Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 09/18/1989 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 18, 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7:30 p.m. Monday, September 18, 1999 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Leona Orr Carol Stoner Raymond Ward COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Anne Biteman, excused Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner, absent PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Dan Stroh, 'Senior Planner Stephen Clifton, Planner Janet Shull, Planner Lois Ricketts, Secretary Commissioner Greenstreet MOVED and Commissioner Orr SECONDED a motion to approve the August 28, 1989 minutes as, printed. Motion carried. Commissioner Forner MOVED and Commissioner Orr SECONDED a motion to approve the August 14, 1989 minutes as printed. Motion carried. KENT EAST HILL HOUSING IMPLMNTATION (CPZ 89-3) ' Chair Martinez reopened the public hearing. (Verbatim Minutes) Mr. Harris: Madam Chair, before we hear from them; could I have entered four letters into the record. The first letter is a letter from James Tracy, who is Acting Director of King County Parks Planning and Resources Department. Now this is a letter very similar to the one he Faxed to us and we got into the, record last time, except some of the wording is just a little bit different, and he also "cc'd" another person, so I want that into the record because it is a little different. We also have a letter from Jeanette Molzhon. She is directing the letter to whom it may Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 concern, and she has a specific parcel number. You all have copies of these letters. Next letter is.addressed to me and that is from John Stewart, and he has identified a tax number and his area, I think, • is up on Summit. Last one is from Dale Snow who signed up this evening to talk, and his letter is a letter to the Planning Commission, and he also identified parcel numbers. I think he is going to talk a little bit about his letter this evening. So those are the four letters that I request to be put into the record. Chair Martinez: I will open the public hearing. I want to remind everyone that we would like to hold the testimony down to 10 minutes per person. Leona. Commissioner Orr: There has been question raised about appearance of fairness in my activities as an East Hill activist, and in that light, so there is no confusion and no question later on when the Planning Commission makes its recommendation, I have decided to step down from the deliberations and will not take part in the East Hill decision. With that in mind I will excuse myself. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Forner: Just for the record I need to tell you that I did have communication with Mr.. Snow. He just contacted me to ask about how to proceed at a hearing, and anything that he discussed with me he will discuss this evening in his letter. Chair Martinez: Are there any other folks that need to discuss what has happened between our meetings, because we are operating under the Appearance of Fairness, which means that all communications to this body should be made in a public setting and/or report. If you talk to each other or talk to anyone outside this meeting, that we need to report that back into the public record. Okay. Four people have signed up to speak this evening. Mr. Snow, would you please step to the podium, identify yourself, please. You have identified parcel numbers, can you also help us by identifying the map number in the study. Dale Snow: I am Dale Snow. Is that the end number out beside it. Yes. MF-03 with an MRM zoning. Commissioner Greenstrget: Three and what. Dale Snow: MF-03 Commissioner Greenstreet: That's all. okay. Commissioner Stoner: EH-26 is his parcel. 2 Planning Commission Minutes �. September 18, 1989 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Dale Snow: These parcels are located on the east We of 100th Avenue, south of 236th, and- they have the Benson Center on the east boundary, the Benson Shopping Center, and the rest, p , the property is surrounded by apartments other than one old house,,th re that is in the process of being torn down because of ,the•'j,oning on the property. However, there are people still living in�' it, but I've been told that it is going to be torn down. Thin" property is within walking distance of schools, metro bus, the ,B"on Shopping Center. It would be a good location for a senior JUilding. . .senior citizens, and it is also within walking distance of ;the Valley Floor. And with our traffic problems in the area, itlwould seem that this property should be perhaps upzoned rather ' han'downzoned because of its location. And there are current ;p s before the Building Department, as stated in the letter, that b In s us up to date on that. The builder is City Construction Fwho, X have been working with out of Olympia, and he was to be here to present site plans for the zoning as it is now zoned, then he wogjd` come forth with working plans of it, but I was supposed to pe t �him at the Auburn Airport. It's closed for two days for resstrf, ring, so I am sure that he is not going to be here. I'll be brief. h think that covers it as far as I am concerned. Does somebQ , h u'e; ,questions? Commissioner Forner: I have a question. Right now i i* MRM, that is Medium Density Multifamily. Is that correct? Dale Snow: Yes. I believe that is 23 units per, aor_o,,, by the code, and the consideration is to take it down to 16 unIte per acre. This was rezoned to the MRM zoning in 1962 by the x?equest of the City of Kent. And I 've been paying taxes on it through 'these years trying to get something together. I did build on,,onq. ,,corner of it 20 years ago, but there would be a substantial imp-Act-oln the value of the land, because the value of the land is base&-Ion', the number of units you can put on it. I, have paid taxes on, it '.since 1962 as its existing zoning. Thank you. Commissioner Stoner: Can I ask you if you have itilOing permit at this time. Dale Snow: No, we are just in the process of paching it. There has been. . .I was looking at it here. . .there ho,'s ,'been. . . $150 has been paid for a. . .somethiog the city requizep'. r commissionerSStoner: Environmental checklist. Dale Snow: That has been done. 3 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Commissioner Stoner: Okay. You have a site plan now. How many units per acre are you planning to put on the site with the site plan that you have. Dale Snow: It was. . .the total •units. . .I think there's about five acres there—the total units an a 'proposal, and it hasn't been worked out with the city of what they would accept yet, was 90 to 120 units for the five acres. Commissioner Stoner: