Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 01/25/1988 (3) KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1988 The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Badger at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, January 25, 1988, in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Badger, Chairman Anne Biteman Russell E. Dunham Elmira Forner Nancy Rudy Carol Stoner Raymond Ward COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Greenstreet, Excused Linda Martinez PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Stephen Clifton, Assistant Planner Fred Satterstrom, Associate Planner Dan Stroh, Assistant Planner Charlene Anderson, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Stoner MOVED that MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 14 . 1987 the Planning Commission minutes for the December 14 , 1987 public hearing be approved as presented . Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Jim Harris distributed the Kent 2000 report and suggested that it be placed on the Commission docket in February. Because of Washington's Birthday holiday on February 15, the February Planning Commission workshop will be held on February 22 (with a Task Force meeting scheduled at 6: 30 followed by the regular workshop at 7 : 30 PM) . The February Planning Commission public hearing will be held on February 29, 1988. MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Chairman Badger opened the public hearing. Dan Stroh described the proposed amendments and stated their purpose. Mr. Stroh identified in the staff report the changes PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1988 Page Two incorporated as a result of discussions at the workshop on January 11, 1988. These changes related primarily to Planning Director discretion in requiring an alternative screening method if berming is found ineffective and a definition of foundation landscaping. Larry Frazier, Director of Local Government Affairs, Seattle Master Builders Association, 2155 - 112th Avenue NE, Suite 100, Bellevue, WA 98004 stated the issues of multifamily development standards and multifamily density are interwoven and should be discussed together. Mr. Frazier read into the record the first page of his letter of January 18, 1988 and stated he desired his letter of December 14, 1987 to become part of the record also. Mr. Frazier supported the concept of Administrative Design Review and added that builders would need some incentive (bonus) for superior design. The testimony of Michael Spence, Seattle-King County Board of Realtors, Governmental Affairs Director, 2810 Eastlake Avenue East, Seattle, WA 98102 was deferred to the next agenda item on Multifamily Density. Loren Combs, 450 Shattuck Avenue South, Renton, WA 98055, represented the Shelter Corporation. Mr. Combs congratulated staff on their proposal. Dennis Riebe, Architect for Centron, 3025 - 112th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA thanked staff for allowing him to be involved in the process of examining the proposed amendments. Mr. Riebe supports Administrative Design Review (ADR) and suggested the Planning Commission set up a future time to evaluate the ADR program, if it is implemented, with a view toward expanding the scope of ADR to other standards, e.g. , parking, landscaping, building separations within the site. Mr. Riebe added that density bonus credits for unique and creative design would be viable. Mr. Stroh stated it was not staff's intention to reduce density through the proposed amendments to multifamily development standards. Projects that he has checked in this regard do not seem to entail a reduction in density. Mr. Stroh added that bonus credits can be available through a P.U.D. which is currently in the zoning code but that at this time staff cannot support expanding the ADR process to include bonus credits. In response to Chairman Badger, Mr. Stroh stated that these proposed amendments are not a cure-all for ineffective multifamily design but they would help to promote better design. Commissioner Forner questioned whether density bonus credits in a P.U.D. would be compatible with the stated purpose of the multifamily development standards. Mr. Stroh added staff needs to address and meld the purpose with the requirements of the P.U.D. Commissioner Ward questioned if staff could unequivocally state that the proposed development standards do not affect density. Mr. Stroh PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1988 Page Three responded that staff had reviewed several developments and found that essentially the only land being constrained is that which is required for landscaping. However, in some cases, these standards would require a significant redesign of the site. Mr. Harris added that these standards were not set out to get at density. If a developer came in with a very rigid proposal and did not look at optional site plans, that developer could conceivably consider there is a problem with density. Mr. Harris stated further that topographical constraints would cause more loss of density than would these proposed development standards. Mr. Frazier reiterated a desire to have incentive for creating superior design and added that it could be just one or two units, not necessarily as high as 20%. Mr. Riebe stated the P.U.D. process is cumbersome and time-consuming. He added that the ADR is a viable alternative. Mr. Riebe stated he did not feel that these proposed standards would encumber any project Centron works on. A discussion of P.U.D. occurred. Commissioner Stoner MOVED and Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Ward MOVED to adopt the proposed amended standards for multifamily as presented by staff on revision sheet dated January 25, 1988. Nancy Rudy SECONDED the motion. Chairman Badger asked about clarification of the wording under 15.09.045(B) . Discussion occurred. Staff proposed the following amended wording, The Administrative Design Review process shall consider the compatibility of structures, other impervious areas as and landscape features with within the site and its their compatibility with surrounding uses. Commissioner Stoner MOVED to amend Commissioner Ward's motion to include the new wording. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Harris stated the Planning Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council at its next meeting on February 2, 1988. MULTIFAMILY DENSITY The minutes for this public hearing will be done verbatim and distributed as a separate packet. