Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 12/11/1989 Y s �r KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 11, 1989 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Acting Chair Stoner at 7 :30 p.m. , December 11, 1989 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Stoner, Acting Chair Anne Biteman Tracy Faust Elmira Forner Leona Orr Raymond Ward COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Linda Martinez, excused Greg Greenstreet, absent Gabriella Uhlar-Heffner, absent PLANNING STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Stephen Clifton, Planner Lauri Anderson, Planner Janet Shull, Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary (Verbatim Minutes) Fred Satterstrom: For the record, my name is Fred Satterstrom. I missed your last meeting, unfortunately, after haying followed this process on the 20 percent reduction for as long as I have, and then to have this, the last meeting. I came to work the following day and talked with Janet, Stephen and Lauri who have worked so diligently on this effort, and I felt badly. So, I demanded to get up here this evening and say a word or two. What you are doing tonight is a rather perfunctory, but an extremely important step in the long. . .culminating the long process on the 20 percent reduction project. It will form the basis. . .it is the basis of your decision and recommendation to the City Council and will be the essential rationale or basis for your recommendations on this legislative matter. If you took a look at the matrix you have in your packet this past week, you can see in rather neat form, Stephen put this together, your consensus proposal as compared to the other four alternatives--no action, area specific reduction, text reduction and the East Hill reduction. And you will note that i Kent Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 you have indeed met the letter. . .the intent if not the letter of Resolution 1123 and Resolution 1172, and the direction of the City Council by recommending to the Council a 29.86 percent reduction citywide in multiple family. You can also see on the chart the single family increase in potential for single family units within the City of Kent. I would like to commend the Planning Commission on its recommendation and hand the microphone over to Lauri. . .I think it is East Hill that is first on the agenda. It is. And let Lauri Anderson then very briefly explain the findings and conclusions for the East Hill. It is not a public hearing this evening. The public hearing has been closed. You have deliberated on this, and the only thing that really is on the agenda this evening is the approval of the findings and conclusions. . .the East Hill and the Valley Floor. You've already adopted the findings and conclusions for the West Hill. EAST HILL HOUSING STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (CPZ 89-3) Lauri Anderson: Lauri Anderson, Kent Planning Department. I will just briefly run through this. Hopefully if you have questions, we can spend time on that. The findings of fact and conclusions of law were put together based on your proposals. We took many of the findings directly from the Last Hill Report, the report that you received at the beginning of the public hearings. The first findings deal with Resolution 1123 and Resolution 1172. We then referenced the area housing study report. We then talked about the 21 multifamily areas, and there is a map attached to the findings that outline those. . . (unclear) . Findings 5 and 6 talk about the Comprehensive Plan and the East Hill Plan designations for the 21 areas. Number 7 discusses current zoning. Then numbers 8 through 17 discuss the sort of background information again that was contained in the original area housing study report, what the criteria were that were used in consideration of the zoning changes, and then some facts about the East Hill planning area. Finding number 18 discusses the four alternatives that were presented by the Planning Department. We then go into the decision-making process. We talk about the five hearings which you held, the rationale for the R-5000 single family lot size. Then number 21 discusses the zoning changes that you recommended and reached consensus on. Numbers 22 and 23 really provide some numbers. Number 22 talks about the reduction in multifamily units. On the East Hill it would be a reduction under your proposal of 860 multifamily units. That's about 53 percent of the potential on East Hill, just for your information. Number 23 talks about the reduction of vehicle trips. You can see that the decisions you have made would result in a reduction of 3,062 vehicle trips per day. The last finding mentions the State Environmental Policy Act Review and that a DNS was issued for the project. We then moved 2 0 Y Kent Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 to the conclusions, and really these are just the actions that you approved. The text changes. . .number 2 to the Comprehensive Plan, the creation of the R1-5 zoning district. Number 3, the zoning map changes with the parcel numbers identified. Numbers 4 and 5, amending the Comprehensive and East Hill Plans and plan maps. Number 6, the single family designated area. And there again is a map attached with the changes that you approved in your last meeting. So, with that I will turn it over to you. Do you have any questions. Voice• (Unclear) . Lauri Anderson: You reduce citywide. . .you reduced $9.68, I think it was. The East Hill itself, because there was more multifamily land up there, ended being a 53 percent reduction. Any other questions? Voices• (Unclear) . Commissioner Forner: I move we adopt the findings as presented by staff for City Council approval. Commissioner Faust: Second. Acting Chair Stoner: Any discussion. Commissioner Forner: I would like to ask a question. Will we have an opportunity to come back if the Council rejects.'