Thank you. Chair Mart nez: Any other questions. Thank you. Erik Pfaff. Erik Pfaff: Hello. My name is Erik Pfaff. I just wanted to address your thoughts on that 56-f6ot lot and t,000 square feet. I feel that it's far too small. ' It worries me about the type of building that would go on it, the type of environment that would surround that. Maybe. . .Lea Hill Homes, are you familiar with that up by Green River College. It is very tight and small. If you are familiar with that. . .that's the"°type of thing I'm worried about coming in. I have some property around and I want to build. I'd like to do some other things in Sent, too, do some more building, but if you lower the standards in Kent and it starts' turning into something like that, that's not doing to be a real desirable place for something like that, I don't`'think. Chair Martinez: Do you feel that even if we had the 5, 000 designation and we had some building standards that went along with it that would be a problem for you? Erik Pfaff: That would help, but I really haven't seen. . .maybe I haven't seen it, maybe you do, .but I haven't seen any standards proposed with this. And if it d6eishlt go hand in hand, it is hard to catch it up later. You will 'have everybody out there building cracker boxes, little shacks, 4nd they won't make for a good quality. I just wanted to say I'm against that. It' i.s great for the guys that want to go out and make money and they have a big piece of land and they want to divide it up and build more houses on it and things. So the bigger developers will like that, too. I guess from my point of view I could go out and make more money with it, but I'don't want to see "Xe,nt go downhill life that either. It's not right. I also am quite concerned about the' downzoning, too. I don't really want to soh all of that taken away. I am worried about that in regards to some things for myself, too. I don't want to see it downzoned tots Par, you know, in ,your decrease of multifamily units, because it is just going to go across the street just outside the City of Kent and then you will end up annexing it in later anyway and having to take care of it. So, there's got to be a happy medium in there. I don't have all the 4 Planning Commission Minutes tip, September 18, 1989 answers to the problems, you know, but if you, s4pa; ► 1 that, it will be developed just across the street. . .116th ;.�snd a little further out where it is King County property. !they'll start allowing it to go out there. You'll have to extend .,,Yo4r services further out there, larger costs, that sort of thing,. But the 5, 000 square foot lot worries me quite a bit. I think, Jt I is far too small and you won't attract the right type of haaUs g{ And the type of environment that will go with it. . .it will ibe like Lea Hill Homes, I picture, which. . .I know it is not nice,�toa single out a particular area like that, but it is not the most dpairable when they are that small, close and tight. You could ;,have a happy medium, a mix. I know you have some rules where;yop, can put some smaller houses in where there is existing smaller, lots 'in the City of Dent where you have one lot that is isolated ,i.n the middle of the hillside over there, and that should be accotgd for. People should be allowed to build on there with propeg- Otandards and things. I 'm not saying to take that completely ag,,4y ,,'rgm them, but you shouldn't come in with a five or ten-acre devgloo nt of 5, 000 square foot houses. That's about all I have to say,'"' Thank you. Commissioner Forner: Before you go I have one question. With the high building standards and codes, do you think a (single family home on 5,000 foot could be as attractive as a ; comparable apartment? Erik Pfaff: Could be attractive. Yes, it could b40 but I just don't think it will follow all the way through. I don't think it will happen. Commissioner Forner: Thank you. Chair Martinez: Maureen MacNamara. Maureen MacNamara: Maureen MacNamara, 23839 94th Avenue South. A comment on the lot size. I also would agree, that' that's too small a lot size for a home that is going to eyeptUaXly give an appearance to the City of Kent of something other,,#W, �Newark, New Jersey. If you drive around 116th and 114th, it,' +; beginning to look very close to that. At that point when those,gl,ats are that small and there are many children and many people ,rw%ning around, there is no open space, there's no place for cht� n to play. They play in the street, or they play downtown,, or, tey play in places that they start creating vandalism, or they; ruin across other people's undeveloped property. In addition , %Aat, I would encourage as strenuous amount of downsizing as ,youao until such time as you begin to look at the development of opopp*Vaces, places for children to play and the development of servlcos., To say to people that there is a bus nearby and there is w4l ipg distance, children don't that. They don't bus down to the ,-!pa'rk to play. 5 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 They play in their neighborhood. ; Three, four and five-year-olds are not going to take the bus down into one of the parks and play there and bus back. They alsa, are not going to walk down the street unaccompanied. They are =joing to play in and around where they live. If you go up to any- of the apartment complexes, you will see children playing in the parking lot. Cars get damaged, dumpsters are played in, litterAs all over and there is broken glass all over. In addition, while it may be local developers that build the apartment complexes, shortly thereafter they are sold. In fact one of the apartment complexes that I know of is now maintained by a landlord in Nev `York who doesn't have a vested interest in the City of Kent. The conditions at the apartment complex have slid dramatically downhill in the three years since the complex was completed. It has been put up in a way that it can be leveled in about ten years to build a higher and more expensive unit. And I think we are kidding ourselves if we say we can allow all these people to come in and they will invest in the City of Kent. They're not. It's transition 'and until we start planning for a city of permanent people. � I think we need to put a hold on things until we get services up to the same level. Any questions. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Richard Nelson. Richard Nelson: I spoke at the first meeting last month. I didn't mean to sign up again. Chair Martinez: Okay. Richard Nelson: I could add a little bit to it. Chair Martinez: It's your plead®. Richard Nelson: My name is Richard Nelson. I live at 430 Summit. I've been there approximately 27:�years now. I own the- first parcel going south on. . .I didn't tell you, I'm 'on Area MF-5 on the East Hill just off Summit. ' I bought ,that lot next to me, I guess, 18 years ago and I've paid premium -taxes on it. I'm constantly in a battle with King County over how much that property is worth. Right now that half acre. . .I'm paying taxes on $21,500, and it's no view, the back of it is a swag during the winter, and there is only a 20-foot right of way to it. And they are trying to raise it to $35,000. Arid I've fought" them four years over this, and that's the mark they feel it is` valued at. I feel that if this is changed. . .I would ,like it to stay at MRD, multiple dwelling, because all these years I've ' paid into that as part of my retirement. I plan to build one bar two duplexes there and I'd have my own private right of way in there. I also plan to live in one of them so I will be controlling it. I want to build nice 6 a JP Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 x duplexes. I just can't see downzoning that now with-4411 the money I have invested in it and then bring in a family and ' ry' to say you can build a single family home on it, but I'm gaping to have to charge you $15, 000 for that little piece of proper y to build on, or $20,000 the way it is going. . .prices. And I kris King County won't come down again. I think they are tired of lc�944g at me and will go after me next time. But I beat Ruthe Ridd t ' four times over this, finally, before the judge, and they stI4 Insist that this property is going to go up to $35,000, which 4ill, probably be next year. And I think that we are actually, within walking distance of the downtown, and I think this is Import nt. And I think we should have more multiple family dw�llixagO close to downtown Kent to give our merchants a chance, not �bui.ld way out here on the plateau where it is really tying up trafi' ,c. If we are going to have the traffic, we should have it right downtown where people have their choice of either walking or di�vl , in it. I believe that is all I have to say. „ Commissioner Forner: Are there sidewalks close to, yo4r piece of property? Richard Nelson: Not on Summit. I don't know if 'there are any being planned or not. There is, of course, two blpcks ,up on James Street. Commissioner Forner: So you are close to James Street. Richard Nelson: Yes, and also about the same. .pa , little bit further you are down on Smith Street and you can.gpt, on the Canyon there off Summit. Commissioner Greenstreet: Excuse me. You said small piece of property. Is that three and ,one-half acres? t Richard Nelson: It's a half acre lot there. Commissioner Grgenstreet: Half acre. The book aay 3.5 acres. Chair Martinez: That's for the entire area. , , Richard Nelson: That's the entire area. I have 'the first lot looking south. Chair Martinez: In this corner right here. Richard Nelson: Yes. Right in the bend of the zpaq on Summit. Like I say, there is a 20-foot right of way into it'�'iO,O foot long, and that is mine. Not wide enough for a street., , 7 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Commissioner Greenstre2t: There•''are structures on it. Richard Nelson: No, it's vacant:' There is a house out in front of me on that property right on $knit. Commissioner Gregnstreet. There Js one marked vacant. Commissioner Forner: Are there #then apartments around you. Richard Nelson: There is up tower 240th, James Street, and south of us also. Just down the street,' Oh, I'd say two blocks, you are into apartments again. That who14 corner there. Chair Martinez: The following people Ralph Wright, Frank Chopp and Robert Nelson have just 'bigned up to receive further information that comes out of thAise hearings. I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ward: So moved. Commissioner Forner: Second. Chair Martinez: All in favor. Voices: Aye. Chair Martinez: I would entertain a motion for action on any one of. . .we have four things we have'' been asked to consider. If you refer to EH-101 there are four pl*osed actions. The first is to amend the East Hill Area Plan Text. The second is Subarea and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment including the creation of the single family designated overlay. - The third is proposed to amend the zoning code text by �creatinT� a new zoning district, R1-5.0, single family residential. And the- third or the fourth is to amend the zoning map for multifamily areas MF-01 through MF -21. And we have three, sometimes four, options on each one of these areas. We can decide to do whatever we nt, actually, and whatever we think fits good planning. So I Mould entertain a motion to get something on the floor so that wi can discuss it and start this moving. Commissioner Forner: I would move that we table the creation of R1-5.0 until we have the final (uoclear) . . .the same as we did for West Hill. . . (unclear) Commissioner Greenstreet: I'd second it. Chair Martinez: Is there disdusedon? 8 lo Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 ' Commissioner Ward: Where are we. Mr. Satterstrom: The report of that committ Z ils . . . the preliminary report of that co aittee, as pointed ,, „ y Jim Harris, you have a copy of that in front of you this , rg, and the single committee is favorable,,,towards the creati� R1-5000 zone. Commissioner Fprner: But we haven't had ►pportunity (unclear) . . . Mr. Satterstrom: Janet Shull is here this evenin%_An4; ,can address questions that you might have about the committee ,a '& I!some of the background on that as w6ll as,some of the concert j,y a ,might have. Might be better situated that 2 to respond to queWtAons on the R1- 5000. Chair Martinez,: Thank you. , We do have a motion, one ,the floor to table. I's there - any discussion of that? I perspn J am not in favor of tabling. I think that particularly in ' ', ill this is a critical issue and we need, to bring it out and,,;, X about it in this particular form while the people who ark; 'rested are listening, I guess. Commissioner Greenstreet: In discussion last woi ,k l l d asked the slides of the 5000, the people who came. . .the Xogt,' b4 5, 000 but p P g they were saying (unclear) . . .7200, but it's th �' , .of single family construction (unclear) Is that part 4 iscussion. (unclear) Chair Martinez: I think in All fairness it n dp� ,;;iq ,be at this point, because I think the ,issue is very crj6 a too the full discussion, and let's do make it part of our disq ion. a Mr. Harris: One thing I would remind those of yQulwho were here last week did see slides showing development of4, isquare foot lots. And that's in the reC,prd. The question ,4 up as to what happened with those -hquses on Strawberry ,ai and James Street. And we went out and,,measured those ho a,re here to tell you tonight exactly the�status of those h '',., g. that they, are painted. . .and