pure planning. We don't have the pressure of- growth,. I was one of those ding dong Boeing engineers back in those days and didn't have common sense, so the things I learned . . . that I learned from Mr. Harris in the �Xanning Department. •.We looked at these plans, we looked. at ,these Oaps, was preached and preached at me and it finally sunk in that wed had commercial areas, then we go to multifamily, then we go to a :lesser multifamily, you square off areas. And this whole area was done without the pressure of growth. Now we have people coming in from California, we've got them coming in from Indiana# wo,!ve got them coming from all over because there are jobs here now from Boeing. I remember Hr. Scarf gave a talk at the Chamber of Coerce one time. It sure is a lot nicer to be in an area of growth than a place like Richland or Texas when they are lowing their tomes. . .in losing your land values you pay taxes on. In areas like ,the ones I am very familiar with there is, , I think Mr. Wright ,IS here, he has lived there a long time, I don't know what his feel$Ags are, up near Kent-Kan gley and 116th that is 'complately surrounded by apartments, ours included. I don't necessarily like to build apartments. I've built some. I've also built some $400,000 aid $500,000 homes ,in the Meridian Valley Country Club where some + the,wealthy people-•caan live in. But that is not what the marketAis, and that is not what the need is now and that's not what the dand. is. Apartments are full and the apartments are= ,getting very, very expensive and more and more expensive as the ,,,government officials and the do gooders keep driving these land vvalues up. And it is interesting that people come in here from Ca lfornia and say keep someone else out. I think most of us are transplants here. ' I came, here 23 years ago. I don't know how long you have to live here to become a local person. I can't hardly get out my drive on 132nd Avenue., but it is not. . .I don't ago up and •say that I came in here and 1 34 Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 v�J don't want anybody else to come in. I bought ellObt, and I'm paying the taxes for it. And I plan to pay for it;� ,as long as I can. Some of these other people who had this adraa a paid the taxes for a long time. Talk about spot zoning aAIL t#ng every principal I learned from the Planning staff. Ta"It --'Xangley and 116th, if any of you are familiar with it, and °thy ; j*ost of you are, is completely surrounded. We have our apait its Colonial Square, you have to the north, of us another apart4t,i complex, then, it goes down to a duplex. You go behind us and" j It the 'old ' Quail Ridge Club that was pub up there a long, 'tme ago and it has a lot of problems, and I think they hi rious drug problems in there. Then there is Lincoln Garden;: Y�u have all those in there, and you take one corner out. . .s '111�, °ght in the middle of this. . .and say you Want single family. ne brought up those ugly houses on 248th' or 240th and 100th,,� +fah, they are ugly. They are cheap. They meet the requirements: ey probably shouldn't have been that way. ' There should prb ave been a nice apartment complex. That's the kind of t it a Planning ' Department and whatever political thing is taking i ;' 611'to ram this thing down in such a big hurry is doing. when , i a that spot zoning. . .you see they are going to set there and ° pu are taking these people's rights away from them which you pho, "Id' pay for it if you want the parks, vote a' bond issue in, or-you afire, going to be faced with cheap, ugly housing like you saat' u0�,ou' 100th and 240th. . .who is going to build a nice house on that crner. Anybody like to build a $100, 000 $260,000 home there. . +$1 JQ,00 home is about the average now. And I am hoping 'the Planning Commission uses some common sense. Another thing, aye here, and I guess I have to speak out against Leona Orr. Sh s also suing me, and she has stated publicly at numerous meeti4i I was at that she is against all apartments on the East,,� �. You can go back to the record. . . for her to stand here or sit,"#p a and say that she can listen to the testimony of these people:-#e' � land be fair and nonbiased, I want to form a protest of Mrs. J Acting Chgir Stoner: Mr. Morford, We do have 1 ma 's protest and we will know yours for the record. Any gins i+ w° Commissigner_gregnatreet: Yes, I have some que t You said you were on the Planning Commission before. Paul Morford: Yes, I was or it for four years: Commissioner Grgenstreet: What years were you• *wf, ,., ! ' .I Paul Morford: When Boeing w6s going to turn out'°" , `�� tights. .i Commissioner Greenstreet: '69-75? 35 , aJ i Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Paul Morford: I don't remember,xthe years. Mr, Harris probably knows. ° " Commissia.