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES January 25, 1988 Page Four ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Rudy MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Dunham SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00 PM. Re ectfully submitted, Jam P. Ha ri , Secretary KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY ON MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 Chairman Badger: Let's get ready and let's address the second portion of our hearing tonight which is a public hearing on the multifamily density. I would like to open that hearing and I would like to ask Jim who from staff will be making that presentation. Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman, Dan Stroh will be making this presentation also. Chairman Badger: OK Mr. Stroh: I believe the last time we discussed multifamily density at a public hearing was November 16th, before Christmas, and at that time there was a staff report, amendments to density, multifamily density limitations that were discussed and tonight the staff proposal is not changed from that staff report of November 16th calling for the, or proposing the graduated scale reduction in multifamily densities also known as Option B in the red report. This issue has been with us for a long time and at the last work session I gave a brief update on the recent multifamily activity in the city. We are showing, for 1987 we are showing 888 units permitted. another 1,245 units beyond those that have gone, have actually applied for development through the SEPA review process, making the total of 2, 133 units. That's a big chunk of new multifamily development that, those that have already got their permits of course, their building permits would not be affected by the density reduction. Those that are within the SEPA process and have not yet got their building permits would presumably. Just wanted to recap the public purposes behind the density reduction that we're trying to get at here, the purpose of neighborhood preservation where the less- intense multifamily should help to protect the single family areas. This should be taken together with efforts that the city is undertaking and has undertaken to protect and increase single family development within the city, and related to this, the purpose of trying to achieve a balance of housing options in the city. Within recent years, of course, as the red book documents, that balance has gotten further and further skewed as we've converted from a city that was predominantly single family to a city where multifamily is the predominant housing type. So another purpose we're trying to get at is to try to reestablish some balance in the housing options and make some people have a choice. Those who want to live in multifamily would still have 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 those opportunities and those who want to, desire to live in single family would also have those opportunities. Environmental suitability, another public purpose we're trying to get at, with somewhat less intense land use, less clearing, impervious surfaces, some opportunities for increased on-site open space, within the affected areas of the city. We're also trying to get at the public purposes of some reduction of impacts on public services and infrastructure within the city. The pace of the multifamily development in recent years has been so great that it has been very, very difficult to keep up, as everyone is aware, with the transportation demands of the increased housing and the public service demands of this pace of growth. The staff report goes a little bit into some of the transportation impacts in particular of multifamily development on the existing city transportation network. So, in sum, the proposals that we're getting at recognizes I believe the value of multifamily housing; we're not trying to eliminate multifamily housing. We're just trying to call for some moderation and balance. We're trying to get at simply some reduction in the, within the existing multifamily areas of the allowed density. This proposal would not actually change the zoning of any properties from multifamily that are currently multifamily. It would simply across the board reduce the density ceilings. So in that sense, it is very, very significant but it's a tuning up of the densities that we currently provide for. I believe it brings us somewhat more into line with other area localities because our densities currently are higher than the norm for this area, at least our density ceilings are. This has been on the docket for so long now, that it really would be very desirable to, to bring some resolution on the issue if that is at all possible because it has been an issue that dates way back to December of 1986 when the Council first passed Resolution 1123, which is over a year now. With these 2, 133 units last year, there's a lot that's really water over the wall or whatever analogy you want to use, that's happened since that time. So, that's my comments at the moment. Can I answer any questions? Commissioner Forner: There isn't a sunset clause in here is there? Mr. Stroh: The proposal doesn't have any sunset clause in it. Chairman Badger: Alright, Dan. Thank you. On the sign-up sheet, let's, again let's try to follow the same proposition, about 7 minutes or so if you can. The first name on the list is Larry Frazier, Seattle Master Builders Association. Mr. Frazier: I 'll give it another try. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I 'm Larry Frazier of Seattle Master Builders. I believe you have my address from the previous testimony given this evening. I kind of feel like I had a kind of a comprehensive approach to what we were talking 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 about here and I kind of got cut in half and so I'm going to take the opportunity to refer back to some of my comments previously and to kind of try and tie it together. I believe I understand the logic that the City of Kent is trying to proceed in in terms of this density reduction question. So many years ago this community through their processes at that time allowed themselves the opportunity to put numerous amounts of multifamily development here. That happened to be the policy that was under consideration at that time and was adopted officially, legally within your documents. Many people, property owners, friends and neighbors of yours, purchased property on the basis of those plans and policies