I went up there personally wit)ij Saturday. You can hardly see them. - so I think there is gQ � ; e a change in status from just the fact they are painted, n with the background. But someone, on ,the staff is ready d to that if that would help you. Chair Martinez: That would help us. ,Okay, Dane 9 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Dan Stroh: Dan Stroh with the Planking Department. We have gone back and taken a look at those and taken some slides for the Commission in response to your re4uest last time. And I also have a copy of the assessor1°s maps{'Ifor the county that shows the dimensions of those lots. Thee° are. . .I might say to start off with. . .a little larger than 7, 2 0 square foot lots. So they are even larger than the lot which predominates in certain single family neighborhoods. That doesh't mean that you necessarily get the housing type that everyone is going to like. so let me show these slides. Mr. Harris: He is being nice. jj: Commissioner Stoner: ' I noticed,'ghat diplomacy. Voices: Unclear. Mr. Stroh: The first light here-lb at the corner of Jatmes and 98th and you can see two of these` thi�6 houses front directly on 98th. Looking across James, the corner'�house there is kind°raf a. . .it has two wings that come out from a central section. This is what it looks like from the front view -Dooking across 98th. In this shot looking across 98th you can see the first house on- -the corner of 98th and James and also the one directly south of it, or a piece of it. This is the side that 4uaally faces James. You can see the fence 'that has gone in between James and that yard. You can also see a piece of that fence going into the back yard. This shot looks between the two houses that front on 98th and looks back towards the house behind there. The house that is at the corner of 98th and James actually has only about a . . . well it has a 26- foot yard, but 20 feet of that ii; the easement that is shared. So you are looking at -the easement that actually provides access into the two garage doors of the building that is west and fits behind the one that fronts on 98th. This was a short plat approved by the City back in 1977' during a perm when the City was experiencing a lot of short plat activity' and'a&, lot of single family activity. I have a. . .one More slid here -aand- l will show you the assessor's map that shows ,the' lot dimensibM. This is the other house that fronts on 98th' Avenue. The Plaan �hq Department has received a lot of comments about these' housea,�' so it is something that we are aware that people have been noti'ding `these. I'll put the overhead projector and I will show:'you VB*t the assessor's map looks like. This shows the actual-1ot 'dimensiti*hs as measured by the county tax assessor's office. And it is in°tie approved study plan. The lots we are talking about are right here. I can point to those. This lot, this lot and this lot. These two are the ones that actually front on 98th, with this one, t ".one behind, that fronts. . .that appears to front on James but actually has access to this other lot, the Lot 2. The dimensions �of these lots. . . 10 Planning Commission Minutes a September 18, 1989 ; Commissioner Greenstreet: Does the driveway (ungj r)'. . . r Mr. Stroh: Yeah. Voices: Across Lot 2. Mr. Stroh: It comes in like this. This is 98th. lt�!ccites in like this, I 'm sorry. This is 98th. It comes in li)co,,, his and goes back to the house on Lot 1 that sits back in here' , q4o. . . Mr. Harris: Dan, you might explain that the top,,�pf�j'jhat is James Street. ; Mr, Stroh: Right. The top of that is James Str t,;,, Mr. Harris: Lot 1 has a legal, right to have a 20-fgoj setback from James Street. Lot 2 has a 20wfoot setback from Je arwd by rights can have a 15-foot side yard setback on the flank4,flg Street, which is Strawberry Lane, and the staff went out and di+ ,meure to make sure that the builder put it in the right spot and,aD•op, what is the answer. Mr. Stroh: Well, they seem to meet the setbacks,.; Chair Martinez: What about in the backyard the front.,yard of that odd house. Mr. Stroh: The first house sits on the lot facing, 98th kind of like this. It is the one that has the two wings ,that bind of come out from the central unit. It only has about a UP,-tpot yard back here. Because this is the narrow dimension ojf ; ahei lot it is actually interpreted that the front yard is this yard here, and so that. . . Chair Martinez: That's a side, yard then. Mr. Stroh: It's actually considered to ,be A ,44 Mr. Harris: The flanking side yard is on the, s j; .js 15 feet. The rear year only needs to be eight feet in the�j, ' Vf Kent, so you don't need. . .in some cities it is a 25-foot red Council said many years ago why waste all that yard' and allow. . . (unclear) Chair Martinez: And you can call anything Y yt g You wit; true front yard? Mr. Harris: No, it's the width of the lot, the rmrrpVlpart of the lot. 11 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Mr. Stroh: So, this other one sits back in here and it sits within about 30 feet, I think, is the setback of this one or so, and it has a huge backyard. This is a large lot. It is 11,400 and some square feet. This one here, with the access coming in through here, sits back on a lot like this and it does meet the required setbacks. This is considered the front yard and these the two side yards and the rear yard. I think the point of all this is if you look around the city and look at the predominant housing type, West Hill, for instance, predominantl!r,As 7,200 square foot lots. Well two of these are a little larger than 7,200 square feet, and one is almost 11,500 square feet. So At is not really a matter of size of the lot. It is how it was drone that has a lot of people's attention. You can put:.and I don't want to come down and be real critical of one developer, but = this is something that a lot of people have been concerned about. These are in a very public location. They are noticed by a lot of people. There is a lot that goes into site planning and layout and good site design. You can do it well or you can do it AOt so well. People notice the difference. For me what these slides show and what this particular case shows is not so much in this case that the size of the lot was inadequate, it is what was done with it. And it is important that there be good site sensitivity, %ood layout on the sites. You saw slides last time that showed that-=you can do good site planning and good layout on lots of R1-5. In fact, it is not uncommon to do good site planning on lots' of R1-5, 54' 000 square foot lots, but it does take sensitivity to the site and to the special requirements of that. Chair Martinez: Dan, I think,. -though, that is the point of all the testimony