Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 09/25/1989
]ENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 25, 1989 ' The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7:30 p.m. Monday, September 25, 1989 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Anne Biteman ., Tracy Faust Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Carol Stoner Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Leona Orr, absent Raymond Ward, absent Chair Martinez welcomed Tracy Faust as the newly appointed member. VALLEY FLOOR IMPLEMENTATION CPZ 89-4 (Verbatim Minutes) Chair Martinez: I will open the public hearing on the Valley Floor. And before it is opened I want to sort of set the stage as to what we are doing, what we are trying to do and what the rules for the hearing will be. First of all if you have not received the study, it's the orange book and it is at the front of the auditorixm. 1 On pages 9 and 10 are the specific items that we will be consiring, and how they affect specific areas within that planning aware detailed further on in the study. We are acting on actually four different items. On the Subarea Plan, that's the Comprehensive Plan text _ amendment, on the Subarea Plan Map Amendment, inol�ding a single family designated area overlay, zoning code amendments creating R1- 5 zoning district, and then finally zoning map amen tents. We will be acting on all four of these items as we move: 'through our decision making. We are acting, though this is not a judicial hearing, we are acting under the rule of the .Appearance of Fairness. What that means basically is that we askiAq !those of you who have concerns and input into this process to mike them known in a public way at our hearings rather than lobbyi#g each one of us individually. Those of you who are on the Commission if you Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 ' have dealings with people on this outside of-thqi4e a,hearings, we would ask you to report them back so that there is an appearance of fairness and so that we are all getting the same 1, information. You have all had opportunity; I hope, to sign up to speak this evening. If you haven't, you can continue to sign Up. There is a large number of folks in the audience who *J11 be speaking tonight, I would ask that each of your limit your r xXa to about six minutes. If it looks as if we are not goingw to .finish this hearing by 10:00, it will be continued at a time and! a place that you all will be alerted to. The way we conduct A.-Vpblic hearing is that we will ask the staff to make a presentation 'of what is going on so that you can all hear the backgroun4 and the plan. That will take approximately 15 minutes. Then we will peceive input from you until it is completed. Questions that y ,miglit have please direct them to me. They may very well not be orsswered until the end of this hearing, or they may even have to1be,11garried on to the next meeting because we will have to get back to you, but we are taking a verbatim record of this meeting so that ;word for word we will be able to tell what you all said and we will get back to you with answers to the questions. In most cases S w11 not ask the staff to stop and answer those questions as we go along. Some of you have only signed up to be on our mailing li:iat. X will call your name, however, in case you have changed your x$nd- and would like to speak. So, if you don't want to speak, just jay pass. Mr. Bourn. Frank Nowak. Okay. Mr. Huang. Please Wavef,-,your hand if you can't hear me because I am getting no feedback ,at all. Mr. Crown. Pamela Newcomer. Please step to the micr+ta eland repeat your name, address. . . Oh, I'm sorry. The staff has ;ot made their input. I was just racing right along. Will the sta f, please make the presentation. Dan. Dan Stroh: I think this is on now. Great. I am Dan Stroh wit]� ,the Planning Department and I would like to take a few minuts ;, to give the background of the process that we are in right ribWw : i This study was initiated by the Council when they passed ResolUtion 1172 in July of 188, just over a year ago. This resolution) asked the Planning Department and the Planning Commission .to.;ego a series of things and they include the process we are in ri t4to�i, which is an area-by-area analysis of multifamily densities: ft are doing this throughout, the city in- a series of ,steps. Tonight we are looking at the Valley Floor; Planning area. Prstrl*AAly. through Resolution 1172 we have looked at the West Hill Plak*ia4 Area, and also at the East Hill Planninq Area. In looking at 'theipe areas the net result of- what we are trying to achieved is s.a j20 percent reduction in multifamily densities throughout the ,c#y. This was one of the objectives of Resolution 1172, which mil told is to proceed with. They have also asked us to upd-Wteb .the housing 2 s- 0 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 element of the Comprehensive Plan. We did do this in the first phase of this work, and the , Council passed an updated housing element in February of this year. The new policies" in that have been used in part to direct the work that staff hai done in the current study. Council also asked us to find ways 'to encourage single family development within this city, and theme are certain recommendations within the report that were designed"„to do this to encourage additional development of single family wAhin the City of Kent. So last year in July 1988 Resolution 1172 was passed. Since that time the housing element of the Comprehyensive Plan has been updated. Staff has conducted a city-wide, analysis of multifamily densities and strategies for encouraging single family. We have had a series of public meetings prior to the public hearing we are currently in in order to notify the poliq about these efforts. Council did ask us 'to do this process planning area by planning area. So as we initiated each planning are4a,' first with the West Hill, we had a scoping meeting at the beginning, and later an open house where we actually had some alternativ devised and ready to take to the public. We did the same thing', of course, for the East Hill Planning Area and later for the Valley Flour Planning Area. Tonight is the beginning of the public hearings of the Valley Floor Planning Area. It is the last of the ihtee areas we are bringing before the Planning Commission, so that 'in all we will have covered multifamily throughout the whole city. , Of course the Planning Commission has completed the planning process for the West Hill area. In fact the City' Council last Tuesday acted on those recommendations. Previously the Planning Com%i.s4i.oln has held hearings on the East Hill Planning Area, and, of course we are in the midst of deliberating in that area. This puts us into the process of beginning the West Hill hearings tonight. '' This has been a very long and difficult process reviewing multifamily densities throughout the entire city. For those in the audience we do appreciate your being here tonight and having a ch#nce for us to hear and for the Planning Commission to hear your' views on the issues and also your bearing with us as we mare ,.our ',way through this very lengthy proposal. Following me a member' of staff, Janet Shull, is going to lay out the specifics of what is, ctUally in the West Hill Planning Area proposal. Janet Shull: My name is Janet Shull and I an ilith the Kent Planning Department. Can you hear me. Okay. *1 sty to speak louder. Is that better? Okay. Now that Dan'' h w '; iven you an overview of the project, I am going to cover the'`spip4 s of the Valley Floor. The topics that I will be talkfrg°`;,`"out are the introduction of Phase II of the housing study, ''i4eritifying the vacant and underdeveloped land areas, how we, V t , about that process, the criteria we used to analyze the review areas, the alternatives that were devised that would each hieve the 20 percent reduction, the general impact for the 'val,`ey Floor area 3 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 specifically, and the staff-recommended actions which are included at the end of the report. Phase 11 of the Valley Floor portion of the study was kicked off with a public meeting held on March 1st at the City Hall Council Chambers. An overview of Phase II of the study was presented, and that Mass' followed by citizen questions and comments. There were about 20 0itizens who attended this first meeting, and some of the concex'ns that were expressed particular to the Valley Floor included increased traffic. This is not necessarily associated with multifamily development, but it was an issue that there was increased traffic on the Valley Floor. Mobile home park opportunities was the second. Sidewalk improvement, both too many, too much or too little, were stated as issues. What I mean by this is that some people thought that sidewalk improvements or maybe too much was required. In some cases sidewalks were being developed where they weren't necessarily needed. But in other cases sidewalks were needed and weren't there. And then the other one. . .couple others were retention of existing neighborhoods for affordability. We have some older single family neighborhoods adjacent to downtown. There were ,0ome residents that came and were interested in seeing those areas maintained. And then residences in nonresidential zones. I don't know if you are aware that on the Valley Floor there are quite a few homes that remain in areas that are now rezoned for other uses. . .they are generally older homes but people still live in them. They were concerned with their living adjacent to businesses and some Of the impacts that they receive. After the public meeting we moved on identifying the vacant and underdeveloped land areas for thO Valley Floor. These vacant and underdeveloped land areas were generated first by our computer GIS system which stands for Geographic Information System. I think at this time I need to clarify what we mean by underdeveloped. Underdeveloped means simply that additional residential units could be placed on a site given zoning and other constraints. It doesn't mean that an owner of the propetty wishes to do that or that we feel it should happen necessarily, but just that the potential exists. After the different v'at.nt underdeveloped parcels were identified, we next made field jisits to those parcels. We did that to verify that the computer-44nerated information was correct. For instance, if something came up as vacant, we made sure that it was indeed vacant. While we were doing that, we also looked at potential development. . .development potential for those sites, we looked at things like environmental constraints, if there were steep slopes, or wetlands, thinge§like that. And then from those field visits we determined net de4elopable acreage for"those areas. Then after we did the field visits, areas that were suitable for zoning changes, analysis were determined by grouping parcels that were contiguous or shared common characteristics. So when all these parcels were generated, we :gent out and looked at them, and then parcels that were in contiguous areas with the same zoning were then grouped to enable us to go through the process a little 4 t Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 ' easier and also we tend to look at things in zoning, categories rather than parcel by parcel'.' Voices: Hold the microphone�to your face sweeth rt-� Janet Shull: Okay. Let's try this. Otheiri vacant and underdeveloped parcels were not targeted for,,`tot iing changes analysis due to their isolated nature, limb,"ted development potential, or awareness by staff of permit activities in process. For example, a lot of areas came up vacant irithe computer analysis, but looking at permit applications that "relon file we realized that some were very far into the permit pro-ssss, so those were not analyzed for change. A total of 340 1,p4rcels were identified in the Study. Of those 340, 308 'were 0onsidered for zoning changes. These parcels were grouped into 3:4 multifamily and four option review areas. An additional 66°ApArcels were included with the original 308, that was after the'-first cut was made when we netted out those that were either isolat�d'l or had some action pending on them. An ' idditional 66 were i0lAdOd in those we considered for zoning changes to even out ,dj5ipposed zoning boundaries and to provide for smooth density transition between land use areas. The recommended actions resulting- from this study would potentially affect about 296 separate parcels ,16h the valley Floor. In other words, of the 308 plus 66 which totals I374 parcels that we looked at, some of - those we are recomrAndi,pg� no change. So the net potentially affected number of parcellili$ 2196. That is how we came up with that number. I'd like to take a minute to talk about option review areas because this is someth'inc'4 different to the Valley Floor. We haven't seen option review ,areas yet. The inclusion of option review areas is specific to the';Valley Floor. Option review areas are areas that are currently zonelA for other than residential uses. These areas were examined -foe-potential for