that the City of Kent indicated that they wanted to propagate. Through time and through circumstances, the increase in urban activity, you've had a situation where you do have considerable impact on those transportation networks both inside the city as well as the regional routes that take people back and forth to work up and down the corridor here. I would say that the problem that Seattle Master Builders is currently having, and don't get me wrong, I like working with good professionals and I think you have those people here in your particular department, but I think there is a way of looking at issues and in our opinion you cannot segregate the two issues. If you take a look at the height limitations that were put on in the standards, the landscaping and the setbacks, tie that together with the, some kind of a across- the-board reduction of 20t, which I have never understood at this point where the 20% reduction came from, and maybe staff can clarify that for me, maybe I have missed that information somewhere along the line, to do that in a manner whereby you create a situation where these people who have relied upon this policy and direction that the City of Kent has had for years and to do it in a manner that does not, in my opinion, amount to full discussion of a very, very important matter, is not quite right. I don't mean that to be very critical of the City of Kent, I mean that from the standpoint of the human standpoint of people who live in this area who have purchased property on the basis of good faith from the plans and zoning designations that have been on this area for years. So, from that standpoint, the second issue that I 'll get to then is density, of course. And I would like to read for you my concerns. Second and still of concern to the Seattle Master Builders Association is the overall question of a density reduction by some 20% in all multifamily zones. Resolution Number 123 passed by the Council on December 1, 1986 is where that came from, generally. I don't think that I have to quote it to you; they have a copy of it here for you. In our letter of December 14, 1987 this issue was raised. As of this date, very little discussion has been undertaken by your staff or by the Planning Commission. At the January 11, 1988 work session, your staff handed out some basic information about multifamily activity during 187 as well as statistical analysis of the existing units. Plus they did the red book prior to this time and as Dan said, it had been hanging around for quite awhile, and the alternatives were in there. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 You will recall it is the Association's position that the increasing setbacks , limiting heights as well as increasing landscaping requirements, density in multifamily areas are being reduced in the City of Kent. Even though you passed that this evening, it is still our opinion that you are reducing those densities in some form. Now, to what extent that is, I think that's a debatable question. It is our professional opinion that the minimum lot sizes in your zoning code, which determines density, have to be considered along with the amendment to the multifamily standards, otherwise the density reductions are taking place by modifying dimensional standards within multifamily zoning districts. It is also our opinion that the City Council directed the Planning Commission to consider revisions to the Comprehensive Plan as it states in Resolution 123, Number 123 . We suggest that if any density reductions take place in Kent it is done more properly together with the revisions of the Comprehensive Plan. And what I 'm saying is, even though in the State of Washington, that the Plan is not a mandatory, legal document, it does not require that you change that at the time you change your regulatory ordinances which are the zoning ordinance in this case. It's not mandatory; it's suggested by state law that it be used as a guide. We believe that you should take a look at your Comprehensive Plan, find out in fact what your long-term strategy is in terms of multifamily areas in relationship to single family which I understand you want to increase if possible, and other kinds of related development. We think that would be a more proper form to take it in, rather than doing it in a sedimental-type approach. At this time the Seattle Master Builders Association, for reasons cited, does not fully support the amendments before you, and the amendments in this case were the amendments that you already approved. We like, we would like our concerns addressed and hereby requested it, correct me, request it in this letter. I guess the one comment I would make is that in Resolution 123, Section 1, the City Council hereby declares its intent to establish a goal of achieving an average density reduction of 20% on all undeveloped multifamily-zoned lands throughout the city. The density reduction would be achieved through revisions of the Kent's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. And I suggest to you that the standards that you just adopted reduce density without changing the Comprehensive Plan. I do not see this being done in a uniform, comprehensive approach to dealing with the major issue that's now before you and this would be the multifamily consideration. I 'm probably out of my seven minutes, but I 'd like to reserve the right for us any rebuttal that would come up during the discussion. I do thank you. I would also like to say one more thing. It is my assumption that all that's being recorded here tonight and all the discussion will be before the City Council in a findings from the hearing and will be there in such a manner that they have the time to review it before they make any, take any action on the recommendation. I just ask that question, is that in fact the case? 