that we have hear4 and that is that in fact Rent does not have the ability to preiv nt odd and peculiar things being built that are not conducive to the quality of our lives. Now if we could think of some way of having a 5,000 square foot lot and put in the same kind of construction standards that we put in for some. . .like our new apartment bAl-141ding standards and that sort of thing, perhaps we would in fact have something that the citizens would approve of. But I think 't Jey- are seeing this sort of thing happening on 5,000 lot. What can we do? a Mr. Stroh: One thing—one point I'd like to make is that item seems to have gotten more attention than any other single site, and this does only apply to on6P�' ite, which is MF-15. So if R1- 5 is the issue, it applies to ona out of all the multifamily sites that you are considering tonight, and that is MF-15. There is a variety of things you can do. The city has chosen in 'the past ;not to put stringent design standards on single family housing. And whether we put stringent desiojni on the single family housing class. . .would it actually encourage the construction of single 12 f Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 , Ai family and development of single family, which is,;.a istr,ong goal of the city, is a big question. Would we be taking,.;. , posts—the savings that you'd actually be incurring inaud costs and transferring that into higher costs for the actual ui�ding. It would be a big issue. Would anybody actually then, tu40 at the R1- 5. Another thing I would add is that it is very rant that the R1-5 be used only in appropriate areas. we felt t t vhere we were proposing it was an appropriate area. It has co rdial on one side, multifamily on one side. The housing Element ate sees it as a kind of transitional zone between single f ly and more intensive uses. And those are some of the kinds 6f p,14,ces that we looked at trying to apply the R1-5, not wholesale, ��not replacing the existing neighborhoods we have that have a',- rracter of whatever size lots they have now, but using it as, ,a ;'*ransition in appropriate areas and using it very sensitively. j ; it is not a size lot that would apply across the board. It has to be used only in certain areas where it fits. And we feel. ,,,that this is particularly appropriate as a transition kind of :, g;., And here where we are talking about going from multifamily ;�o; gle family, it seemed like it allowed us to retain some of the d4 6ity that we had with the multifamily, but, in a little more tranottaion kind of approach, so it allowed us to transition more iittoq} ingle family neighborhoods on the other side of it. Commissioner Forner: I guess that was my concern whn ,I wanted to table it, because we have not (unclear) and second-ot4,a7l (unclear) specific to the 5, 000 square foot lots. And thereigi nothing that identifies how many can be built in specific areas. ';' Right now we say only a few, but once you establish that, thergi Ai nothing to stop others from coming at a later date, especially,`if we annexed east or whatever. I would feel very uncomfo -U,10 (unclear) without those standards set at the same time, ,not.;;t, j create the monster and then try to deal with it later. (unc sat) I would like to see some standards that said that there c,okild, be only so many lots (unclear) without a green belt. And before we did that I would hesitate to say let's just create a 5,000, soave foot lot and go for it. Mr. Stroh: If it is guidance on that from i. gle family committee that the Planning Commission would � g for, and I 'm not trying to steer you towards acting on 'the other, but the Single Family Committee is really not goi , . be passing any judgment on that. They have reviewed kind of ;alpreliminary set of findings of what kind of reconmtendations thy.,ire going to be making. They do endorse the concept of R1-5.°;' ;1 ,'1, thought it was appropriate for Kent, that it could encour4gp,, 4uilding of single family and the development of single family An home cases. They felt it was a positive thing, but they don't „ggt''Opecifically into talking about any kind of design standards, Qr„ s ifics of how 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 it would be carried out. There -ire some development standards I think you are aware in the first �Oasrt of the report in the overview section which simply says for the Most part the. . .they are on page 10 of the overview. . .and these 8re the same kind of development • standards that apply to other single family zones. Now in this case let me just lay those out briefly. Minimum lot, 5,000 square feet. Minimum lot width, 50 t6et. Maximum site coverage, 40 percent. This is on page 10 of tbA6 overview section of the report. Maximum site coverage, 40 percent. Minimum yard requirements-- front yard 20 feet, side yard 5-teet, rear yard 9 feet, and side yard on flanking street of coder lot 15 feet. Those yard requirements, by the way, are similar to the other single family districts. And then height limitotions--two and one-half stories, not exceeding 35 feet--which is also similar to the other R1 single family standards. Commissioner Ward: I have a question. Do you have any figures as to what the houses that you sh6we'd on the. . .the cheap-looking houses. . .as to what they would i4ill for. Mr. Stroh: We understand, I don't have anything official or in writing,but I understand that th*ey are in the 901s. Commissioner Ward: They're not cheap houses either. Mr. Stroh: That's my, undersst tiding. I don't have , anything confirmed on that. Mr. Harris: That's common in Kent now. The houses in the 70's have disappeared, and the houses,-and the 80's. . .we had a planned unit development come through ire about a week ago where the person started out in the 701s, Ob's and 901s. Now he has dumped all that and he is up in the 1301ss. That's what the market is today for his PUD. And it` is gong up two percent per month. Mr. Stroh: The more affordable housing in Kent, of course, is the older housing. You are seeing the new houses. . .it's very hard to find anything under 110. So HUD when they came in for their joint venture in affordable housing pt ram and talked about that, they were talking , about houses in titer 901s, which a lot of us don't consider to be inexpensive housing, but this is more affordable than some housing. w Commissioner gggenstreet: Looking at hindsight back in the early whatever, early 700s, there was'4. o much multifamily approved for the Valley (unclear) . : .if they hid had the foresight and PUD which was developing at that time, we ' would have a much better quality of life now. To just say let's have a 5,000, we are making the same mistake again. We have nothing on the books for. . .it's not 14 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 a planned unit development, it's (unclear) zonj .