multifamily uses. These review areas are irii�lu4ed` for your consideration under both the 'iite specific and the 100 percent East Hill Reduction alternatives for the Valley Floor: Oho inclusion of these areas stems from Council direction established in Resolution 1172, which is the same resolution that tfii$ study came from. This resolution states that this analysis slj6uld consider potential new multifamily areas with an emphasis, p scud on areas in and surrounding the Central Business District, rwh ch places the emphasis on the Valley Floor. Now I am going to 'tsl* 4 little bit about the review criteria we used after we establiohW these 18 different areas. The criteria used to determine zoniog �changes for the study areas included the' citizen expressed conoorns from the initial Valley Floor meeting, the goals, objectikres and policies of the Updated Housing Element, the 'Valley Floor'S 0ty area Plan and , the Downtown Plan. In addition to these criteria ' staff also looked at environmental constraints, meaning' step slopes or wetlands, we have hazard areas designated in the Cit , 4urrounding 5 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 transportation system, the future potential for commuter rail to serve the Valley so that is sort of an additional thing we looked at for the Valley Floor, the proximity to commercial nodes and community facilities, the surrounding zoning and the existing land uses on, the properties. the a#ioquacy of infrastructure, roads, sidewalks, streets lighting, eto* , water and sewer availability, fire and police protection and 'echools. Now I am going to talk about the three alternatives along with the no-action change alternative. These are the four alternatives that you have before you to choose, from when lookingy,at the Valley Floor. There is a matrix included in your report, .;#Lnd it is located on page 18. You should be pretty familiar with this by now. It describes the potential multifamily unit chant" under the three action scenarios compared to the no-action alternative which would be retaining existing zoning as it is now. It is important to point out when considering the Valley Floor , area that it has the greatest multifamily potential of the three areas we have looped at. Their total buildout, approximately 2_,900 -additional multifamily units, could be realized. Now I am gving to talk a little about four different alternatives and what they'd mean specifically to the Valley Floor. The site-speci.fty, alternative is the first one. This reduction alternative base4, on the analysis of the 18 Valley Floor areas using the criteria that I just outlined to you. Under this alternative the number of p6ten,tial of multifamily units would decrease by 217 units from the no-action or no-change alternative. This is a 4.5 percent decrease, city wide. . .over the city-wide potential for multifamily units. ,It is a 7.5 percent decrease for the Valley Floor Planning Areas a whole. Under this scenario there would also be an increase single family potential. This potential would be about 18 units over the no-action or the text- reduction alternatives. The text reduction alternative is the second alternative I will outline to you. This is the formalization of the interim --�0 percent multifamiliy, density reduction policy currently in effect. Under this alternative the number of potential multifamily "nits would decrease by 588 units. This is 12.4 percent of the city-+Wide potential, and 20.25 percent of the Valley Floor ;potential., , There would be no increase in single family potential under t K, ;'text-reduction alternative. The East Hill reduction does; affect .,the Valley Floor in that there would be some changes over site Specific. The East Hill reduction would remove almost 100 percent of the multifamily potential from the East Hill, which is more ;tan .20 percent of the city-wide potential. So, therefore, tv., achieve a 20 percent city-wide reduction, a density shift is p Oposed to the Valley. Floor area. In other words, some additional,,,aultifamily potential would have to be added to the Valley Floor to achieve the overall 20 percent reduction. This would: sesult ;; der our 100 percent East Hill reduction alternative, this, wouX4 result in 432 units increased over the Valley Floor potential as it stands currently. This is 6 0 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 y realized by a combination -of site-specific reoonappoations and density increases to two of the option review areas increases to single family potential would be the same as under the site specific recommendation. The fourth and final alternative is the no-action alternative. Under the no-action alternative it means simply that we would leave things the way they ake,, ,rEpd that way we would be potentially be able to realize the 2,904 multifamily units under current zoning. After we developed then e;*J--:ernatives, we held a second Valley Floor public meeting. :This was an open house format and it took place on May 31st right, here in the Council Chambers. We distributed questionnaires ;to, those who attended. Based on the returned questionnaires we ,gathered that there was general support for a density reductiOp ifi the four multifamily areas that we presented. There, was-also general support for the site-specific recommendations for, tbe four option review areas. The single family designated area ovl4y was also generally supported by those who showed up. Citi$ano expressed the opinion that in some cases it should in fact be;q+ aanded from what we proposed. As you probably know, the single g' ilyyoverlay was only proposed for those areas currently zoned Oingle family, but in this case some people felt that it should be Axpanded. Now I am just going to close by outlining the staff, reoqi�uendations. The staff recommended actions are presented in thw,, 'Valley Floor report on pages VF-93 through VF-94. And altogether there are four actions to consider. Linda has already sort of outlined these so I will go quickly through these. The first one is,1 amending the Valley Floor Subarea Plan text to bring it into consistency with the recently amended Comprehensive Plan Housing Elem t,iand Council Resolutions 1123 and 1172. The second recommended, action is to create the single family designated area overlay to the Comprehensive Plan Map. This is not a zoningi :Mange but a Comprehensive Plan Map overlay. The goals of the,,tingle family designated area are to conserve the existinq, 'single family character and use °of these, areas and to protect -,,single family neighborhoods from incompatible uses that could be,,d *eloped in the future. And also to promote new single family development. The proposed overlay contains only those areas now located, within the city limits, which are contiguous single family xoxred� areas. In the future of this area if this adopted it could betj,*xpanded into the planning area since it is just a comprehensivwAVJ, 4an overlay. The third action is,,to amend the Zoning Code text bye 'Ming a new zoning district, the R1-5 Single Family Rely 4"tial Zoning District, 5,000 square foot lot minimum si$e,. '9 The fourth recommended action is to amend Zoning Map from multiily area and option review areas as outline on pages VF-94 througoiVI-102 of the same report. Those are the four recommended actios and I will take any questions at this time. 7 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Chair Martinez: Does the Commission have any questions at this time? Yes. Okay, thank you. Voices: (unclear)- Chair Martinez_: I don't think anyone can hear well tonight. Commissioner Forner: You mentioned early on in your presentation that you did not consider those parcels that were into their permit process. Can you tell me how faar into the permit process those pe© Janet Stroh. I'll try. I'm not sure in every case exactly—we know that in some cases they.. ..- can use one example being the Lakes, which is a. very large development. At the time that we started the study they had already started constructing, they had a master plan permit for a phased development process, even though they hadn't broken ground on all their sites. They were well into the development and the permit process for their master planned development. So that is one example. Chair Martinez: Are there other questions from the Commission. Okay. Thank you. I shall now press ahead. . . Mr. Harris: Madam Chair. Before we press ahead we have to get letters into the record. Chair Martinez: All right. Fin*. Mr. Harris: I have letters. . .I ,have four letters I would like to have the Commission enter into the record this evening. I am not going to read them. I am going, to.go over briefly who sent them and a little bit about what they ,,say. The first one is from Donald G. Ryan, attorney. He has written-a letter for Robert and Patricia Lorentson. Their property is located at the end of Fifth and Crow Street. You have these; letterer in your fine this evening. The second letter is fret ,Charles Wealey Butt and Kristy E'. Butt. They are located at the end of Fifth Avenue. The third letter is from Donald L. McDaniel and his proprty. . .he simply talks about the Planning Commission wanting to r6sone SOO and 600 block of Bridges and Railroad Avenue frox Commercial Manufacturing to� Multifamily Duplex, and he gives five different points on that. The next letter is from Charles 'Wesley Btdt and Kristy B. Butt. They have a general letter discussing wlXat�jthey thought was the philosophy of these hearings. We, have a letter that was received this evening at 7:28 p.m. from Myles Drake who says he is the owner of two parcels of land in an area MFw2 - shown on Map UF-5 in the Valley study area. You don't have a copy of that letter, and someone just threw a letter at me here, and peorple. . .anyone else want to submit 8 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 letters. . .I don't like them to be just thrown doW '4ere. They , should be. . . Chair Mgrtinez: f think I just saw a hand in the beck, If there are letters, could we have them now. Mr. Harris: If you are going,,,'to have letter an4 .you'P not going to testify to the letter, then get it up here now that we can officially accept it into the record. Otherwise it *ill go by the way. Chair Martinez: I thought 1, saw two hands. W" t"re just two hands for one letter. Okay. Mr. Harris: Let me receive this letter in here.`, Okay. Two letters just received. The first one is from Gwen .T son of 535 South Bridges Street, Kent, Washington, reference, ic Hearing on Proposed Amendments to the City of Kent Cops ensive Plan Zoning Code and Zoning Map. You, by the way l get these letters officially the next time you come back to hr', this case. The next letter is Barry and Marianne Cartwright, 214 3 93rd Avenue South, Kent, Washington. They say my wife and ' I � , homeowners residing at city address that I just gave. our property is approximately 1.2 acres in pize and is located -.4iractly east of study area 11. That's all I have, Madam Chair. Chair Martinez: Some folks have come in since thq ,; 'Gating began. If you wish to testify, you do need to sign in. XWank "'there anyone who needs to sign in for speaking this evening.; ` you. I remind you to please keep your remarks as brierfly, you can and indicate if you are speaking ' about a particular.Pffit. 1 ,�, area. it helps the Commission a great deal to know what ,area you are discussing. So that will be ,very helpful to use. YOU signed in sir. voices: (unclear) Chair Martinez: Will you phase step to the ma� agoe, please, and identify yourself. This is a point of order'. Charles Birks: My name is Charles Birks. I redide 14tt'49220 South 218th Street in the city. Are the map areas that arepresented in the presentations approximately what is conside, , and were the areas as to size and/or volume part ap} okrcel of the consideration of percentages.. Chair Martinez: I am not exactly understanding your, estion, so see if I can restate it so that it can be answered. ' ou want to know if as the maps are drawn in the study if thg6 . ,include just 9 �Ir Kent Planning Commission Minutest ry September 25, 1989 the areas that are under consideration or do they include more or less. Charles Birks: Let me give you "iOa example of what I am trying to get to. If there are 2,000 acre ''being considered as indicated on the map, and 20 percent of that is going to be changed, is that an idea . . .concept—The reason I a0k that is because the map is snot accurate. Chair Martinez: I can't answer that. Charles Birks: Okay. As a case 'in point, the area up here on this map, and I can indicate it to you, this area up here is incorrectly indicated as a residential area. The city owns a lot of this. Chair Martinez: I still think that it may be zoned for residential. We'll address the - as a question that we will get back to and answer it correctly,.