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 Mr. Harris: Well, we take our letter that you recommend to the City Council in a normal manner. They then receive it and do whatever they want to do with it. They can either, the night that they get it, they can take action on it, they can refer it to a committee, they can refer it to a committee of the whole, they can continue it on and have another hearing. It is not in our hands here to say what the Council may do with an item. Mr. Frazier: Yea, and I guess, excuse me Mr. Chairman. Chairman Badger: In specific, are you asking, Larry, that your letter accompany anything? Mr. Frazier: I 'm asking that, that it's my understanding that this is a public hearing, if they're going to take action as I understand it, potentially next week, a week from, what is it, tomorrow? today?, a week from tomorrow, Tuesday, that they should have afforded to them the complete record to make a recommendation from this Planning Commission of all the testimony that you have before you. That that would be in terms of a full and complete record in order to be able to make a reasonable decision, whether it's denial or approval or send it to some committee or whatever it is. And I 'm just asking the question, is all that information including the tape recording material here in front going to be afforded to the Council so they can make a recommendation? Mr. Harris: Let me just say that the, the procedures that the Council takes when they receive either a Hearing Examiner or Planning Commission or Human Services Commission recommendation is a set of minutes that will be extrapolated out of the, out of the recording and the details are not given to them. Mr. Frazier: OK Mr. Harris: And never have been and never will be. The only time details are given to them is when someone appeals the Hearing Examiner decision. Then the person must pay for a transcript of the, of the. Mr. Frazier: OK Chairman Badger: In particular, then, it would behoove Mr. Frazier if he wishes to comment to go direct to City Council. Mr. Harris: That's right. That's right. Chairman Badger: And see what happens. Commissioner Ward: (unclear) 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 Chairman Badger: We have no idea. Mr. Harris: Well that's an open meeting so that all people from the public can testify. Mr. Frazier: OK. Thank you. Chairman Badger: Loren Combs again, from Renton. Mr. Combs: Mr. Chairman, Commission members. My name is Loren Combs, 450 Shattuck Avenue South, Renton, Washington. I mentioned to Mr. Stroh out in the hallway, this is kind of exciting for me because I 'm actually getting paid to do something that I would have done for free but I didn't tell my client that. I'm here the first time to address the density issue. I've lived in this neck of the woods for quite some time having bagged groceries at the old Lucky Store when I was in high school, and I remember several years ago they were talking about the infilling of the urban areas. That eventually this outward growth was going to slow down and the growth would then start to concentrate back into the developed areas and you would see more condominium and apartment developments. And I think that's what you are seeing happening now. The 80 's were supposed to be the time that this happened and it is happening. I think that is evidenced by Resolution 1123 . Your Council was concerned and said "Gee, now that we've got it what are we going to do with it. " And I looked through Resolution 1123 and your, your Council expressed three concerns. The first concern was the effect of growth on the infrastructure and the city's ability to provide the services. Dan covered that. The second one was the proportion of single family to multifamily development. The third concern they expressed was that the multifamily development should be consistent with neighborhood preservation and not be aesthetically offensive. I believe it is possible to implement those three, or implement procedures that would accomplish taking care of those three concerns and the side benefit would be to obtain the 20% reduction from the maximum theoretical buildout under code zoning. And what I would like to do in the short time that I have is present to you what I see as a viable alternative to what's been proposed by your Planning Department. The first concern is the effect of growth on the infrastructure. None of the options presented in the study really address this issue head on. And it should be addressed head on if you are going to adequately, adequately look at what the Council wants to have accomplished. I recommend that you consider enacting a system under which developers would pay up front their fair share of the cost of providing increased services necessitated by the development. This could include fire protection, police protection and central government services. For those of you that have been around Kent for a few years, you probably recall the ordinance that was passed some years ago that 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 was challenged. They, they wanted to come up with an environmental ordinance to somehow make developers pay the costs of the impacts on the environment and in the park system. And they had a bad experience with that. But, now this fair share concept is legally defensible if you do your drafting properly and you implement it properly. Your city has already used a type of this fair share concept in your transportation plan, which by the way, I consider an excellent plan, where you have a fair share concept for your east-west traffic corridors, where the developers will not protest the formation of the local improvement district at a future time, and your planners up front tell them what the, what the cost will be to them. This is a fair share kind of concept. You can use that same concept to address the Council ' s concern about the effect of development on your infrastructure and do it directly, up front. Say this is what we are doing, and this is how we do it, rather than try and do it with a shot- gun approach, and say, well, we will across the board reduce densities 20% or graduated scale. You're not really addressing the Council 's concern. I think this is a more appropriate way to do it and from a developer's standpoint, I'll step over here and put on my developer's standpoint, it then gives him the option, he see's up front that it's going to cost me "x" number of dollars and he can plan for that, rather than try to do it through the back door by reducing density. Because you don't really accomplish it. You're still going to have to deal with the infrastructure with a 19 unit per acre development as opposed to a 20.7 unit per acre or 22 unit per acre, you're still going to have the impact. It just may be a couple units less but the impact's still there. So I would ask that you consider studying that and there are, there are many municipalities that are studying that right now. And I think it's a good plan. The second concern that the Council stated in their Resolution was the single family to multifamily ratio. This is a concern that is not best addressed by a reduction in the multifamily densities, but by