�,,er Cree tree : The 'overall city mulUfaatily plan and where what is all zoned multifa ly. . .do you feel that is good City planning the way the ,city is 660 Paul. Morford: Yes, I think so ',because most of the time when the growth appears. . .and that's ano°der thing that was preaCh- ed-at me on the Planning Department, you bad these certain things and then you expand them out as the demi�d goes. And here for the firat time you have this tremendous lend for housing because of Boeing. If we want to stop,this growth in°'here, we need to stop Boeing from building airplanes and people fin building plants. As long as we are going to have that emplo-y*ht base, then if we do+wnzone in here, you are going to have "the same traffic problems or more traffic problems are going into',the county. Mrs. Stoner is on the Soos Creek Plan, and I have Oeoh sitting out there' listening to that, and the whole emphasis the Soos Creek Plan is ,to keep rural further out and to keep thi"higher densities closer in. That was good planning. Anne Biteman: I have a 'questioxk;_ Mr. Morford. Which property are you involved in. Are you invol'' d in any of these areas? Paul Mor I have some prorty' that is on 116th-Avenue just north of Kent Kangley. I have several pieces of property here, but I am just in the issues as a tot issue rather than specific. Acting ChAir .,.Sty : 'Thank y,+ . I had one other hand in the audience that I saw, and I: will tike 'other people's testimony until 10 o'clock. There was atgent� an back here. Wilk.,you come and state your name and address for'- he record, please. Ralph Wright: My name is Ralph 1i fight, 11414 Kent-Kangley Highway. Okay, I 've got two aid one-halftpres on Kent Kangley that, has been zoned MRM for ,a, long time. Xi9 }iyqu are downzoning sae to single family residence. . .paying taxew for whatever they zoned it, I guess. Right along .,beside me, ,':outside my 900 feet, is a three.- story apartment. I an relying't�i;sthis land to sell so that I have a better retirement, maybe better nursing home care you might call it. So, I'd appreciate it if wd;, bad, some kind of consideration in taking me from way up to way darn. And I got the last 'piece of land on Kent-Kan+glay on this tr ongle. Anne Biteman: Which side; of Kent Langley? ; Ralph, Wright: North side. You see, the Sequoia Apartments are right along side of me. 36 Planning Commission Minutes .�r : August 28, 1989 Anne Biteman: What is the address. Ralph Wright: 11414 t�r r Acting Chair Stoner: Any questions for Mr. Wrig�'r�i.''i, Commissioner Ward: Can you identify by one �unclear) y, Ralph Wright: MF-18. I have 900 foot along, e:g Q�,der of the Sequoia Apartments. Acting Chag Stoner: Any other questions. Tha u. I have a hand here in front., Would you give your name i , ess for the record please. i 1 Lucille Lemon: My name is Lucille Lemon. I 1 t �22911 101st Place SE. I have no property in Kent. I own a �' ��� : We have not lived here very long. I sympathize with the la O, r. I don't feel that money should be taken away from you, , bi"5,;, .'ado not like apartments. My parents have managed apartments,, a their lives. I've seen what happens to apartments. Peop i it t live in apartments do not care because it is not their p �pt� I do feel the landowner should be compensated somehow. I�,, 'nct right for them to lose their funds a4d their land but ap I' aaid I do not like apartments. My next issue is on the lot sigps.' ', , would like to stay in Kent. I have finally reached one of ,% ;' ams. I own a home. I have children that are in their years and someday they will be owning homes. I want themi l ' � event city. I don't want Kent turned into a Tacoma, a Valle p-j'Apartments. I don't want it here. I would like to stay in Kq 'A's far as the lot size of 5000 square feet. . .the only people. . . k if we stop analyzing and used common sense. A home on a 50QO re foot lot is going to be a rental home. Now is that' e rse than an apartment, because you are going to have three ,, four families livingin a rental home. I've seen it happen- ;� going to be pA '� �t�;, ,s �' g completely trashed. You cannot build a decent 5000 square feet. No one is going to own that home. it is c, i to be low income, and it is going to, ,be a rental. I y_' like to see apartments . . . a halt put tp them. I' believe ,f a'",aria certain areas that„ apartments should be built on. You q t h+aes in between two apartment buildings. That's ins* '^' you,. Gan't have a city full of apartments and tiny little;,`'., that o one will own except for landlords. s p I would ,l ik® I�. " ,e i f��tent";staff a nice city for families. As ,one lady stated earl;,44r ' X ;want out of here. That is what is going to happen to Kent- ,, the families that alive here. People have to be compensated�,i ;a, ;it has to be stopped on some of the growth. There has to b+�'' even has, there somewhere. Thank you. 37 f Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Acting Chair Stoner: Any questions. Thank you. Do I have anyone else. Is there anyone else here who would like to comment who we have not talked to. Yes m'am. Would you state your name and address for the record please. Steve, Ba, itr,: My name is Steve Babbitt. I live in the Scenic Hill area, 945 Maple Street. ':I own a single family home on an R1.72 lot. I am going to addrees the fairness issue. First of all, if we- are going to take the-development rights away like most of the people toward the end of the meeting today have said, I think those owners should be compensated if there is a downzone. Obviously that money is doing t have to come from 'somethere and that will be from the other metb*ra of the community. Getting on to other things. . .I think one of`the strengths of America . . . there has always been a strong middle class where there was a pretty good percentage of people could own� ,"eir own property. , America was doing great until we started to run out of land, which we are finally doing. So we have a biq,,problem. I think we are going to have to adjust to that fact. ikybe one way to do it is that our Planning Commission or elected i6fficials are going to decide what quality of life we want here and`thtn everyone is going to have to pay for it. If there is a downzone, the other folks in the community are going to have to reimburse that person for his lost income. But on the other hand vie are going to set a limit on how many people we want in the city period because that will establish a certain quality of life, arW part of that will have to be controlling how many jobs we or to here, because that does bring in more people. You know, thpria is always this motive, well, mainly down in the' valley where",you see all the warehouses. We got to develop it. It brings in *ore taxes, creates jobs, and this is good. Well, maybe a certain level is good, but anything beyond that isn't because that, hurts the quality of life. I've reached that point. I moved here 10 yeah ago, I'm not a native. At that time Kent reminded. ' me very mu . of ' a city I used -to spend my summers in where my giandmother," ived, and it had a railroad that went through -it and, a read. good,iparks department. I'm single and I never thought I'd ever be abl ' to buy a home, but I mmnaged, to three years ago, so in a aen'se 'l 7atteined a goal. Now that I have done it one of the primary ob j e4ti�es° on my mind is as soon as I get enough money saved, I'm goi!V to get out ot:here because the quality 'of life isn't what r remember as it was when I moved here 10 years ago. I think we havestb establish what quality of life we want. ,If it involves downzofting, we should reimburse those people. If it means limiting th* number of jobs crewed, I think that means 'that we have to do tUt. The piecemeal zoning I don't think is a good idea: That's g11. 14 fq, Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 W!' •' f Acting Chair Stoner: Any more questions. Than ,l Is there anyone else who wants to comment. If we have no mp ite�timony. . .I see a hand. Mr. Sharp. You heard the joy in my' # didn't you. Tom Share: Would you like me to state my name -and 44dires,s again? Acting Chair Stoner: Oh, please. Tom ShaM: My name is Tom Sharp. My address is 24254 143rd Avenue SE in Kent. Since I stated it before that my natural is basically nonconfrontational, I would like to again discusa, the 5000 square foot lot addition to the Kent Zoning Code. I was iavoXVOd back when I was a Boeing engineer, like my partner, which is a bunch of ek-ding-a-ling Boeing engineers, we were involved�:*n Is plat that happened to be the first PUD in King County-�, a ,very, very successful. It was in the Woodinville area. It. Va# sically in the boondocks at that time. Right now it is in t •'middle of one of the largest growth areas in King County. Th "h sing when we were selling housing in there was $50,000, now it, is $200,000, basically the same size lots, 5000 square feet. ',° Te was a mix of uses both single and multiple family uses '14-n different densities. But the point is with the finite land': . .there just ain't land no more around here, to put it very blUDitly. And if people think LA is bad, wait until the land prices here. . .wait until the development reaches the base of the mow t4ins and we don't have far to go. Wait until we see what happoho with land values then and prices in affordable housing. On6 ,off, the only ways we are going to be able to provide affordable hots jfor people is through smaller lots. Arid I can guarantee yoU, at design is not the problem. I'll put—as an example, I haVe•.,duplexes that I'm building on 8000 square foot lots, basically"400Isquare foot lot per unit, and I 'll put my duplexes up against,' *hYthing that is built in the City of Kent, anything . . . from a design