-because I don't , think we can do that right now. Mr. Satterstrom: I'd be happy *6 work with him on that out here in the lobby. Charles Birks: I'll join you rat tiow. Maybe we can. . . Chair Martinez: Thank you very;,much. The first person who has signed up to speak this evenings,Iiss Pamela Newcomer. Please come to the mike and identify yourself: Pamela Newcomer: Pamela Newcomb and I live at 839 Third Avenue North. I am a homeowner. I hay^ 'to apologize for not being at the first or second meeting, ana'T also have to apologize for not really knowing entirely what is =going on, although it affects' my neighborhood and my property. I live in multifamily 14, and the area that I am concerned with. . .which I want to change to multifamily 2, and if I understapd it correctly—the other thing I don't understand is what gardea 'density whatever it was. . .garden density multifamily. Is that a 4uoiex unit, a fdurplex. ._. Chair Martinez: It is 16-units er acre. Pamela, Neracomgr: Oh god. Chair Martinez: That is what its current zoning is. * `No changes have been suggested for that area at this time. Pamela Newcomer: For -Number 2. Chair Martinez: I thought you-said Multifamily 14. 10 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 A Pamela Newcomer: I live in 14. But Number 2 is' 4t :,*be. end of my block. If they stick up 750 units, it is going to ,�ike away the neighborhood atmosphere that I now enjoy. Chair Martinez: Yes, it is currently zoned 23 units;'i acre. It is being suggested that. . .and its development .V,o ential is currently 737 multifamily units, it has been , sggst*d that be decreased to 10 dwelling units per acre. Pamela Newcomer: So there was eight acres, so that ap 80 units. Chair Martinez: There are 320 multifamily housing ' f:its in that whole area being suggested. That is correct. ec pe there are 33 .75 acres in the study area that is affected by t Js; ,study. Pamela Newcomer: I thought it said over here th4t+yumber 2 was 8.5 acres, something like that. Again, my apologieo. I have not had a chance to study this. Chair Martinez: Do you have a copy of the study? a Pamela Newcomer: Orange. Chair Martinez: Yes. . . Pamela Newcomer: I got that tonight Chair Martinez: Multifamily 2 is on VF-28. Pamela Newcomer: That doesn't look like my map., M� I have the wrong one. Option 2, not ;Multifamily 2. 8xc�;4, er . option reviews area, which there is only four of them. 2 rests right north Multifamily 14. .�, Chair Mart ez: 0-2. And its VF-79 to 81, and ; 8ii.s the text. Okay. Now we are with you. I, apologize. It is curxtenr tly Limited Industrial and is being suggested that it be contra , d to Garden Density Multifamily, which is 16 units per aG; there are 8.5 acres in that study area. 'j Pamela Newc mer: `" Q Sixteen per acre. Sixteens wr acre of houses duplexes, apartments. . � � Chair Martinez: Multifamily. . .Garden Density , means the density and it can be a variety of multifamily upit So it could be. 11 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Pamela Newcomer: Without numbers this could mean considerable add on to that neighborhood. '. Chair Martinez: Yes, it would ',be 129. . .it could be up to 129 multifamily units. Pamela Newcomer: akAy,' then hdv would a person find out if all this traffic is going to chanhel down First, Second and Third Avenues? ' Chair Martinez: Let's pose tha�' question and get an answer from it. Pamela Newcomer: This is what I On,opposed to. . .ruining the quality of the neighborhood that is theri. I realize that progress has to be made and whatever, but it is a very old neighborhood, established, protected neighborlidod. Chair Martinez: Yes. Can we ask you some questions, Pamela Newcomer: Certainly. Commissioner Stoner: I am wondering if you are aware that the zoning on that parcel is M2, which means Limited Industrial. If you have a choice, do you want the current zoning that is Limited Industrial on that land, or do ,you want the proposed which is Multifamily Garden Density at 1djunits an acre? Pamela Newcomer: If I had my choice, I'd have the whole end of the street barricaded and have it go off Central Avenue. It's a protected neighborhood and I doq}''t know how to fight, those things and I really couldn't answer aV,this time whether I would prefer the residential or the industrlaii. Industrial would be there in the daytime and they'd be gone at night. If there were a bunch of apartments, there'd be a bunch , of transients, hotrodding cars, there'd be more kids, and in genel 'transient type of people live in apartment's. I think the dntown area is trying to make a revival. I think- some people are moving in and trying to fix places up, I'm trying to fix my4plaice up. For East Hill 'and West Hill to not want to share in all,,-this multifamily business, could practically turn us into a proje4being piggybacked on top of each other throughout the Valley Flodi. , Those are my feelings. Chg rr Martinez: Any other quest ADn. Thank you. Excuse me. Can we please hold that dowry. Put I. emotion in what, you are going to say to us. Thank you. Curtr*r, Jensen. Curtis Jensen: My name is Curtis Jensen. I've got some property at 540 Railroad Avenue South, and I think I got myself into a can 9.2 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 � of worms. I bought this property two weeks ago at commercial/industrial prices. Maybe you can explA*Wtq me if this is zoned duplex, how I am going to get reimbursecl44i4 Vhat I lose on it. Chair Martinez: You won't. Curtis Jensen: It's in Option Area Number 1,. ;M1Us,1 has been a business for over 13 years. That's all I really have to say. to Chair Martinez: Tom Condit. Tom Condit: My name is Tom Condit and I have a liigo of property at 610 Railroad. . .Option number 1. I've been theret,;i&p roximately 11 years and I bought this piece of property; boo use it was commercial. I live there and I enjoy it the way it • i�. 1 We want it to stay commercial. Most everybody I know in th+antighborhood or in the area bought there because of the commercial VIA1 xe. We are all going to get hurt tremendously by the rezoning_, obfithis. And we are only talking a small two-block area, and we_aVio trapped in. We are only talking four blocks that we would really ,tke to remain commercial. On the other side of the tracks Who" it is more downtown, I could relate to more apartments or mititiole living. But we are right on the through, way. . .right of f Cintl sand trapped in by the railroad, and there' is basically one way it and one way out. I 'd really like it to stay the way it is. Th4�nk you. y r Chair Martinez: Questions. Thank you. Donald McD4,ti0l. Donald McDaniel: I 'm Don McDaniel. I own pro ylat 609 and 615 South Bridges. Again we are talking about ij� ireview area Number 1. I am going through the information on pego V,'F-78 giving the pros and cons of the twoi options, one being converting from commercial manufacturing to duplex, the other leavir ,,. it as it is. As I go through option A here, it says will the purposes be to encourage preservation of existing affordable faujly,� homes. Well if you have seen the area, many of these family hbme*,%,are very old and would require major renovation, some of th , gimbably would eventually have to be torn down. Such proposed C ':recognizes the predominant single family 'character that exist$,s 3$*1ftgle family isn't duplex, and duplex is what's being proposs4lbl b,1-Fplus there are already so many businesses in the area that. it,1, 10, not truly residential anyway. Helps pireserve some of XenVWjlb »der homes. As before, some of these aren't suitable to standi 'to �Ra�uch longer. Further advances the housing element update (unc ) ;''well, they are talking about housing that could be there 14� 1t,ioore rezoned duplex. Well, they are already low income people living in that area. Factors not favoring. . .says area surrounded i�byj.,commercial manufacturing zone designation on the south and th , east. Well, 13 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 on the north it is either commercial manufacturing or its office, so we are completely surrounded on three sides by business and commercial and the other side by �a set of railroad tracks. Areas adjacent to railroad right of way on the west isolating it from nearby residentially zoned land. This is true. And those trains going by with the whistles blowing and buildings shaking, again it ,doesn't seem to be suitable for development for new duplexes or any other multifamily housing as ;far as that goes. When they talk about Option B of not doing anything to it, it says that it would allow additional expansion of uses permitted in commercial manufacturing. Well, that's true and that would conform with everything else that is going on out there, like a new equipment rental building that has just gone up. There is land adjacent to it which has just been bought by outside investors, so that the area has been going toward comme vial usage. it just doesn't seem that it is really conducive to b4afng residential property, and the letter I submitted to Jim Harris outlined those things, like the trains, like the heavy traffic, i4ke the taverns andi all the drunks barrelling out there in the middle of the night. Not too pleasant. And the last thing I looked at, tames the map on VF-77 and I noted that there presently are tota1 ,of about 28, 066 square foot lots. Well, this proposal or option A ;would be for 40 duplexes spread over basically 28,066 square feet= ,lots. And think if you did that, all you'd have is duplexes and paved parking lots and you wouldn't have room for a tree or a blade,iof grass. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Are there questions from the Commission? Thank you. Mr. Shafer. 'Forest Reed. r Robert Grate didn't sign up to speak. Gwen Thomson. You don't wish to speak to it. Ward Williams just on the mailing lint. Correct? Jackie Whiteman just on the mailing list. Jackie Whiteman: I'll go ahead„ and -speak. My name is Jackie Whiteman. I live at 9427 South 2,13th Place, Kent 98031. We happen to own some property most reader recognized as the West Valley Food Grocery Store. At one timw,,we owned the whole piece. This year we sold three quarters of- t piece to the South ding County Community Service for Emergency : ousing. What we would like to do is. . .we were very generous on oor behalf selling that property at a reasonable price for the coropnity service hoping to get our financial assets out of' the corcial building next door, which is all we have left to soll,, ar4Iwo have a buyer for. it who does not want to buy it now because ty are afraid that it is going to be rezoned. So, how are you gong to sell a commercial building at commercial prices to someonO�-,Vhsn it is going to be zoned not commercial any more. So we'd like that addressed. 'Zi Chair Martinez: And that's rigs- across from. . . 14 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Jackie Whiteman: Caveman, right next to the big there. there. Chair Martinez: Commissioner Stoner do you lout bioh area is multifamily? Jackie Whiteman: Zero four--,04A. You can see just fie tittle, . .up front there is a big building and a little buil;diu**,I 'that's the house. And then there's two rentals. We sold off ar*e quarters of that, and the big building next to the mobile bog'* park is all that we still own. And that is zoned commercial,,ia t{IF,would like to be able to sell it commercial. I've already beehA.geherous. Chair Martinez: Are there any other questions? ,,',Th"kvyou. Glen Crawford just signed up for .:nailing. Okay. Virg ia: Skene the same. Tom Gray the same. Patricia Crawford. JWtk ,ttaff. Erik Pfaff: Hello. My name is Erik Pfaff,,. sky! ho, j address is ' 292904 124th SE Auburn. And the piece that I'm inr,�ested in is called MF-4. It's on VF-35 here in your book. a� have two lots there and, you are proposing to downzone, -4 to single family type of situation. Their width is 85 feet, .$o if you give me this single family zoning.1with a 50 lot widt , ghat I'm going to end up with is just single,' family lots instea&,it 14uplex lots. You have taken away half of- imy value, half of wha+ 4° wanted to build there, so I would like ' to see them stay "jai some or even upzoned, but I know you are not going to go for test,*ight now with what you are trying to do. But I would like thew tq�,-ta day the same in a duplex zone. One other suggestion I had,�;. .�, people are going to come in here anyways, And they are going t . moving in. You are going to have to figure a place to put thowNrogardless of what happens, the City of Kent is going to grow. Sol,why not leave some of those areas that ,you already have zoned for .s like that and you could slow your permitting process if you r" 430 d to slow the growth for a while. Maybe someone has some .aoreage and you want to let out. . . (unclear) . :,. so they can build ,,90'1, � ,percent of the land. . .50 percent of the land, and then maybe, . 1,could build on the rest of it in some y0ars to come. Some,10 lof schedule would have to be set up and worked out. Just a t Something to think about. Once again I.,am not really in ff '', 'f those 5,000 square foot lots. I just wanted to make that". 01 clear. You could build a nice looking building, ;but it is hav" d,1%0r41pntrol them once they are built. Even if you have a duplex,.;or thing like that, it is a rental situation and you have lan"c 4/tenant acts to follow there, of meeting ,*inimum things, keepjagij!J*e buildings up and landscaping and .that sort of thing. 