encouraging single family construction. If you decrease the density, let's say, from 23 units per acre to 19 units per acre, you still visually have an apartment complex that may have 2 or 3 less units in it, but you still have an apartment complex and you haven't really addressed what the Council is really concerned about and that is keeping the proper ratio, preserving the neighborhoods, your single family neighborhoods. I think that the key way to address this directly again is not the shot-gun approach or the gradual reduction of the densities in multifamily, but use Option D which is one that was suggested by your, your planners in their multifamily study. And, and use that concept where you encourage single family development, if that's what the Council wants, then, then let's not use the shot-gun approach because you still are going to have an apartment unit in the single family house, and the apartment may have a couple less units in it but you haven't increased the houses, and I think that's where your Council is expressing its concern. Option D is one method of 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 approaching that issue and that by the way is the one where they, they say in the newly-annexed areas only allow it to be single family, not multifamily. You can use that same concept for your existing single family areas as well. Good concept. The third concern is neighborhood preservation and environmental integrity. There are three options that have already been identified that I think more adequately address this concern head on than does the proposal that is being recommended by your planners. Option C, in my mind, is the best method of preserving those targeted neighborhoods. This is the rezone of overzoned areas. I personally experienced your neighborhood concept when I wanted to put an office building over here in one of the areas that you wanted for single family back several years ago. I marched up to the Planning people and said, "I got this great idea for an office building" and they said "Sorry that's an area we want to keep single family. " Well, I liked the idea then. I was disappointed, but it was a good concept to have low, medium-income single family close to the CBD. You should use that option in this context, because what you're doing then is you're preserving those neighborhoods, which is what the Council said they wanted, by eliminating multifamily in those areas. That is a good concept that hits the nail on the head and does not do a shot-gun approach. The other option, that was Option C. The other option is Option F and this is a reduction based on environmental constraints. This is a reduction that will more likely than not automatically take place. And that's something you need to look at with regards to the planner's proposal. The Council said reduce 20%. By the planner's own estimates, the environmental constraints, Option F, will reduce it approximately 11.2%; I may be off a couple percent, excuse me, 11.4%. The plan that they're proposing is a reduction of 20.2%; those two are going to, you know, the environmental one is a logical thing to carry out the concerns of the Council. It will probably occur anyway and you will end up with a density reduction of 31.6%. That's not what the Council was after. You should address it again head on, use Option F, implement it, and you'll, you'll get the reduction you're after. The third area is something I already took care of, which I fully supported, that was your multifamily development standards. They will affect density, maybe not across the board. In the project I looked at there was an effect on the density. The last issue is the 20% reduction. I submit that one of the benefits of the above proposals and you can quote some numbers because it's, it's in the documents you have, is that you specifically address each concern with a specific solution while at the same time the side benefit is you're going to get your 20% reduction, but you've been, you've been honest in your approach. I strongly encourage you to use this technique as opposed to the shot-gun approach because, again, it does not directly address the concerns. But there is another issue that no one has brought up and that is that you may want to substantially reduce multifamily in some areas and actually consider increasing the density in others. An 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 example of a substantial reduction is the area set forth in your housing and community development neighborhood strategy area. You do an across-the-board reduction on a graduated scale, you still have multiple family in the area that you wanted to have as only single family. You haven't addressed the issue. The other issue is the intensive multifamily areas. The regional transportation plan prepared by the Puget Sound Council of Governments encourages construction of housing close to rapid transit and hard rail terminals. You are not doing that by the proposal that they have made. The March 26, 1987 transit amendment to the regional transportation plan recommends that land use planners seek to minimize future transportation problems by encouraging the development of housing near employment centers and logically it should be near where they can get to those employment centers with the least use of single occupancy vehicles. In other words, put your dense housing near where the rail terminals are going to be. The proposal that you have before you doesn't address that. The Tacoma-Seattle Steering Committee for the Regional Transportation Plan on January 29, 1987 recommended acquisition of light rail. The idea is to have some place where people can go, get on the train and get to Seattle and Tacoma, maybe go as far as Olympia. Your plan doesn't address that. If you look at intense areas of multifamily, you want to get the people close to the rails, otherwise you're defeating the purpose. You're going to end up with a gridlock system. As late as today, the mayors of the City of Bellevue, Everett, Tacoma and Seattle met on the radio, and I don't know if any of you had the opportunity to hear that broadcast. I did and was fascinated because, guess what they discussed? Mass transit, and all the development problems that cities are going to have in the next 20 to 30 years. One of the things that came up was the light rail system that they're going to be proposing. And to do an across-the-board density reduction is counter productive for those goals. They're talking about a massive gridlock