* ,pplit lot 3 in half. Have an easement driveway there to the b ; and put in two houses. I foresee the, .�pame criteria. � le we are hearing today (unclear) the quality of life. Thk'A y of homes being built. . .the easement wouldn't be bad: '. ,' had nice standards, green trees and all that. It p a devil's advocate. . .the possibilities ,9f what could happpn,� ,.j a ant to put a control and make pure it is,-,a quality developmt; That is why I think we are reviewingithis. People have d it. Town hall meetings. Come to City ,Council and it ip.,;; j,us, and we are trying to correct (unclear) . . .lay the gro Ifor future development. . . (unclear) . . .gg4lity of life. The..,*->#1 ,:,,�oy to do it is have it done correctly. g0pt to pass the 5"00, a foot lot and let it go at that. . .that to me is; not the so ;i ; Not sure what it is but we need to got something on and work toward a 5,000 lot description and criteria. �11,0 it's in a minimum lot size area where you have ten acres s , lear) , this will be it. If somebody, ' cAn show me a- � ' way than that. . (unclear) . You know, ,.we were seeing s13 _, r�m Issaquah called. . . (unclear) was it 120 ;acres or 100 acres,,;' We are still talkinggreen belts trails $150 000 homes, and � ���� ell we are talking about peopled moving from San Francisco fraii,A], ' 00,000 home and getting a deal and moving here. This is rio, " fat we are building here in Kent or proposing at all. It s �. j ; , a solution I feel. (unclear) . . .I am wilding to review it.., Tj ,LLtpLIked about it during West Hill; and that was after we ;got J hip all three plans we would review the 5,000 (unclear) . . . Ij"fpn at is the best way to go instead of singling out one plan,, t, Hill the .t� ► East Hill or the Valley, and, work on the 5,000 later on. That is why I seconded it ano I still thin. we, s � tprk on it. Commissioner Fortier: It doesn't jeopardize the 6�tch to hold the multifamily issue (unclear) 5,000 (unclear) V affects only a very small percentage. . . tlt, Chair Martinez: In Option A, which is the > ',recommended, proposal, it is one. In o,$Aer options, the ill option specifically, there are a lot of R1-5. , ! g Commissioner Sto er: I ueass, at I would ask i9fi list d3 g ,�th ��,� " : ;��oul� those for us, because I would really like to kn"',"41 hose are. Chair Martinez: Didn't we usecd to khave a char h g that out, that I can no longer find. Mr. Stroh: On page 18 in the overview of the Commissioner Ward: Can I have a book, overview,,�Qpk,� j, �A q1 15 i s', Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Mr. Stroh: Page 1S of the ,ove#View section of the report shows all the multifamily ,sites that thatmexe reviewed in the study. And it is broken down' into the foUV1-,;"4e1ns1ty reduction iailternatives. There is the no-action alternate, the site-specific reduction, the text reduction, and the Bast',kill reduction. If you start with the no-action alter°ndtive fair h site in East Hill- which which is at the top of this chart, you see the existing . zoning and potential units, multifamily at4 single family. Then if you go to the far right column- �you can _ `under the East Hill Reduction, which is the one that would tal ,'aa.l,l multifamily zoning or almost all multifamily zoning, you, cattil. ee :the potential number of units and the proposed zoning. where -So this case it stays vultifamily, it stays multifamily for, a reaoM'that we really can't., In the East Hill alternative going down all fie way to MF-21., there is only one site that 'stays multifamily; thaKi's MRG- where we really didn't ,get into reviewing that because it' s just rezoned by, the Council. So these are the series of `optXdhs, and you can see under there there are a number, as was `motioned. If you take all the multifamily off that we are pro*'sing as. . .would go, to RI-5. ,And I'd have to take a ruler to fol bit it across, but including MF-7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and so forth. A*d, so it is only under the sites specific reduction and the staf -�,jproposal that only- one site would be affected, and that is the MF S site. I might add as one way for proceeding is if this is an�.Unsurmountable obstacle, it would be possible to take action on the rest of the study, `have us come back with a report on options for dealing with this R1-5 issue, perhaps even looking at some heft and development standards, and you could consider that for'MF- 5r at 'your next meeting in a weep, if that is the way you wanted to,',go, and it would then possible to take action on the rest of the 4,taff proposal that doesn't involve the R1-5. A. Chair Martinez: Unless it were-:,, . Mr. Stroh: Unless, you wenfi 'with the East Hill Reduction Alternative, which is not the ,sff proposal. Chair Mar,;inezz: Is there more c aacussion. The motion on the floor is to table the discussion aA.nd 44cision on putting W R1-5 zone in the city code. ' Commissioner' gtoner; I world �kpeak- to that 'in that I , think it really. . . if we vote to table th*:t, it precludes Qption C. I think the other part of that�s that ",u .cannot go with option C because you don't have an -a'lte ative t 4=(unclear) . And, I. feel that's an issue, because I feel that it is��really going to limit us. And if we do vote for that. . .to' tabla-� hat issue, I don't- know how such farther we can proceed tonight.' 'i� f Y Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Commissioner Forner: (Unclear) k ; l Chair Martinez: Well, we have. . . Commissioner Stoner: No. Option C is the East Hill reduction of 100 reduction of multifamily on East Hill. That 1'a �ptfion C. Chair Martinez: Option A is staff proposaa-., .0ie, specific proposal. Option B is the text reduction or acrosa 't a board 20 percent reduction. Option C is the East Hill'Ir u,ction, which is. . .basically we eliminate multifamiliy zoning on sit Hill, and Option D is no change, to go as is. Commissioner Fo=er: (Unclear) ' Chair Martinez: If we table the R1-5 decision, thenllwO have three options instead of four. Commissioner Stoner: I don't think we can deal with= the East Hill reduction proposal in any kind of responsible w : . I', mean, look at that as a viable option either for any or ali�;i;of the sites before us if we do not have a proposal for R1-5. �� ,�" ,4` Commissioner Greenstreet: That makes a quarter gt' !the options (unclear) . Commissioner Stoner: Or even more. Like two thin"'. Commissioner Greenstreet: The only way that you a r; consider, I feel, East Hill option is to see a better ptopoas k.; ion the 5000 which is (unclear) as I see it. If you want to (unclear) this down and then wait for some added 'language for R5000, 11,; ,co#ld