4- tp*jgot a little private residence 5,000 square foot and you hawq,,.*'',{;betty tough time working with the little homeowner in there ;44 t', is letting his place go to waste. It may turn out, nice, woo standards right after they are built, but, then further dv .„ road, too, 15 -- ------ ----- Rent Planning Commission Minuted ' September 25, 1989 it might not be maintained properly in a small situation :like that with those tiny lots you are su�esting. My lots that I'm talking about too, they also do have h vy apartments up on the hill on the east side already, quite heavy. They are stacked up therm three floors high or so, I think. Chair Martinez In which direction. Erik Pfaff: East. They are uphill on Summit. Mine are lot A and B in the Oliver Short Plat, wha pit still is called, I guess. I guess that's all. Chair Martinez: Are there questions? Thank you. Erik Pfaff: Okay. Thanks. Chair Martinez: Rhonda Frederick. Rhonda Frederick: Hi. My name' is, Rhonda Frederick and I reside at 532 South Railroad. option ,O., I believe. There has already been a couple of people speak eel=lthat and I feel the same way. . I wouldn't like to see my property- value decrease. My husband and I purchased just for that purpo with that in mind. ;,I live right next door to an electrical comps ,that was just purchased and he sits right in the center of , block. I live right across the street from the tracks. I caave )-see the way we are sitting that there would want to be -apartments in there or anything 'as such, because we are surrounded by '�Vther businesses. People along Central and such. That it doez44t seem appropriate in that area anyway. Option Number 1.- ` Chair grtinez: Are there quea ions? A mailing Crystal Tudor. Robert Nevins. Robert Nevins: My name is Robert Nevins and I live .at ,642 Railroad Avenue South, and this .area 011'-1:t -the one I want to-talk about. The little lady that, gave her *osentation went to great, lengths to find out about areas. Hower, this area. . she should ha`we lived there for &while. The tra ns,�go by. . .have such an effect on houses that you cannot play a rord. _ I haven't been able to use my record' player. ' I had to bu�;,a ',CD. Not only that, but right across they street from me there°_ '* a place that makes roofing tar, and the stell is really ov�erp eKng ,at times. And the trucks that come by there are huge, ,big oil tankers. This two blocks are completely surrounded. ,. when ,X, got that thing I -almost died laughing, because I thought thib�,vas the most ridiculous thing that could happen is to try to make.,, s-,multi family. It is impossible to think that somebody could afually, live there in the density that they propose.', Okay.` Thatijs all that I have -to say. l� I 1 I I ! Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 ' a� Chair Martinez: Thank you. Donald Bazemore. Donald Bazemore: Madam Chairman and members of thy, Commission. My name is Don Bazemore. ! My , firm is DB Associstoo Architects. We're at 401 Second Avenue South, Seattle, 98104;.+" "!,;+ _; telephone number of 447-9688'. I'm here representing the V01lw �oor Study Area Option Review Area Number 2 and I'm your new�nie r. It is Map VF-6, page VF23 and it has the Number 2 'on" it. It is immediately north of the downtown duplex area: ;It ,& 'up against the highway. It is also up against the railroad. AUd it is zoned industrial. Voices: Option Area 2. I Donald Bazemore: Please correct me if I am wro �. , Chair Martinez: I think it is Option 2. Donald Bazemore: No. It is the option ar .,M .One of the industrial areas that is optioned for multifamily.1, yl';ci Voice: That's VF-80. Donald Bazemore: Representing a developer I ,0Ure that my credentials are already in difficult posture witht'so* pf you, and I beg you . . . Chair Martinez: Could you address us. We ar4&,,,ih&Vipq a little difficulty. Donald Bazemore: There is a, 'serious piece of irif t*ion in the document, and I believe in the room. It is a veryj1- V story but I would like to make it as short as possible and lT �i say it as quickly as I know how. The-southwest of the United ftates has run out of water. We have not. This particular cycl6 cif immigration has very little to do with, bur fortunate Boeing., Co"y and the charm of the northwest, it has to do with water. J� Ios Angeles doesn't have any more. The water table in the Great ,,P,l4ins states has dropped so many feet that, there are actually, vns in Texas that are sinking. They made the desert bloom,'K,at':4%ow they are paying so dearly for it that they are coming up ,h"'boc:ause they can get for their house in San Mateo last weep two-bedroom fixerupper $425,000, and when they sell that hole' they have $425,000 in their pocket, and if they don't buy apd�ri house with it, the only thing they can do is pay taxes on it. !S� they come to King County, Washington, paradise if you wi11,j�,:i, buy a palace. And you've seen many, many pictures of tessrtey laces all over East King County. Some of them don't have any; 'forniture in 17 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 them, because they can't afford the furniture, but they have to spend the money for the houses. , This is an incredible apocalyptic immigration. King County lost one of its county commissioners to the people who resisted the, grgVth in East King County, and when he voted for a project.. ' and I ';do not speak for or against the project, but when he voted for ,it he actually lost his ,job as a King County Commissioner. AndY,.`th+e person who beat -him did not bring an answer to what do you 4W,with a half a million new people in five to ten years. The question isn't what we don't want to happen. When every, one of th * ; people vies and begs for our houses, they are going to run tie prise up to, the extent that my major recommendation to you 'tonight is to work very hard for a cap on residential property taxes or we are going to be thrown out of our homes in the next ten years. If you can look at your tax bill and have it multiplied by four in,the next five years, then you can tolerate living here. The other, thing to do. . .in whatever way we can. . .meet the demand of housing. If we don't meet it, we are in a disaster position. And it isnAt that we have a choice of growth or no growth. I'm sorry. I wish we did. I came here in 1965 and I've loved it, and I don't even oars for the growth. But it's here now, and if we don't do sometht-ng rein this emergency. . .first off, we don't have any comprehensive plan in all of King County. We have neighborhood plans. You're working on a comp plan for Kent, Washington when King County itself has none. We don't have any agency in King County that can,plan transportation and laid use in the same agency with the ,power tp implement it. We don't have a regional government, folks, and we are going to lose our county commissioners because they fail.,,, We've already lost one and we're going to lose a couple more. 80,gl Bardon told me that if he ran again today he would lose because King County cannot serve these people. Okay, what does it have:to do with this piece. Duplex in an existing single family admi;ts,'that that single family area has failed. And I don't think that J�be people who live there are ready to admit that. In fact I think they are here to tell you that it hasn't failed. They are our nefthbor to the south.. Chair Martinez: Excuse one, before you go on, the area that I'm looking at ,is currently zoned fai industrial. . . Don Bazemore:,, - I know, and ,tha operty immediately to the south is duplex; . .existing-zoning. . .-am ,It should not be, ,because duplex is a failure zone. - It is a sI#gle family that has rotted. And that is not true of the' neighbIod. Voice: (unclear) :. .understand your terms. Chair Martinez: Excuse me. Yova;are out of order. '18 Kent Planning Commission Minutes ;� September 25, 1989 ' Mr. Harris: He's got the floor and she•s the chair. don't want people in the audience to chirp in. w , Don Bazemore: When you try to put a pencil to it a ;,ai.developer, you can't buy a house, tear it down and build a :dC x It won't work. It is economically unfeasible, so the only'AZi ogyou can do to a duplex is to actually add some more rooms to � glh�use. Turn your own home into a duplex, or wipe the whole a" completely with a bulldozer and start over. None of those na l,a#Y, sense. But if I build a buffer, on my south border, even a birml'At you will, and I enter than triangular-shaped piece of proportl' from Fourth Avenue, not through the residential streets north and south, not through Mr. NewcumberIs yard., I her and enter from Fourth, and maybe when they put that p ;srg{sr train up from Auburn, I 'll get a train station to stop them,6,,*Od pick up 172 or 185 or 250 residents on 4 -high-density multifeal ;land which will absorb almost the high density that' you seem{to Ind, because that piece of land can absorb it when the others&oar0o , or don't want to, or shouldn't be forced to. So if I turAti, a d d to them, madam chair, it's because I know they are the p46 , . ho have to agree with me before you make your decision. If th+ey ,dpnIt agree, it won't do much good to make the decision. I` thir*1 we can take more than MR-16, happily, gladly. We could takO 4k -30 on those eight acres just fine. It would be a beautiful pJjIa, too live. And when somebody earlier said nobody wants to live in nl,apartment, they are transitory people, they don't vote, they 'don't come to these meetings. How many of you live in apartmenta?; Not very many. Only four in the whole group. Most apaitht dwellers don't, because we've always- treated an apartmeot ! if no one wanted to live in it. The rest of the wox%di AoOsnIt treat apartments that way. Vancouver, British Columbia, tr#a#s them with great dignity and respect, and they go up in towe sl!made up of concrete and steel and they are beautiful community t There is no reason to suspect that we are going to b ,ld1 ' 4n. inferior product. We want daycare, we, want children, we wamt p4aifect access into a major arterial, we want a good community a .we expect to live in Kent, and stay in Kent and own in Kent,_,,atWJpOLy taxes in Kent. And we would very happily accept all the #ensi�y you want to pile on us. And that's my speech on behalf of Qptt 1, I think it is, which is MR-16. No where in the world i�� a lt��con idered high density. Chair Martinez: Questions. Thank you. Richard Too X. Richard Tonell i: I 'll try to keep this brief. Madf�C', '' airman and members of the Planning Commission. I own the-04 t�y. . . Chair Martinez: Can you identify yourself for the ard. 19 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Richard Tonelli: Richard Tone3li, 22440 88th South, I ,own the property that is listed as MF-10. It is on page VP-60 and 61. This is the property on the map you can see right here. I want to say that I concur with your asssment and recommending that it stay as it is. The =properrty 1qAistely adjacent to the south is being developed now as high densf, ty, MRH. They haven't been able to put the maximum number of units because of the contour and the topography. The property,to thq�%Ieft is some that own as well, it is actually to the west. It ie•--Commercial Manufacturing zoning, and the future, I- believe, are;rto put an east-west road on the north boundary, and there has been setbacks and property across the freeway for an east-west road, Oq that property, I believe, would make an ideal boundary for MRG, -qr multifamily housing. Under the current zeroing MRG. . .you allow 16 units per acre and, theoretically, you could get 3 +0 units on it. But due to the topography you say there is on,]y, approximately five and one-half acres, but back in 1982 1 put trough a planned unit development which I show and it was approved',by the City, and I showed that we could use approximately nine acres, eight of which would be part of the planned unit developmenty;: and also one acre would be zoned as a fourplex, for a total nino- acres of utilization. So what I want to say is that it is well below the density that you are talking about. You are talking aroximately seven units per acre which is well below the 16 unitik,4or the 20 percent reduction that you are seeking. Voice: (Unclear) Richard. Tone. li: What I was say3 +O. . .the property currently allows for 16 units per acre under MPO zoning. Under the PUD that I submitted and had been approved 'by the City in approximately 1982 we are utilizing eight acres, Vproximately, for development of that PUD which showed about 76 u .ts on it. And also there was an additional acre that,was zoned-+MRG for a fourplex. What I am saying is that by going to 06 'units, you, are, reducing the buildable. . .or the number-of units that are possible to put on that land well in excess of 20 percet already, and that is all that I have to say. Chair Martinez: Are the 'ee any (pWstions? Dennis Beckwith. okay. Will you please turn it in to be--received by the. . . Barry Anderson: ]Ky name Is,#; rry Anderson, Barry Anderson Associates. Chair Martinez: Are you fir. Beckwith? Barry Anderson: I am speaking ;or Mr. Beckwith. 