system unless we do something. And I think you now have a golden opportunity to address that through this density issue. You should encourage the maintenance of high density in the valley floor because that's where the rail system is going to go. Logically there is a right of way that already exists, and that's where it's going to be. This, the proposal does not address that. In conclusion, Mr. Stroh indicated to you, and I have the utmost respect for this gentleman because I 've used his thoughts for my own clients, but he indicated to you that this matter is over a year old, and that you need to get some action on it. I agree that you need to get some action on it, but you must remember that they've had it a year; it only got to the public's eye in the middle of November. The public has only had this concept two months. And this is a major issue for your city. And I think it needs to be looked at especially if you're going to do it, do it right and address all the issues. It's, I encourage you not to take the easy way out by recommending the across-the-board, mindless, 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 with all due respect, the mindless approach where you have, and I think you will, I think you can, I think I'd better strike that out of there quick. I think you can meet your reduction goals without doing what is being proposed. I think you need to target really what the Council really wanted. And by the way, just a sideline, the client that actually paid me to come down here to do what I would have done anyway has an apartment complex that we checked today, does meet the development standards you just approved because it's going to be a quality project regardless. And even if you go with the worst density proposal these guys could drum up, we're still going to be able to do our project, so what I, what I 'm proposing here is something that is good for your city and good for the area. My client wanted me here anyway but their project is a good one and it's going to meet those standards. Thank you. I realize, Mr. Chairman, I 've gone over and I appreciate your patience. Chairman Badger: Any questions? All right, the next gentleman, Mike Spence. Mr. Spence: Mike Spence with the Seattle-King County Association of Realtors. I 've given you my address in the previous proceedings. That's kind of a tough act to follow here. I think both of my predecessors have said the same things I would have liked to have been able to say, and very articulately. I just talked, I 'll, I 'll be real quick, because of that. We have a couple of concerns about the blanket 20% reduction too. Number one is just, number one is what I stated earlier about the, the real effect on property values and tax base and I think people who have acquired property under a certain level of land use, I, I don't think it's fair to them to, to just by a slash of the pen suddenly reduce their value perhaps more than 20% in some cases. Point number two is that this affects the supply and demand curves of affordable housing and I think that's something to look at in light of the future growth predictions, and a blanket 20% reduction in multifamily is going to certainly have a detrimental effect on that. Point number three which my predecessors talked about at great length, is the fact that there are several other alternatives out there. There's, there's several groups across the state and across the Puget Sound region that are looking at infrastructure finance. The Seattle- King County Economic Development Council is doing some work on that. It is my understanding that there is a task force here in the City of Kent that's looking at a road mitigation ordinance. A bill was introduced in the legislature down in Olympia last Friday dealing with road mitigation. So we would urge you to just hold, hold steady for a little while and see what comes up out of some of this. I think the concept of transportation benefit districts and some local improvement districts, road improvement districts, and, and as my predecessor said though, the, the shifting trend into perhaps light rail or bus, I think 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 all should be, should be figured into this, and, and, and we would just request that you plan the density of the City of Kent around some good thought as to what's going to happen in the future, both economically and infrastructurally, so I will say no more than that. Thank you. Chairman Badger: Thank you Michael. David Halinen. Mr. Halinen: Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is David Halinen. My address is 3015 - 112th Avenue NE, Suite 203, Bellevue 98004 . I am here tonight on behalf of the Wright Group, a developer of multifamily housing in the Kent and adjoining South King County area. I want to join in with Mr. Combs as to the remarks that he made. He stole most of my thunder regarding the, he used the term shot-gun approach. I was going to use the term overly or excessively broad brush as to the current density reduction proposal you have before you. I, I think it is quite appropriate to try to focus more specifically with the specific concerns that were raised by the Council when it considered the, the (unclear) , the (unclear) subject in December of 186 and through its passage of a resolution. One of the, and to elaborate on one of Mr. Comb 's points with respect to the impact on infrastructure and public services, I, I'd like to point out that nothing that I 've seen in the, the report on multifamily density, the so-called red book, specifically dealt with areas of the city that are experiencing relative, or relatively greater lacks of infrastructure problems than others. I would surmise, and I stand to be corrected, that probably some of the outlying areas probably of the East Hill area perhaps where there've been, as I understand it, many of the concerns expressed about the burgeoning multifamily development, they may well have a, more of an urgency in terms of infrastructure, public service concerns. By using the approach that Mr. Combs suggested in trying to focus on some of the other possibilities for addressing these underlying concerns, we'd be able to, for example, achieve effectively the density reduction on the, on the East Hill, perhaps leave the density alone in other areas of the city or, or it may be appropriate to actually increase densities especially in light of the light rail rapid transit possibilities that the future may bring forth for the community. With that, I think