understand that. But to accept the 5000 as it is right now (ur loar) without more language added. . . ; Commissioner Stoner: Madam Chairman, I would ask, t "fin light of that. . .we have a meeting scheduled for next Mond[A -$ght. Is that correct? Is it to be a workshop? Chair Martinez: I don't know. Is it a workshop�-Mqttf . . Mr. Harris: No it's a hearing scheduled for the, ,V,V$Xlay. Floor. Chair Martinez: Right. Mr. Harris: Now on your. . .just a little parliamentary procedure here on a motion to table, you have to vote it up;, or down. You can't do anything else with it. You've got to vota,,'it up or down. 17 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Chair Martinez: That's right. I'* going to call for the vote. The motion on the floor is to table the consideration of the proposed zoning of R1-5. All in favor of tabling. Voices: Aye (Three Commission ) Chair Martinez: opposed. Voices: Aye. (Two Commissioner) Chair Martinez: Motion carries. ';. R1-5 is tabled. Commissioner Stoner: I think at this point, though, that we need to give some directions so that we know where we are going from here, and I guess my feeling would be that we would ask staff to come back with some design standards, some guidelines for R1-5 for next week if it is possible. Is,-that possible? Commissioner Forner: (Voice and Oar) Mr. Harris: Could you do that , wally for us? Chair Martinez: Yes, I need ation. Commissioner_Forner: I move that staff submit to the Commission a list of recommendations and stdards that would be suitable for 5,000 square foot lot. Commissioner Ward: Why don't y say it. . .standards of design. Commissioner .Forner: -Building o 4ndards. . .design standards. Commissioner Ward: Design standards for R1-5000, single family. Chair Martinez: Is there ,a seccod to that motion? Commissioner Ward: I'll second that. Chair Martinez: Is there disco Xon. Commissioner Ward: Ques,°tion4 Chair Martinez: All in favor. V es: Aye. 18= i Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Chair Martinez: Opposed. (silence) Is there any ,othgr ,action that the Commission wishes to propose tonight. Via' Commissioner Ward: Could I make. . .is it appprte for this statement. Chair Martinez: Yes. Commissioner Ward: Short and brief. I think whet, a concern is not the 5,000 square foot lot, rather the desicM� 0 the building that goes on that 5,,000. We ,need that anyway. as; were shown some examples of 11,000 square foot lot that did not ppet, tithose design standards. If we are talking about the same thing, 1`;think we need to say it. We need some stronger design standards a,sifar as the single family dwellings are concerned. Am I in,].� field or am I ; Chair Martinez: You can be any where you want. Wt; I hear you saying is that you want design standards for sinl,e !fmily. What we have. . .what we are are asking staff is desiga, f ' lone type of single family designation in the zoning code. what you well meant? Commissioner Forner: That is, what I meant. . . (unol:e x) Commissioner Ward: In other words you want another t, izig like this built again. The one that we showed in the slidls .'k ;few minutes ago. . .11,000 square foot lot. Commissioner Forner: No, my concern was only 1' tjablish some sort of code and building design and even plann nq,, for how many houses can go in a specific area for the new code u,th : ate are going to establish, the Rl, which is the 5,000 square f=Ilot. Commissioner Ward: That's 4 hypothetical thim,* l ,don't have any of that now. What. . . (unclear) we don't w t„ �, , ow quality, low esteem, low design type of a building bei ,,-h,- in Kent, single family, multifamily, whatever. If we ars�,ar�a�t tying that, then I 'm totally out in left field. But I thotja�t was what we were trying to say. Because we don't know what a5 000 is. . .we are trying to decide whether we want a 5,000. r' �'A we haven't seen an example of one except the one we were eh ast week in Snohomish or somewhere. . . ; : Voice: Issaquah Commissioner Ward: Issaquah. . . (unclear) . . .desigp � be upheld in Kent, therefore we are against the 5,000 (unclear 4a� se we don't know what it will look like unless we set some 4cq� n standards. 19 Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 That's what I'm trying to get clear. Am I the only one that is saying this? Am I surrounded, as William Shakespeare says. . . Chair Martinez: I'd like Dan. . .Feed is standing at the microphone. Would you like to input. . . Mr. Satterstrom: I actually got up here to speak to a different issue, but as long as we are on the topic of the R1-5000 zone, I think I hear what the Planning Otmission is saying. I think you want to take a look at what Idesign controls or development standards are there that wills='�°"try to effectuate the type of development that we can all be ptoud 'of. Now that sounds pretty generic. I think what the staff-Vill do is to take a look at the jurisdictions that have the 5,000 zone. We will look closely not only at the development standards that are used in those ordinances, but also the areas or, the instances where they use the 5,000 zone. Dan pointed out that we wouldn't be using the 5,000 zone throughout the city. Thiffi� would be a zone that would be implemented in certain circumstimbes. I see it mcrre� or less, � as Dan pointed out, as a transitli*n zone. Perhaps, we need some additional guidance language eitimer in the preamble to the zoning district itself that speaks to when. . .under what kinds of conditions it is used. Perhaps even some comprehensive plan language that gets to that as well so that you can trace it through from the comp plan to the zoning, Commissioner Stoner: That would','address some of my concerns, and some of my major concerns is when and how will that `.zone be used. We have one instance of it at this point in this document, but I am concerned how it might be ap#'11ed beyond that. Mr. Satterstrom: And that is w14t I got up to talk about was the R1-5 zone is, as far as the staff recommendation is concerned, stealing kind of Dan and Janet's thunder here, only applies to one site and that's MF-15. I got up originally to ask the Planning Commission the question of do ye' wish to proceed with the other 20 sites or to make some. . .propoiae some action for the other 20 sites. So next week when we co lene we don't have to debate the other 20 sites. We are going tp "have a meeting neat week on the Valley Floor. It will be equally as eventful as East Hill has been, and if we could narrow ', bwh the number of sites to be reviewed and simplify the procegts, that would be good. Now I realize and I'm sensitive to wbat Commissioner Stoner here has pointed out, and that is that if you do act on the other sites, there is only one R1-5 that we are recommending from