29 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Mr. Harris: Excuse me. You said there is o 0 g4par) seven here, I'll keep out here and I'll pass the rest; 1t ll Barry Anderson: You could apk the Commission to:;�, t Chair Martinez• Do we have your address in the now. • a Barry Anderson: It is 600 South Central. I'll , y state for Mr. Beckwith, he would request that his MF-11 be -do from the listing in according with the submitted packet, „ R, packet is somewhat lengthy, so I won't , take the CommissiO01# Itime to go through it. ; i A, Chair Martinez: So is this one plot within a por off; the whole MF-11. Barry Anderson: No this is one parcel within , There are five parcels; however, this is the largest parce#,. Commissioner Greensfireet: (unclear) Barry Anderson: I'm sorry, I'm representing him. 1� is� requesting withdrawal ,from the listing the planned unit devq�, P nt portion of MF-11. There are four residential lots and.;,,,*a(4�q ltifazLily- zoned garden density piece, and we are reques� 4 action or deletion from the list pursuant the listing of ng factors that we . . . closing Mr. Harris: We need an identification. . Chair Martinez: Do, you have his address, Lois?, n for Mr. Beckwith. Voice: (unclear) ; 9� Chair Martinez: Yes, to the , best of my ability ,4*' submitted a packet of material asking for one parcel, the, »,identified parcel according to Mr. Anderson in Area MF-11 awn from consideration in all these proceedings. ,';'! ; no other information. . . I can't represent that in 4ny o���? ' ; because I haven't read the material. voice: (unclear) 'x Mr. Harris: If you need to 'talk, you must come ;', floor and be recognized by the chair. . .just a minute, we 4�4 ! , t you into the record. This is a record on tape. It im„ ;� , � ;the char whether she is going to recognize you or not. y,��n. I 21 7 .i Rent Planning Commission Minutes , September 25, 1989 Chair Martinez: For the information of the audience, this will be entered into the record acid will"be, a part of the record that you can read. The Commissioners have not seen it. You have heard exactly what we know, and I M sorry that ;there is no further information at this time. It will be available for public review. Okay. Peg Percival has just signed up to receive mailings. Is that right? Gary White May. Cry, pass. Ken Astrein. Ken Astrein: Hi. My name is` Son �Astrein. I live •at 1455 East Harrison, Seattle, Washington. "',;Madam Chair and members of the Commission, I have spoken to yogi-Ah other capacities, and tonight I want to speak on behalf of myself. I'd like to give you as well as some of the members of the audience some thoughts to think about while you are looking through the housing study and rather than pointing specifically to some parcels. . .and I'd like you to keep these thoughts in mind while you'•are answering these questions and looking at these issues which nd 'to be addressed. Getting back to Mr. Bazemore Is comment, I Aii one of the few- people in the audience who is an apartment dweller here. I'm not a hotrodder, nor am I a drug addict, nor an I -&btransient. For many of you, and I know there is a large proport-A n of elderly in the crowd, I am like your children. I am young; - tarting out in life, ,And I'd like you to think about them as well is me for a moment. I'd like you to think about the average pe*0cn starting off today, either getting out of hig1i- school or getting out of college and thinking of some of the economic' obstacl that have to be faced 'while we move through life. I'd like yow to think about some of the debt we've taken on for those of no who have gone on for further schooling while we get out an(F"get started. I understand the concerns that people have about the growth and I share those concerns, but what I 'd like peolA* to think about is opposition to things as the R1-5000 zone which is recommended for many of the multifamily zones for downzoning .to single family. There seems to be some hesitation, there seemo ' to be desires of, tone people , to look at 7200 square feet, the 4iurrent minimum Zoning size. By discouraging the R1-5000; you"At4 encouraging exactly what many people perceive to' not Vantill You are encouraging less homeownership- because of inbredied, costs, or you can conversely look at that and you are havirio"PlAn increase in renters. I an a professional, like'-many people if*F the room, and I have a relatively decent and steady job, yet the opportunity for home.O nership for me today is not what it was like-when many people in the audience were my age, my parents, or people who are in between generations. It just simply isn't there. The economics don't pencil out. To look at something like a '5,000 . uare foot lot and may that this would lower property values, heat, I remind you that in Seattle in many neighborhoods the average-Alot size is approximately 5,000 square feet and in some cases coven smaller. Jubt, to boil my comments down I'd like you to think about. . .if you think this lot 22 ,J I Kent Planning Commission Mertes September 25, 1989 a ; t, size is detrimental to property values, I'd like Y I*o aaax someone who lives in Seattle in a single family home on i, 5A{�000 square foot lot in a comparable neighborhood what the ce' value is on their house. I'm sure you wifa be astounded to f�n ;$.,what 5,000 square feet can be worth. Nor do I think in these Z"ighborhoods where these homes are selling in excess of $20p, 01O, t they are transient, that they are poor in design. I'd li ,j, _ �e to think about that, and I'd also like you to think that 'a® oPle do move into the region, we can turn our backs to some A;,tornetive, very innovative concept like a 5,000 square foot ' ,ao" I,.which are incorporated in many current cities, and in tha#'ct11 e' you may be pushing people away from Kent. That's true, y ,A, 0� have your density, but you will have your traffic, becau y�," is not Kent, it will be Cle Elum, Black Diamond and further c' t's got to be some place where the economics work. Unfort a, "'i * it is not working in Seattle, and its barely working in U' ', � ;� o I'd just like people to keep in the back of their minds s ,'thoughts for those who have and those who, are enjoying, you mAy enjoying, I don't know whether your children will be enjoying i fruits of life or whether they, like may, others and like mangy, pile who live in Vancouver, will be permanent renters for their ex�stonce in the Washington area. Thank you., Chair Martinez: Are there any questions. Thank you; ''ern Gibson has just signed up to receive mailings. Okay. Arn q Reischl. Arnie Reischl: My name is Arnie Reischl. I 1P,re ,at; 21825 92nd Avenue South, and I will be speaking about MF-11,, t ti6h is found on VF-63, 64, and 65. I would like to speak in t#v �}, r f Option A with the following amendment. I would like you 'gip, �3 a look at page VF-62 and look at the area around that. I wic1L .ke to have it amended to R1-20 which would (unclear) affe'at community around that. There is a residential area there, T��, pne of four homeowners , in that particular area. I have ,ph ;� ;�d�en I , have effectively tried to put into 0'Brien as well as qn and have found most to be very over populated as well ag being in an industrial area. I'd like you to take a look,., iat ,,t a area and understand that a residential area would serve thitii more than a high-density multifamily area. What we are look* gajatl,is an area that is bounded by 167 and 'a residential area,,,vh is'-not well served by the road system there. And it has Ig ' amount of noise coming from the road. I personally havfi" d up from California, have seen the density there and knoiV ; it is like to live in an area where people have taken , apd. "t apartment complexes next to highways and had to come back ,'in.,, ,'Is ort amount of time and build 16 or 20-foot walls because the 61, density was there as well as trying to keep the people healzlw ,. cause of the exhaust and other leaded compounds that come over,1t404} -walls. So I'd like you to consider that there is a resid ;ti area there. 23 { F° r Kent Planning Commission Minute*, September 25, 1989 There is a buffer zone that is'hooded with. . .a lot of different areas. . .there are animals in there, wildlife, that could all stay there effectively if it were Rl.- 20 instead of R5000 .a.rea. That is all that I have to say. Chair Martinez: Mould you pre"r, however, R5000 to other kinds of multifamily zoning. It is dd rehtly zoned MRG. Arnie Reischl: Yes it is. I w+cst1d` like you to take 'a look around the area. . .you'll see the R1 7 which is 7200, the 20,000 which directly abuts that; and ''theh there is an RA which is RA agricultural. What you are , doing by putting a 5000 in' that area. . .and it should be- conlsideied because it is a piece of land that has been used as fill from the steel plant down in the valley there, they have been dumping residue in there. They have been pealing the hills back essential's' trying to cover that up, but the wooded area that I have really �ta well with these lots that are already there today which are abut 19 to 20,000 square feet. Sb that density. . .the 'roads are °'"not going to take it, - schools obviously aren't going to take it, so. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Questions. Thank you. You had a qulestion. Carol Stoner: Does that mean tfittt you would prefer not to have it zoned R1-5. Arnie Reischl: I would like it. :..if the very minimum R1-5, because that reduces it from the multifamdly area. But I would really like you to consider what is around there and what you 'are impacting. It is a small parcel of land. `'"There is only four acreia. of land there, and today if you were tt*'`travel that area, ', you would see that there are high banks in the'-urea. It is going to be difficult to put those 5000 square ;qbt lots in there. I mean, realistically, the contractor i*";going to have some problems with that type of thing. Chair Martinez: other gaestion v" Thank you. Hugh Leiper. Hugh purer: Good evening. My,'%`a*e is Hugh Leiper. ' I am a real estate consultant in the com�mer6lal field. I'd like to address a few comments ,before W6 get into lea specific things,.,, 'First of all the study that has been ' made 'is a fantastic-looking dtudy. I believe that the Clty"C6incil ga'±V+e you people a totally impossible job to accomplish simply'becaugW you are not having the opportunity to really address the problem y . will be faced with in years to come. Let's take fot ihsta e. . .I'd like to tty a little experiment if I can. I'd likgllto have everyone in this rood participate in this. All those rho were 24 Kent Planning Commission Minutes a September 25, 1989 Chair Martinez: Excuse me. I'd prefer that you,just ,address us, please. q Hugh Leiper: All those who were born here, pj*aso,,, wise their right hand. In the Puget Sound Area. I'll ask my ner 1 son to take a tally, please. All 'right. Those who heve#; en here 30 years or more, please raisd your right hand. A,ll ,,,Xight, that's fine. Are you taking the tally, my number 1 son: ; ftahk you. At least 20 years, would somebody please raise your rig band. Thank you. Those who have been here at least 10 years., an , actually I'd like to see the Council members here raise the right ids whatever they are. All right now, the very last one. Tht 'iones who have been here at least five years, will they please- ra their right hand. All right now, the interesting thing about.°: 0 experiment, if I can eventually get the tally, most of the pe'e who are in this room came here roughly 30 years ago or were, bE}rn) .here. Now let's take a little bit of history if we can, because you've really got to understand where you are at. During the Wglplo's Fair in 1962 this particular area in the Puget Sound Area hit the magic mark of one million people. All right, now 28 y4Arp later we have approximately two and one-half million within t]rp vela. Now how did that happen. During the World's Fair people 'da e 'Iup here and fell in love with the place. Just like I did when"i, dame up here in 158. I couldn't find a better place to live. ]out I can tell you this, there is no way in which you can put fencestand you can put walls on the borders of our state so that the,poa� ,won't come because they are. They have already found the Vat nation of the Pacific Northwest. Now next year we ,are going to ham tie Goodwill Games. And those Goodwill Games are going to attriet �a multiple of people across the world and across this nation.: lyou haven't seen the growth yet. Now I'd like to give y©�% a little demographics and get this thing into perspective itylican. Let's start up on old 99 if we can, and let's use the Wt-Des Moines Highway as a center point. Now let's go from thervizarth of that center line one mile. Let's go south one mile. �Noi, at is going to be considered our boundary. All right. Now 'lot';s come down into the Valley let's stretch that line and frc ;�p, center line another one-half mile making 'three miles from north��to south. Now let's take this thing up on the East Hill of Kent. a you take it up on the East Hill of Kent we are going to iner so t4at distance (unclear) half miles from the center point and n0xiF continue this configuration clear to Highway 18. Now, d*14601,, aline that within the configuration you, have 130,000 people # ao say they belong to Kent in some fashion or another. The3`.. o to the Kent Schools, they have an address that is Kent. Nth► 1'1,Wduld like to get to something specific. We are speaking of a e; ,,i believe you have in your map. . . Chair Martinez: You have about a minute left., 04 25 I4 1` Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Hugh Lei per: All right. That's fine. Label 2. Chair Martinez: MF2 or Option Area 2. Hugh Lei per: That's• VF-5 Number, 2 and Number 1. Now this is an area in your downtown area soul of Willis Street. Currently it is zoned MRM. If you are successful in converting' it to duplex zoning, which is simply done, you have voted for failure, simply because that area is not feasible to take down an old douse and put a duplex on it. It won't work., So what you simply have done is actually for a failure and you should be planning for success in this whole area. I, challenge y!ou to really plan for a change and plan for the people who are coming because you are going to have another 40 or 50,000' people in .this general area in the next ten years. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Any questions?�,y, It's page 29. Commissioner Faust: Sir, are ,.you saying, sir, that you would prefer to have the density even:,higher than recommended. Hugh Leiper: What I! an simply saying, you have to really get to the problem. You cannot run soared like you are now. FbR in the 30's said that fear was the only, thing you had to fear. Frankly that is exactly what , is happenjoq now. You are running away from the real problem. The real problem is that people are coming, just like I pointed out a little bit aqo, the people are here right now. Would you like to say if you are coming, I can't handle you, I can't hold you. There is nothiag really we can do to handle your problems here, because there's no place to put you. Chair Martinez: Are there qU tions? Steve Abercrombie just signed up for mailing. Dale Legenfelder. Would you come to the microphone, please. , ;, Dale Lengenfelder: My name Is pple Lengenfelder. I think you ,can hear me. I reside at 641 Sout ;,Second Avenue, Area M;'-2, page VF- 28, the area that was just ref- *Xred to by my predecessor. And I am right across the railroad troika from the gentled who had to buy the CD because of_ the vibraon. I am blue collap, as opposed to apparently a high, number, ot= ople here who are. professionals, and I would like to speak abQLjt„ quality of life. Those who are talking in rhetorical terms �puch as voting for failure and espousing the virtues of ,high dsity, I am sure don't live in the high density, they're not apaxtment dwellers. I'd bet a week's pay, which might insult them, that they don't live =even_ near it. Our area is not much in their terms, I would suppose, but they have financial investments, and-what we people have is the investment 26 �f Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 �s;a, •, ; in our lives. We live there, We purchased our,,,• h0 there. We are every bit as proud of what we have as what ;t4gt , ale of what they have. They propose to bulldoze our shacks d ;y T,,; guess they consider them shacks, and replace them with hS amity units because you can't afford to replace them with dup, ! You know, all I see all my neighbors faxing up their plat sss �, 1 and living very comfortably and very happily with the exceptis n of Isome of the high speed traf f is that comes from some apartment, ;imits. I think I've said enough. Chair Martinez: Excuse me, so I want to be. . .You ,a3;* ITeaking in favor of the MRD zoning for 10-02 which would be 10 +c tilling units per acre as opposed to 23 per ,acre as it is curreplty (zoned. pale Lengenfelder: The specifics I am not aware A am asking that they do not allow the high density units„th*t ', they would maintain probably duplexes. I mean, people have a• 'r' # to develop their land, but I don't thank they have a ric4htt, • inordinate profits at the cost of the quality of life of peggie' ; ►;have lived and purchased and contributed to the area for yearn d years. Chair Martinez: Other questions. Greg. Commissioner Greenstreet: I heard you refer to 4v*pg across the street from the guy that bought the CD. I was uns ;r� � ,impression that that gentleman lived in Option Area 1. Is ,� gorrect. Dale Lengenfelder: Yes. He said he laved next door, o 'the tracks, and I live on the other side of the tracks. Commissioner Greenstreet: Okay, so it is neair ion Area 1, though, that is all I'm clarifying, ; Dale Lengenfelder: I don't know ,what Option l�aa 1 is, but according to the map MF-2, which is shown on VV 8.; I am at the eastern edge of that, which is close to the trams.. =. . { Chair Martinez: Thank you. pale Lengenfelder: Thank you. Are there any , adrej questions. Thank you very much. Chair Martinez: Walter Flue. a, Walter slue: My name is Wolter Flue. I live" 1105 Seattle Street. The property that I am speaking about ,is', Cher one of my pieces of property at 533 Third Avenue South a MF-2, also. That particular piece of property. . .that particul use on that particular piece of property, I'd like to add, ,ii , iximately 60 27 l i Rent Planning Commission Minutes ` September 25, 1989 years old, was moved on that piece of property by another owner before my parents took it over. The majority of the houses in this area, I'd,- say approximately 90 ' percent of them, are 50 years or older or better, and I'd like to�go along with Option Number 8 and retain the quality 'of life in that area and also maintain those homes for our historic value. Commissioner Greenstreet: On those old homes, like your folks home and that, repairing them, they've probably settled, the windows and doors, are a little out of squatre, but you have found that the overall structure can be mainrified, painted and fixed. Walter Flue: I go through that 'area about every day to, check on the house, check on'my mother. I see the other homes in the area, and the other homes are +good-looking homes. There are not that many run down. Commissioner GreengtrAet: So, afhtually that area is real good for senior housing because it is affordable and things like that. All right. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Questions. Jim Flick. Jim Flick: My name is Jim Fl�.c: i' and I live at 9408- South 218th Street. I'd like to speak to th` MF-11 designated area. Now that is. . .MP-11 is on page VF-62 and^*3: You were handed' a packet by the gentleman who was representiOg Mr. Beckwith that said he'd like a large piece of that withdrawn^"Ifrom consideration. Now I'd like to step to another map and show'.-you in a little more detail what we are really talking about. Chair Martinez: Is it possible Vor him to take a mike with him. Mr. Harris: Yes, just pull that`'out. . . Chair Martinez: Can you take the mike because this is a verbatim. . . Thank you. Jim Flick: Can I move the map. ::._ Chair Martinez: But we can't see it. Jim Flick: This MF-11 is this little postage stamp in the middle of this yellow area. And at the present time that is zoned MRG, 16-units per acre. The proposal �is to zone it RI-5.0. ' Now the property to' the south' of it, just below that, is 'zoned RI-7.2. I think that the R1-5 is not an a oquate zoning. I agree with one of the earlier gentlemen who suggested that it be R1-20. Now what I'd like to point out to you ii^ this. For one thing if'-you zone 28 i{ r Kent Planning Commission Minuttes September 25, 1989 �, r that R1-5, you are busting the block, so to speak[,', ,bause, then this is going to go R1-5. If it is R1-7.2 this *O!p*p used RI-5. This from here to the Garrison Creek Park, the t'Jslcourts and the reservoir, that is all 20,000 square foot,, zoV#di And the people that have property bordering this piece of p porty. . .they have lot sizes of one acre, , about the smallest lkota re is one third of an acre. So, in effect you've got one thilad Of an acre, you have 20,000 square feet zoned clear up to a4d,Jnpluding the reservoir at the top of the hill, and then thie,, a� up here is zoned R1-12. So R1-5 is totally out of char ' with the neighborhood, and I think that I would object i #. drawing a large piece of that and letting it remain MRCS. l ; . ,i.nk it all ought to go into an R1 designation. And I thir*-tboi,,designation ought to be R1-20 consistent with the character of this entire yellow coded area with the exception of this 7e, , ;a But again I think that if you zone it R1�-5, the 7.2 is goin4 .te; 4o down the tube, because they are going to come to you and ,Aay 'ohoy look, you got R1-5 right next to me, and I'd like to zone mi '; 175 too, and I don't see how you can deny it. Chair Martinez: Are there any questions? Thank yq4, ,, Excuse me, there is a question. Commissioner Faust: How would you feel about rezoni4q ,that to R1- 7.2. ..� Jim Flick: Well, 1 tell you. I think we ought to. . .,T.,wbuld prefer to see it be zoned R1-20 because the contiguous prrty is up the hill above it, described as, a hilly piece. l :}'ght on the corner where the South 218th Street was cut off ith" ,they put the freeway through. So you can't go straight across ith ,,Malley. You got to meander down and come out by Denny's restaurant. The property on the hill above it are these contempora:ry p s that are in the $150,000 category. I'm sure there are people-,, ore who could give you a better, more specifics on the value~,; A 0 .hey are on lots of an acre and there is one that is a half acreo, This is not consistent with 5,000 squsxe feet, and I think it is consistent with 7.2. I think you really ougW,;tt�,;, think about considering R1-20. This is the only R1-20 area . ;;ae City of Kent, by the way. Chair Martinez: Are there offer questions? � Commissioner Forner; You don't feel that specific , standards for the 5000 square foot lot, could maintain them, v .,ue. M , Jim Flick: I think that what you are going tip Ic t is cracker boxes. You don't put a big, expensive house on a,j$-il; ,square foot lot. So there is going to be cheaper houses, anQk .;q k you are 29 ! ' Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 going to see a lot of turnover as people come and go and hopefully move up to something more 'in keeping of where they ultimately would like to go in terms of house sia ,. I'm real concerned, about -5,000 square foot lots in the City of Sent for that very reason. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Ji* .Stieg. Jim Stieg: I am Jim Stieg. I live at 528 South Railroad Avenue. I just wanted to speak about optAon Review Area 01. Seems all my neighbors have said it already. We like it the way it is. Bought commercial and would like: to have it stay commercial. Haven't spoken to anyone in the neighrhood in that area -'who owns who wants it to change. Commissioner Greenstreet: You "JA you like it to stay commercial. Jim Stjoq: Yes, I don't want it -Ito change. we all pretty much feel the same, I think. Commissioner Greenstreet: But you live in a single family home there right now. Jim Stiig: At this time, yes. Commissioner Greenstreet: Do you own the property. Jim Stieg: Yes. commissioner Greenstr,,eet:, Okay.' Thank you. r, Chair Martinez: other questionO. Commissioner FFcrngr: Could you a more specific can what you think the impacts are on the upgrade versus maintaining it as a commercial piece of property. Jim Stied: Upgrading the hous6s that are there 'Upgrading the area. You're talking about Ming in mutifamil.y- apartments. Myself personally, if I 'was goi to� rent, I wouldn't want to rent next to a railroad. My house is right across the street and it does shake quite a bit as they go by and the whistles blow and it is loud because it is right by-4he street. So they blow their whistle right in front of the hose, and it is very loud. If you close all the- doors and',Vindows,,,IIt is not so bad, -but it is loud, and that is kind of annoying. I didn't buy there to live there the rest of my life. I bought commercial. There is a few houses, then there is a 7-11 across the suet on one side, and tyre is a factory, and there is commercial.-units all in there already. We'd like to have the zoning` stay as' it is. 30 Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 �� �'.',,� Chair Martinez: Thank you. Steven Rea. Richard,Ajav Richard Hill: Members of the commission, good eves My name is Richard Hill. I am an attorney for the Carp�,nii p�amily. My , address is 1111 Third Avenue in Seattle. The Carpin plfamily owns property at the intersection of 167 and Central Avg in two of the areas of concern this evening, one is Option 'Aro 3, which is discussed at page VF-82 and the other is Multifaxjl!y,�Apea 8 which is discussed at page VF-49. I will keep my remai*&:topight brief because we did only obtain a copy of report toniohti ' X would ask that the record be kept open for a written, :�r*Wonse to the discussion in the report if at all possible. The portion of the Carpinito property located in Option Area 3 is cuirre ', ;y zoned CM. The proposal is to downzone that property to MRG.`.�. T11 ParpinitoIs request that the property remain in the CM zone. . 