I 'll adjourn unless you have any questions. Thank you. Chairman Badger: Thank you. Dan, would you like to have any more comment tonight? Dan Stroh: I would. Thank you. There were a lot of concerns raised tonight and that's great because we really wanted to get an opportunity to hear some concerns that people had about the proposal. It is a broad-brush proposal and it does go very, has some major impacts, there's no question about that. I 'm trying to respond point by point 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 to some of the concerns that were raised. Concern about the Comprehensive Plan one is very important because we take the Comprehensive Plan very seriously and the actions that we do in the Planning Department are based on the Comprehensive Plan and directives. The Comprehensive Plan was (unclear) of course in the original Resolution 1123 and that was considered in the proposals put forth and the one that we're actually recommending at this point. We feel that it's not incompatible with the existing Comprehensive Plan in the approach that we have taken, particularly in, in across-the-board approach is one where we are not changing any of the areas that are currently designated multifamily to any other designation. Those that show on the Comprehensive Plan map as multifamily would stay as multifamily. And in the original report of November 16th, there's a series of policies out of the Comprehensive Plan that are referenced including policies in the Housing Element and in Public Utilities Element and Circulation Element, that are just some of the goals and policies that we pulled out of the Comprehensive Plan that we think the current proposal does in fact satisfy and help to further. A big one for instance is in the Housing Element insuring an adequate and balanced supply of housing units offering diversity of size, density, age, style and cost. There's others as well, but they are (unclear) so if we don't feel, we do feel in fact that the current proposal is compatible with the existing Comprehensive Plan and that for the current proposal an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan really isn't necessary, or called for. Mr. Combs raised a number of points that I think are, are quite important. Going over the concerns that Council actually raised in Resolution 1123, what we're trying to get at. I will say that Council on top of those concerns did raise a question (unclear) about where the 20% came from. The 20% came from Council and we're trying to respond to the approach and the, the kind of, of direction that the Council actually asked us to go in. So the 20% is not just something the Planning Department invented in order to carry out these three objectives. It comes from the Council and it's, we tried to look at ways of achieving those objectives in the most reasonable way while accomplishing that 20% reduction. But I 'll respond point by point. On the infrastructure, Mr. Combs said that none of the options really addresses the infrastructure problem head on and talking about development impact fees and probably need for some additional ways to finance these incredible drains of resources that we're having on our fire and police and our other public services, on our transportation networks, on our water and sewer system as we strive to deal with this incredible multifamily growth. The development impact fees I think possibly is a viable concept but not as an alternative to this, perhaps on top of this. As Mr. Combs himself said, even if we were to accomplish 20% reduction, we would still have all the development impacts that the multifamily developments, and not just the multifamily development, but other development as well, 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 causes. We would still have to deal with that. So that it may be that, that's an approach the city, you know, will have to look at in broadening. Right now we get (unclear) transportation mitigation conditions. We are able to get some development fees that way to generate some money to begin to take care of the transportation problems we have. We may need to broaden that, but I don't really see it as an alternative to displace the 20% reduction that we are trying to get at here. We also with 20% reduction will have a, a significant impact on reducing those infrastructure needs or at least the pace that we're having to try to deal with them as the multifamily comes in at the rate that it's been coming in in recent years. On the single family versus multifamily objective the Council has raised. We, we're doing a couple things on that front other than just the 20% reduction, because the 20% reduction itself doesn't really accomplish this goal all by itself. The Council asked us to do the multifamily reduction and look at ways to encourage single family and I 've kind of got a list, and I won't go through it now, but I kind of have a list of things that the city has done in the recent past to try to encourage single family development and try to retain the existing single family development that we now have in the city. So again, it's not an either/or kind of thing but that single family objective is something that we're trying to approach on top of the across-the-board density reduction. The third objective, the, the neighborhood preservation, keeping the integrity of the existing neighborhoods, I think does tie in with the single family versus multifamily ratios, the impact that multifamily development has on single families. The higher those densities are, the more impact that there is. In the across-the-board density reduction approach, where you do have existing neighborhoods that are being significantly impacted by the multifamily, this is not going to cut out all impact, just as the proposal you passed in development standards is not going to cut out all impact, but it will have a role to play, and an important role to play. I think what we're trying to here is bring our densities, in part we're trying to bring our densities into line with the norm in this area. And as we have talked about at some earlier meetings, if you compare us to Auburn, if you compare us to the county, Renton, if you compare us to other area localities, our maximum density ceilings in comparable districts are on the high side. Auburn took a much more aggressive approach at reducing multifamily development. Their maximum density ceiling in their maximum multifamily district is now 18 units to the acre. Ours is still 40. Now Auburn is not