the staff's standpoint. But under the East Hill reduction there are a number of them. ' So I guess the real, -it4estion I am asking is. . .is the Planning Commission going to p 4ceed on Alternative D, the site specific recommendation, - or aid' you going to hold the whole 2b S + ' Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 decision in abeyance until the discussion on R1-5. �.'fhetvs what I a, got up to ask. C Well, IOU not willing to, ow this is our Y not first choice of answers, but I'm not wi ,,�Al , °t�q foreclose the other option without knowing what we are ta;�,��_ out. And until we have our terms defined, and I think that ps P.1-5, we can't really compare those, two alternatives in., ,,a valid or rigorous way. And I need to have that defined. voices: (Unclear) Chair Martinez: For one thing on the East Hill, and only the East Hill, there are four options, where„ they are i ,;m h. . .well, I haven't seen the Valley Flood#, the complete '. thing ,. ; we have had only three to consider. And so it could a�Eisq .�. er one, or what. . .two, four, six, eight, ten, t l , i thirteen sites. . .depending on what the Commission. . .or +sao pombination there. It may be that it could be the pleasure 61 body to go someplace between these; two. I Option�E is some pl, tween these two. option E is for MF-1 to go with existing"1 -- mean. . .we could (unclear) that. Commissioner Greensreet: (unclear) . . .generalized Fa (unclear) . Chair Martinez: That's right.,, That is an alter*t ;Ye- Commissioner Greens set: (unclear) k sLls Commissioner Stoner: In the interest of time � ,' gge t t0 you that we could act on am0"ing the East Hill S1111 Plan Text, and we could also act on then Dingle Family P"11004 y „ AI'ea, which is the second one, and deferfihe R1=5 and the . dents Commissioner Grgenstreet: On page 101 you are s4yipg ;ve could do what now. Commissioner Stoner: We could act on Number 1., Nw .1 ,�, is the East Hill Subarea Plan Text Amennt. . . .��, ;• r,� Chair Martinez: In fact w y� don It we have a mp ;,, the floor and we will decide then whetter we want to,atct Commissioner Stoner: I would move that we ad�' t�e East Hill Subarea Plan Text Amendment the Housing Element„ y,sed in heavy print on page EH-101. Chair Martinez: And that would exclude the o ` Ontence under goals, objectives, goals. . . 21 9 G P lanning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Commissioner Stoner: No it would not. I would take Housing Element Goal 1, Objective 1, and,Qoal 1 and Objective 1, Policy 4; Goal 1, Objective 1, Policy 5; 430&1 2, Objective 1,�.P61iay 2; Goal2, Object ve 2, Policy 2. and' -,then the public facilities and services Goal 1, Objective 1, P41idy 4. Chair Martinez: Is there a 'sec6kd 'to 'that. Commissioner Forner: I second tt. Chair. Martingz: Is there dis ion. commissioner greens'tr et:` (undl ir) . .'.Only on discussion of what types of housing elemOAnts-Goal 1' �'Dbjective 1, Polioy"5 whether or not that kinds of language of RY006. . . Chair Martinez: is it. -coramissioUgr Greenetr6ett: Vhat� my question.' Chair Martinez: I don't know. I think of RI-7.2 would. . .that could be what we call our transition zone. Mr. Harris: It is whatever yog,, give the life to it. It is the way you decide to implement th ; you may do it with 5,000, you may do it with a compromise of 6i:000, you may just say, well we're going to 72 . Because we don't 604cify, it here, but ,it was, quite frankly, aimed at the 5,000 squij� foot lots, obviously. Char MaL'tinez: 'Is theid f'drtliit discussion. Okay:, The motion is to accept the amendments- ';,they East Hill Subareea,a Plan TeXt Housing Element as '-dsf'inbd ` on � -Y1j01 in our proposal. , All in favor. Voices: Aye. Chair Martinez: Oppos6d. (sil nce) Motion carries. I would entertain another motion to keeo4rolling if there is one. Commissi er Stoner. ' I would vit that we adopt the. . .that, we amend the East Hill P�. '�+ Plan Map t ari+�Airte a single family d6signated area overlay. And the citation ,is the map on page r-100. �Edr.i w Chair Martin2z: Does that incl*66 B. , Co ,asio;a, Stoner: No, it doe* not. Chair Mai=inez: Is there a second to that motion. �2 s Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 ' '"' Commissioner Greenstreet: The motion is for a. .,,., Commissioner Stoner: It is for the single family d i�gnated area overlay. Commissioner Greenstreet: I'll second that. Chair Martinez: Discussion. , ,, Commissioner Stoner: I think that is an import Ant , concept that could be significant in terms of giving staff some a�ility when rezones are asked for to say, we need to protect ',pingle family (unclear) . Chair Martinez: I would also like to speak in, fAVo ,;,cif this as I feel that the housing report that name to us,` wh wps it seven months--eight months ago, stressed in our city for;',�s*ngle family to be encouraged, and we passed that on to the ; ' il and the Council has accepted it. So' it is part of the rait + i ale and the thinking of this body. I will call for the cteidn. All in favor. Voices: Aye " Chair Martinez: Opposed (silence) . Okay, we have p�tsged proposed 2A. Is there any other action that this body would like to propose this evening. Commissioner Stoj.er,: I think that any other a; tion on this document needs to wait for Clarification on R1-50M Chair Martinez: Then I would entertain a motion to; continue this hearing, and I need a date. Mr. Harris: Next week you have the Valley Floor PjAn* and if you saw the ad in the paper, you saw it was two full p�cs,' of maps and parcels, so I am sure there will be 50-60 people rlting here next week waiting to testify. Chair Martinez: So we will have to continue this hearing to some night other than that or we are never going to get Doff it. Mr. Harris: Yes, I don't know that you can get th:, in next week and that also. Commissioner Stoner: Could we have a proposed date.. When is our next. . . 23 mi s Planning Commission Minutes September 18, 1989 Chair Martinez: Our next regularly scheduled meeting, which is normally a workshop, is on October 16th. Commissioner toner: I would moves we'continue this meeting. . .thlese deliberations until October 16th. Commissioner Ward: Second. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion. The question has been called, all in favor. Voices: Aye. Chair Martinez: Opposed. (Silence) This meeting will be continued until October 16th at which time we will expect to see some design standards for the =-5, zone, and we also, will begin our deliberations on the map and *he comprehensive plan. Is there any other business to bring before the (unclear) . I would entertain a motion to adjourn this meeting. (End of Verbatim Minutes) The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ames P. Harri , 'gecieetary -w y 24