'b +property, as I address in a moment, is appropriate for the CM vlan#i#cation and is much less appropriate for the MRG classif&�at*, op. Another portion of the Carpinito property in Multffoa * ;Area 8 is currently zoned MRH. The proposal is to downzonO !,t 0 property to MRG, which is a very drastic: downzone that doe 8r, really make sense again considering the surrounding de°v*41 ,�4t and the topography and location of ,the property. As to�,ith+�:' azea that is currently zoned Commercial, a,Garden Density zoning 4ossification clearly does not make sense. 'the property is in ini - mil situation for commercial development with good freeway axed,' tr' t access, within walking distance of the proposed rail line an ., etation, and it is appropriate here at this location to allow ;XuXtiple use, commercial and retail development. In particular t , property is a wealth-defined independently-situated site, for commercial development. The owners of the property, the Carpinito family, have paid over the years for LIDs which MV,40i created the infrastructure to support th& type of commercial d4v lopment which the zoning has always anticipated. In this context nd as we will present in further detail a written response, :t* proposal to substantially downzone the site to Garden Density 'Multifamily development really does not make sense. As to 0, a mutlfamily zoned property currently MRS and the Commercial, aa � to both of those properties it is important to consider the„topes Ophy of the, area, which is flat. It is an area that is r priate for, relatively high density multifamily as to � ;'multifamily properties, and for commercial development fear- ' ek. commercial property. The traffic patterns and the access wiljoi t' result in adverse impacts on the key east-west routes, and the Xs available capacity in light of the other traffic improv ts, that are planned for the area. In addition it would be oed that the property is currently surrounded by existing, high-density multifamily development and commercial uses, a eo that are compatible with the existing property zoning. The Qor#initos will 31 I icl I ' Kent Planning Commission Minutest September 25, 1989 appreciate the Planning Commission's consideration of these concerns and look forward to, looking forward with the Planning Commission and staff as the proposal develops. As I indicated at the beginning, it would be appriated if the record could be kept open for a brief period of time'.to allow a written response. Chair Martinez: Are there queojiions. If not, I have .one, In Option Area Number 3, one of the=.factors favoring the reduction is that it provides potential for ia�reatsing residential density close to sources of employment, tranalporhation, all the reasons' that you have detailed that ,it should be kept commercial: -Would you like to balance those two. Richard Hill: It's really ,Ironic that that is one of the justifications for changing that-tzoning to multifamily, because the downzone of the multifamily zce property that the Carpinito's currently own is basically cuttlnq in half, and you will be gaining that back by zoning .the commercial property to multifamily. So the result is basicaslly ,no net- Aorease in multifamily development on the two properties together, 'fhe Carpinios really believe that with the existing infrastructu , the multifamily for the two properties together is, most properly located on the . existing multifamily zoned property. -15, Again, it is close to the infrastructure, it is close ',tio the downtown area, and the commercial property is approprtely located right on the main thoroughfare and access which is more appropriate- for commercial development. Chair Martinez: Other questions. Yes. Commissioner Uh�ls-, r Hel-fner: - One, of the reasons given here in this report for supporting,the sites specific alternative, the-downzone. from MRH to MRG for that site, ijo that allowable density under the proposed zoning recognizes the dtoignated quote severe hazard area of eastern parcels within the » Is that part of the Carpinito property. Richard fill: There may be a;;small portion of the Carpinito property -which is included in, that area, but again, in any development of the property tho ,,environmental,ly sensitive areas would obviously be considered ; would obviously result, to the extent it is ,included, result a lower density development in those portions of the sites. 0,i Commissioner. Uhlar--Heffner: = Because you had described the two parcels you are concerned with,- ale=,being relatively .flat. ;p i. 1, Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 .y� Richard Hill: By far the majority of the Carp property is flat. I believe that towards the east there is & ].;portion of the property that does go up the hill. Chair Martinez: Other questions. Thank you. lei : s;' .of people have just signed in to get themailings. I will ,;=11,,'through them and if you want to speak, just; put your hand up. itkiq , art. Roland Mason. Bud Hart. Please cote up and speak. Bud Hart: My name is Bud Hart. I live at 21813: 9 + nue South. The only comment I want to make was about what .is,own as MF-11. I wanted to piggyback on the comments of Mr. Reischl ,,*O�Mr. Flick, I believe it was, that had to do with that spea$fic piece of property. I, too, would also like to have it sho }, t I would like to have that rezoned as residential property 'b4k ln the size 20, 20,000 square foot area lots. , Chair Martinez: Questions. Okay. Thank you. Rola�ld iason. Ike Svensson. Okay. I guess I'm a little nearsight , ,;:(,',#uess. Roland Mason: I'm farsighted: My name is Roland,j�%agn�, and I live at 21813 92nd Avenue South across the street frarot;ra ,neighbor Bud Hart who just talked a second ago. I, too, am in ::C, rlof the same things they are, as far as this zoning is concex ,,*;," don't want it R1-5, I want it R1-20. My property is 25,000 'sqUorq feet, just above the piece that they are'.talking about. 11 - tEo look down at that every day. I think R1-20 would be c'a ' st with the whole general area that we are looking at. That iW, l;that I have to say. Commissioner Forney: You do not live within thc . de �ated area, you live adjacent to it. it I Roland Mason: I live right .up from it. I abut,- s ,M�r*perty. Commissioner Forney: Thank you. Chair Martinez: Question. jit j' ' � Commissioner Faust. How about any of the othem4 ations Rl- 7.2 or even R1-9.6. Would those be more acceptabm a , than the R1-5. ! 'I,'rt Roland Mason: I think not. I think they are ie i e with .the area that we are talking about. I think Rl�-2,0 a� X(* ,be the one that would be consistent with all the propertiew!i r�thst general area. R1-5 is unreasonable. I really do. ; 11. J";"! j dy 33 II Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 Commissioner Greens ee : Whit if the option is R5000 and multifamily. =:a Roland Mason: The area there is hot multifamily anyway. There is not any multifamily unit in that whole general area to my knowledge. To have it that waksis worse than the.RI-50- I don't know if any of you ,people ham -seen that particular :piece of property or that general area, but, I think if you gaup there and take a look around, I'm sure yQ4 will agree with me that most of that property is acre lots, htl$,,-acre lots. It is not .down to any 5,000 square foot lots. It is c ' letely inconsistent. with what is there. Chair Martinez: other questions. Thank you. Don Johnson. Patrice Ackerman. Richard Kingi,' Richard King: I'd like to speak, Chair Martinez: Certainly. Richard ,tea,: I'm Richard Kind.—I live at 9138 South 298th. : I own the three-acre property MF--12 on VF-66. Commissioner Gr ens reg : MF-1. ;; Richard Kin MF-12. I've been living and raising, my family in Kent area for twenty years now.,:-, I have invested, quite a bit into this property and there is a money angle that when the bottom falls out in rezoning, I go bankrupt. It is as simple as that. I think a few other people are looking at the same thing, Also, my area is quite a bit further north than a, lot of places that ,have been spoken of already. I am bordered by apartment buildings . on my south, office complexes are being, built in, freeway, and industry. I am two blocks from a lot of plates that people work, - It's a good place for it, also it is clog*. . .within a couple blocks. . .few blocks of the fire department, itewblocks from freeway access. I work for a company only a few blocks from me, too, that employs over 200 people. Most of those ljove to drive 45 4.inutes to an hour to get to a place where they n rest when they get off work. There are people coming. =Indust € is already here. -,You've got- to have places for them_,,to.: live. 'It is to much more o6ni venient for people who can live in those kid. of places to have the access to do it. I am requesting to leave it as option C. . .no action and leave it as the dense population � or the multifamily-. that it presently has. By changing it Vouldilimit its development for the future, �and there is,.a lot of growth that can go can Mtn that area yet. The office buildings and p-tuff are Just coming in. It is a pretty good-sized tract.. To the north of me is restrictive agriculture, and there is nothing going on there but wheat field. 34 r Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 And one of my main complaints here is that's part of reason why you made the judgments or one of your main concU*tc pare is the traffic problem there. There are three places right here on this page that says that this road has already reached 'its capacity. Eventually that road will have to be enlarged a +"Y !1 I am not developing right now. I don't plan to for quitO �� ,I4. ile, but I want that option there so that when I do, I can ,g ,� yinvestment back to do what I see fat with my property th*t ,XJ1,1ha,Ve earned. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Are there questions. Commissioner Forner: What is your feeling is.,�'ab*Ut the 5,000 square foot lots. Richard King: I'm not real �sure about it. I'd l,iks,�:i* ,be able to put more in there than what (unclear) myself. Chair Martinez: other questions. Thank you, sir. Zail Williams. Gail Williams: I'm Gail Williams. I live at ?18j7 93rd Avenue South. I have 1.2 acres and I'm adjacent to th* p#arty on MF- 11. I'm concerned about the small lot size. am for the downzoning to single family, but I also want to, ,4gr ' with the other people in the neighborhood that have said to*' they want the R 20, 000 lot size. I think it should be more c nai*te�nt with the neighborhood property sizes. We want to protecti,o "nvironment, also. There are. . .I took some pictures but unfortur #41y they did not turn out so I could bring them to show you hOV lay of the property is. It is a difficult site, to do anythj3V,,�fgith. If they were to develop it ' into that small of a lot six*''� o would have to take down a lot of the hillside. You start chaingjgg� some of the vegetation and some of the natural lay of the land, * ere is going to be more water problems, because the water rusgft mns below me and there is a big hill andi..there is a swamp are', t they have filled in. That water Is gotl to go somewhere. -So i X, i.nk that is going to be a problem in the future no matter w#a**pvg do. Also, there are some environmental problems that I a* �oonc;erned with. That's kind of a. . .IId almost say a bird sanctuazy-.;t ►t;'s in there. There's lots of squirrels, 'Riere's lots of natua . ]citation in there now that will leave as that is gradually , diminished with the trees and, that taken down. If you go ..smaller lot sizes, you will probably begetting younger famiU j114,- there, and I think that with 167 so close, that might ,be,,ai 'with kids and the freeway and that, and also the trees th ! , wrthere right now kind of act as a buffer for some of the freey o*se. As you develop that and take those trees down, you are ! to get more noise. 35 h�61 Kent Planning Commission Minutes , .if September 25, 1989 Chair Martinez: Questions. Ho* do you feel about the compromise of perhaps 96 or 72. Gail Williams: Well, my pref6 enco would be the 20,000, but I definitely would rather have sohing other than the+ multifamily. The houses in there are mostly between $150,000 and. $200,000 houses, and we want to protect our environment for our families, too. Now I understand that development has to be allowed to happen, but I think that if you.--too and see this particular piece of ground, you'll see that it isc a. real problem. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Earle and Genevieve Partain. Genevieve Partain: Ladies and gentlemen of the Council and members here. I would like to say that ,I come from an area where. . . Chair Martinez: Would you please identify yourself for the record. Genevieve Partain: I live at. . . Chair Martinez: Your name and kddress. Genevieve Partain: Genevieve °main, 21819 93rd Avenue South, Kent. Where I come f rom. . .I am.a':+brand new resident here. , I moved here in July of this year. I co -from Miami Florida. Due to the, I guess the wisdom of the city .,fathers who didn't listen to the voters, I moved out of Miami, bemuse when you start to put -An an area where there is high density V�.th single family homes, ,you have increased stress, yourhave incr4weed hostility, and you also have an increase in crime and whatev ;-*Ise comes along with At. And what we are looking at ass .that wo!