. .will we have an opportunity to come back with a rebuttal or an opportunity to kick in again? James Harris: Only if they recommend (unclear) . . .16th of January. Acting Chair Stoner: Any further discussion. . . (unclear) . All in favor. Voices: Aye. Acting Chair Stoner: Opposed. (Silence) Motion carried. VALLEY FLOOR HOUSING STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS (CPZ 89-4) Janet Shull: Janet Shull, Kent Planning Department. Really my job is pretty easy because Lauri went through the order of the report with you, and the Valley Floor is essentially the same except for the numbers and a couple of things that I will point out. So I think I will pretty much skip the first part, because essentially 3 t S c Kent Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 the findings of fact have been laid out the same. The only difference would be the specifics to the Valley Floor area. For instance, the intersection at level D, E and F, etc. Those things are different. . .the same order of events, and when you turn to page 5, that's where we started. We are still in the findings section, but item 20 is where we start to list your recommendations, so that carries through page 6, and then I would like to go over the numbers because they are slightly different. On the Valley Floor we had to title these changes in potential rather than just reductions, because there are some instances because of the option areas that we are actually increasing the potential for multifamily. But the net reduction is 273 units for the Valley Floor area. Then when you look at vehicle trips, I wanted to point out a couple of things there, because you do have almost 12, 000 trips per day reduction. . . 11,778. The reason for that is if you look at Option Area 4A, the very last area, half of that area is currently zoned General Commercial. And so the trip generation for General Commercial is very large. . .786 trips per acre that can potentially be generated. So that is why you see such a significant reduction for that area, and that carries a lot of weight for the reduction you see on the Valley Floor is that one area. The other item I wanted to point out is Multifamily Area 6, if you wonder why there is a positive number on some of these. We are looking at Item 22 in case you are not looking at the same thing I am. Multifamily Area 6 is the area you recommended R1-5 and it is currently duplex. Now, the numbers we used to determine trip generation are higher for a single family residence than they are for multifamily residence. For instance, multifamily residence typically generates 6. 1 trips per day; a single family residence typically generates 10.3 . So there is just a slight difference between the multifamily and the single family but higher number of trips for single family. That is why you . . . (unclear) . . . increase in trips. But those are general numbers that we use and obviously you can probably argue that a duplex and an R1-5 house would be more similar. But those are the numbers that our Engineering Department gives us to use. So, anyway, the result is a net reduction again. I wanted to point out those issues. Then we move on to conclusions starting on page 7 and continuing on page 8. The first one under item number 2 is amending the Valley Floor Subarea Plan Text, and then number 2 is amend the zoning map. Then we go into pages of parcel numbers. Then we continue on page 18 with number 3 amending the Valley Floor Plan Map. And there were only three areas that we needed to make an amendment. The same thing for item 4, the Comprehensive Plan Map. Item 5 is the single family designated area overlay. There are maps attached to the back that do take into account your amendments to the single family designated overlay. Then we also have maps of all the areas. I just wanted to call your attention to a couple of things. The map 4 i s w Kent Planning Commission Minutes December 11, 1989 for the multifamily areas. . .on Multifamily Area 2 we have designated that small portion that you wanted to exempt from the duplex zoning. So we have tried to make that clear in a graphic form as well as reference to that with words in the report. On the same note, on the map of Option Area 4 we have designated a small piece that you wanted to exempt that contains existing grocery store and. . . (unclear) property. That's essentially it for the Valley Floor. Voice• (Unclear) . Janet Shull: I think it is about nine percent. I know it is less than ten, but I don't know the specific number. That was a reduction of 273 units, and the potential is around 4,000. Chair Stoner: Do I have a motion to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions for the Valley Floor. Commissioner Ward: So moved. Chair Stoner: Is there a second. Commissioner Biteman: Second. Chair Stoner: It has been moved and seconded that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions for the Valley Floor study area. Discussion. All in favor. Voices• Aye. Chair Stoner: Opposed. (silence) Motion carried. (End of Verbatim Minutes) Mr. Harris urged attendance at the January 16 City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Forner MOVED to close the public meeting. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James "Harrlis, ecretary