standpoint and from a usability standpoint. And I know -t oe sign can be done, and I don't want the Planning Commission s�;11'��.and I would invite them to come up to a plat that I'm involved 'din and look at the design and see what can be done on smaller 1c1i :2 don't want you to be swayed by people who don't understand d4o'i #nd what can be done with good design, because this is one of.5tho$�,Oi�ly hopes of providing not only affordable housing but land land use in the City of Kent. Acting Chair Stoner: Any questions. r Commissioner. Greenstreet: Yes, I have a question. Acting Chair Stoner: See, you thought you were Ngq: �1-1home. Commissioner Greenstreet: You were talking of Woodtn ille PUD. 39 p, . I Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Tom Sharp: Right. Coxmissioner Greengtreet: Was there green belt acre4ge in that? Tom Sharp: Definitely. , „ . Commissioner Greenstreet: What do you think of 5000 lot spot zoning areas without green belts, trails, everything that goes with the PUD. Tom Sharp: It can still ,°,,work with the proper detii.gn considerations. I don't see any-�'5000 square foot lots being built in the city where the Engin4iing Department and the Fire Department would degrade. their ,requirements in terms of street access, widths, turnarounds, [d things of that nature. I've worked with those people long epugh to know that, it would be like getting blood out of a turnip. ; You are still going to have all the requirements for the engineering, even with these lot sizes. Commissioner Gree„street: So, looking at it from an engineering standpoint you can, but what about the people who have addressed the quality of life, and if you don't have the green belts to go along with it, how do you take care of it. r s Tom Sharp.: Well, the City of •Xent has, I guess, chosen not to purchase parks on the East Hill of Kent. Like Mr. Bell stated, there is a dire need for parks ,in the East Hill of Kent. One of the supposed outroar is because ya don't have any,parks on the East Hill of Kent. One was developed:,=at a great expense for a football field at the high school, and there is some proposed parks outside of the city, but no one has como-oup with any money, for them. They decided to put their money on t Nest Hill, not on the East Hill. Commissioner Greenstrest:: should the parks be purchased first then allow the. . . i Tom Sharp: I think it has, to + in conjunction. WhAt` do we pay taxes for Isn't that one of t , issues. . .fire, ,police and parks. But I don't see any money coming-,out of the city. There isn't any there. There isn't any councianic bonding capacity left. If ' people want to talk about the quality of life, why don't they talk about a bond issue and put the Acney where their mouth is. Acting Chair ,St ner: Any more comments or questions Commissioner Ward: Woul, you recommend ' a ' solution and. . . (unclear) . . . changing zoang. . .city buy , all this land and transfer it to parks. 40 4� r ; Planning Commission Minutes August 28, 1989 Tom Sharp: Sure, that would be fine if they would buy the land that I own. I would be more than glad to sell to them at a market price. I have no problem with that. I don't have any problem with you rezoning my land as 'long as you pay me for the difference. After all I paid for the difference. Commissioner Ward: I do agree with you on one point. There is. . . (unclear) . . .wrong with the 5000 square foot lot. I've heard too many comments regarding this, and I think that it is only because not too many people have been exposed to 5000. . .you are talking about a lot that is 50 by 100. There is a whole slug of them in Seattle that are pretty nice older homes that were built on. I own a few of them, and some of them are like 70 years old. So it has been in effect a long time. So, I wouldn't 'be appalled by the thought of the 5000 square feet. I don't Want to say any more, because she will challenge me, also. Acting Chair Stoner: It is now 10 o'clock. We are not going to take any more testimony tonight. Having seen no more hands, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ward: So moved. Acting Chair Stoner: Ray has moved. Do I have a second. Commissioner Biteman: Second. Acting Chair Stoner: Anne has. seconded the motion to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion. All in favor. Commissioners: Aye Acting Chair Stoner: Opposed. (Silence) Motion, passed. We will then deliberate at our next meeting which I understand is September 18. At that point. we will take no more testimony, , , but we will deliberate and try to reach a decision on this issue. Thank you. We appreciate you coming and we also appreciate you sticking to a ten-minute limit. It is nice to get through everybody in one evening. (End of verbatim minutes) The meeting was adjourned at 10 p.m. . Respectfully submitted, AiameP. Harr .,, Secretary 41