-caxe up here for the quality of life and for the peace of mind. „ ,,�_If the area designated-as CIF-11 is changed to anything less tha* 20,000, we are going to be yin trouble. You are putting, us ri,,,-Jeopardy. You , are putting our families in jeopardy. You are areasing the traffic area. You are increasing the -amount of peopJ,* .in an area where all the things I said about will happen. T * are also concerned about the environmental area. The area t I -just came from, when you look out of your yard and the only #jam that are there -are the • ones that you planted, and now I lodWIout into my backyard and I see trees that. God put there, your aro roammed right I want .to save them. I do not want somebody coming irk jl�re�e and taking away ,what I feel is mine, what I paid f'or x Ar -,�, hope that the ,Cou cil has the enough wisdom to listen to than•,, people and understand that the quality of life is worth mare.;,than somebody's dollar in their pocket. Thank you. .E 36 i 1 i .p Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989 ``� ` Chair Martinez: , Are there any questions. Thank y*u" tudolph and' Patsy Barber. And last is Charles Butt and/or��i �� butt. Charles Butt: My name is Charles Butt and I xis°' �9455 232nd Avenue SE. I am in MF-2, map VF-10. It is a 9 d* �rcel that I bought. It is a narrow piece of property and it ',''Orastically affect my property if downzoned to MRD. Be the way I understand MRD, you have individual lots and tho :' y is only 105 feet wide. There is no 'Way that I could div ;i a property and lots because I can front only 105 feet on ' F%ftii ' ptenue. The other thing I wanted to say Was. . .I'll read thick ',1Io'ti r to you. When I read this whole packet here, from 'the "' ► i start I understood that the reason behind all this wasdll� downzone multifamily. And the way I read it here you are go!i , o downzone people's property from multifamily. . .downzone adi�is ', 'tie board 20 percent. But in other words you are taking commet t* °�p;roperty and turning it into multifamily, which commercial proper**'was not even talked about. Okay. So what you are really Aloifg its you are taking the total of all the property that is strict •7 multifamily in the site specific plan, and downgrade it by 39 nt if you count across the board, and then you are adding 1-aaick in this other. . .commercial into multifamily and it bring At (back to 20 percent. I don't think that is fair across the board,t#o; everybody. I 'm willing to put in my 20 percent, give up 2,0 p0tdent of my property and downzone my property from 19 units 1per ;acre, which I just bought an acre of property, down to my perciahi4kt ., but I 'don't think it is fair that I have to turn my property in a�d scut it into worthless pieces of property. I don't think it i6- Va�ally fair to a lot of people that have small properties. Plus;, in ` fact that if you read in the plan about traffic, and thdtkwao mother big issue that they had was traffic, the least amount ofItriaffic would be generated by a 20 percent across the board. I''d1t understand why the sites specific plan Was one of the highest t#af,fic counts. And I don't understand why. . .and the traffic was-anoreir big issue in this plan. I got it down to where no action wap X7,000 more cars. The text plan was 14,000 more cars, and 'theaii e-specific plan was 17,274 more cars. Now in the 20 percent acr so the board, it's fair for everybody. I don't understand Novi; - y can get anything else out of this study, than that. The %sue 'I had is. . .Okay. I would like. . .I don't know what th�il. ' me of this deal is going to come out to be, but I would like to�ooijther. . .I am willing to give my 20 percent or whatever (uncl frith my 20' percent, either that or I would like my property to', excluded from the cotaprehens,ive plan or whatever you guyt `cit, a lit. I got my parcel number here if your guys want to writsIdown. I am already in right now. I'm in for a review right property is zoned for 19 units. I have nice units. I have g9Os on them, everything on them. Nice units. They all have gar 'ep. And I'm in right now for review for 12 units. So 1 aav!e already, 37 Kent Planning Commission Minutes f September 25, 1989 personally myself, because I li nicer units and nicer stuff, -and I am already personally downzo my property because I can build nicer units. They are all about nice three-bedroom units, 1,300 square feet. They all have gaxaes on them. I personally did that myself because I knew that you can, get more rent and they are nicer units and people like nicer stuff. They are all townhouse units, nice units, they - ain't this three-story stuff that they are building all over the place where they have people stacked up on top of each other. Well, my pappel number that I'm talking about is 9197100052. And I put the property that I have is. . .multifamily on one side, there is a vacant piece of property across the street, there is a brand new 30-unit flity, are building down the way from me, and the other side of me iriustrial. I don't see any houses for my property. And Fifth Suet is going to go all the way through. I live dawn on Fifth Sheet and it is going to go all the way through and eventually. ..ab the people who live 4n these multifamily will not have to drive in front of single family because they can go out the oth*r way. Okay. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Are there any i ted'tions? CommissiQDer Forney: How much operty do you own there? Charles Butts: Just-around an SPre. CgMissioner FogDe And you hie Charles Butts: It's like 105 f by 400 feet, so it is. ..I really need to keep it as one parcel, � I could never divide- it up into duplex lots, I'd never be able � make it off it. Commissigner Fo%Mer: You have plans for putting 12 units on it. Charles Butts: I got them in font of review right now. Chair a tine,&: Other question *, Commissioner Uhlar-Heffner: Whqn-you say in review, you mean that you have submitted'them to the.oanning Department. You are going through the SEPA checklist. Charles Mitts:' Right. Chair Martinez.: Okay. That is 4 he end of my list unless- I missed someone. M'am. yes you may. We have a few moments. Please identify yourself. You may want to sign the sheet before you leave this evening. s 36 Kent Planning Commission Minlresaf.:41 '° Ir September 25, 1989 Victoria Zapanta: My name is Victoria Zapanta,.� ;191, live at 9329 South 218th in Kent. It is near the area designsted,;ao' MF-11. My dad bought ten acres there before I was evenbornApq has lived there ever since. It is an unusually isolated,;arsa.; It was a great place to grow up. My brother has built a bw4e,: on one corner of the property and my husband and I are planning,on*oa ng the same eventually. I just wanted to comment that juht,ithij-ttaffic that has increased from areas around the area hasp been r in our area. The corner that is. . .218th : and 167. . .just withinq'It4e , last two months there has been four cars on that corner th4t-OAVe tipped on their side that we have witnessed in passing tha^ q'blli area, so I can imagine that any more residents in-thatlar is going to increase that. . .it is a hazardous corner. So I jubt,wanted to add that and that I agreed with the other residents,'0fk*he area. If you get a chance to see it, it is a wonderful spot...;°t' T;e are lucky that it has been isolated. It is just the way offthp;' land and the way people have developed there. That's it. Chair Martinez: Question. Thank you. There is *der hand back there. Would you please coma forward. Would yqU, �Je#se sign up before you leave. Gary Nielsen: I also didn't get to sign up. I-,11az,J: ry Nielsen. I live at 21604 94th Place South in Kent. I lived-t'*Oire 22 years, and I agree with Mr. Flick that R1-20 and the adj;acej,�tlarea is the least it should go, and the Orchard Place Grove •4Ad., #per the grove still stays big and not small. Thank you. , i Mr. Harris: Sir, have you signed up? Chair Martinez: I think we have heard from --a1 the. . .no we haven't. Thomas Kagan: Thank you forrthe opportunity to s you: I Chair Martinez: Your name and address please. ;, ,' Thomas Megan: Thomas Megan, 21807 92nd Avenue Kent. My wife and I live in the corner of the "L" formed bpi tl property MF- 11, and so . . . and it joins us on two sides, so. 11d,pAmply like to say that I would like to double my, agreement wjtha*,fit you have already heard. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Questions. Al Mr. Harris: Would ,you come and sign up also. , �w Chair Martinez: Okay. Please keep it very shoo, .A,, .� N" Y 39 r ,� Kent Planning Commission Minutes r" ,;. September 25, 1989 Don Bazemore: I wanted to make., sn additional. . . Chair Martinez: Please re-identify yourself. Don Bazemore: I wanted to maka: an additional comment• about my neighbor to the south that is -Aoned MR2 or duplex. I �honestly believe that that neighborhood i0to-.serious candidate to be rezoned to single family. I think it would be stronger for them and better for them 'if the City ,gave them Confidence that they ,are in fact a viable single family neighborhood and probably should remain that way. They seem to want ,to. If'-we are allowed higher density, we can berm against them, are ican befit against the freeway, we can berm against the railroad. We really . can do a very high,' quality development, and it seems from tite testimony that I have heard so far tonight that a lot of people would rather have us with the density than take it themselves Most people don't ,seem to want it. And because we do have accede to Fourth and wouldn't ;dare come through that single family neighborhood, I think. . .I guess I respectfully request that the ,Cownission seriously look -at 30 or even in addition to 30 for tha#=,for that property. Might now if I do it in MR16, there are two-story buildings. And we got 128, units. If I do it in MR20, I 90t 172 units, still in two-story buildings. If I go higher tha�'tha.t, the worst thing happens is I have some three-story buildings on the property. But in terms of traffic and our relationship`,to our single family neighbors, we could probably do a better Job rcepting your high density needs than almost any of the other prqperties that I heard people talk about tonight. So I request that you give that serious consideration. Thank you. .. Chair Martinez: Any questions. ,,-.-Yes there is a question -tor you-, sir. Commissioner regnstUet: BeinT., n advocate of high density, where do you propose that we get the moor for our community for schools, green belts, parks, roads. Don Bazemore: From us. , yri N Commissioner Greenstreet: so t :delves or tart the developers that will profit from, the ,higheie4eftsity per piece of ,,land. Where do we get that money or where do�,you think it is .wore fair. . . equitable. Don Bazemore: I think it is reanable in your development fees, in your building permits'. I. AAMn't think you have any other choice. Nobody else can float it. We bring additional people, then we are bound to pay for tba facilities that support those people. We don't object to that. We have to do that. 40 IT. Kent Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1989m'' Commissioner GrgDstreet: Okay. Thank you. Chair Martinez: We have had a request to leave two void open for some written comment, and I would certainly enter ;L motion to that effect. Commissioner Stoner: I move that we leave tkie #0cord of the hearing open for one week for written comments. Chair Martinez: Is there a second? Commissioner FaM": Second. Chair Martinez: Discussion. All in favor. Voices: Aye. Chair Martinez: Opposed? (Silence) For those ,of you who would like to submit written comment, please do that. You have a week to do that. Commissioner Stoner: And I would move that the hearing on this subject be closed with that one exception that the. record be open for written comment for one week. � ' Voices: I did not hear that. Commissioner Stoner: I move that the public hearing Joe closed with the exception that the record be open for writtenica nent for one week. Chair Martinez: Is there a second to that. Commissioner Faust: Second. Chair Martinez: Is there discussion. All in favor., , Voices: Aye Chair Martinez: Opposed? (Silence) The public he is closed. For those of you in the audience we will be discus's$ ' is subject and making our decision, I assume, on October 23rdrathis month here at 7:30. We will discussing it and we will,,' ssing the written comments that have been issued to us., eke will be verbatim minutes available to the public as wexpL !as to the Commission. It has been suggested that we are scho4uled to take a tour of the proposed East Hill sites on the 9thiot; Ogtober. It 41 Kent Planning Commission Minutes ,I September 25, 1989 has been proposed that we look at the sites on the Valley Floor as well on that tour. . .for sure thWones that have been commented on. (End of Verbatim Minutes)„ Discussion followed. The meeting was adjourned at 10TI5 p.m. R+ Opectfully submitted,. P �Harris, ,Sbcretary y r d x t-j`;t ,42