the model of what the norm is in this area. Auburn, Auburn, (unclear) and they are not the norm, , but just to give you an example of another community that went much further than we're going, that's the community directly south of us. So that, I think that the across-the-board density reduction is, will have a significant impact on all three of these objectives but it won't accomplish anything all by itself. Neither will anything else that's 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 been proposed. It's kind of a starting point that responds to what the Council has asked us to look at and to accomplish and probably some other actions will have to be done complementing it. Just a couple of other points. Option F, dealing with reduction by environmental constraints. We looked at that in the report, to be honest and to face the point that there are some sites that are constrained by the, as we pointed out about the last issue, some sites that are constrained by the natural features that mean you can't get the density ceilings on them no matter what you did. And we pointed that out in the report. We tried to make a calculation on how much of the theoretical buildout potential those environmentally constrained sites actually represented. 11.4% I think, is what the red report shows. I don't think the Council was talking about the 20% reduction being accomplished by, you know, really what's a phantom. That density never existed really. The red report says that density, you know, was never really there because, because of steep slopes, drainage, other kinds of environmental problems, you can never could develop that. If we were to pretend like we're taking action by saying we're going to implement Option F, we haven't done anything, that de facto density that really doesn't exist. We did try to document that in the red report, in all fairness, to show that that was land that was zoned multifamily. We tried to account for all the multifamily land in the city, but I don't think that's a real density. And taking action to rezone that land to some other district really would not be a very meaningful action to take. A couple of other points made by some other speakers. Well, there's one other point that Mr. Combs brought out which was about an approach where you would reduce the density in some areas and perhaps even increase it in other areas. This action we're taking tonight is an across-the-board approach designed to (unclear) of what we're looking at tonight, designed to accomplish some things the Council has asked us to do, designed to bring us in line with other localities, it would have significant, immediate effect. It's not an end point. In the future, there's always going to be adjustments that are being made. We are going to be bringing new land into the city. The annexation of the new land will be associated with new annexation zoning for these areas. Some of these may in fact be suitable for multifamily. Others might be suitable for single family. But it's not an end point, that's going to be shifting. Down in the valley there may be, in the future as we actually get a handle on these infrastructure needs and services needs, it may be that there may be areas down in the valley that where additional multifamily zoning would be appropriate. At this point, you know, we're, we're trying to get at an action we can take now that will have a significant impact but it's not the end point. And this is going to be a shifting thing as considerations are made and as the Comprehensive Plan is a kind of a dynamic kind of document (unclear) . We'll follow that. This is not an end point and I can see adjustments being made on down the road, where in fact we may be wanting to reduce 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 densities further in some areas, maybe rezone entirely for multifamily in some areas, on down the road. But this is the action now that, that will have a significant impact at this time. And it's not an unreasonable action. It's well thought out I believe. It's well documented; we've done some significant studies on it, trying to get at these objectives as best we can. And at this point in time we are still getting development at the rate that I was talking about earlier, this 888 units plus 1200 and some units under SEPA. You might say we are looking at somewhere between 800 and a thousand units being permitted each year, so I don't know if we want to continue to study this and study this and study this, before we really take any action. I could say, I think I 'll, unless you have some questions. Chairman Badger: Dan, in particular, how did Auburn get its down to 18 units per acre? What did they do, actually rezone? Mr. Stroh: Auburn undertook a major Comprehensive Plan amendment (unclear) September 1986. They were trying as, this is the best I know what went on, they were trying to, there was strong concern there raised about preservation of single family. Auburn, as I say, experienced the same thing we did in going from a predominantly single family into predominantly multifamily, where by 1984 they were 55% multifamily or over 55$ I believe they said. So they, they very drastically set up some districts where they said that their primary, in fact, they say their primary focus in their residential development is towards single family. And I believe they have at least one district where multifamily is allowed as a conditional use at somewhat less than 18 units to the acre. It may, I 'm not sure what that figure is but the only one where it's allowed outright is this, this district where it's allowed at 18 units to the acre. After they finished their Comprehensive Plan amendment then they went through a zoning amendment and I 'm not, I don't know the whole history of, of, in fact somebody else, one of the other planners here may be more familiar with that, but they, they went very aggressively after trying to preserve single family. They said that they were both trying to preserve single family and restore the, the family orientation of the city, and that they went after this very, very aggressively in the way that they did it. Chairman Badger: I still didn't really understand whether they downzoned the land. Mr. Stroh: Yea, and I don't know the answer to that. I think they must have because I can't imagine that in, some people have been in the area longer than I have, but they, they must have had much more intensive multifamily districts prior to that, that action, because 18 is, is, there's no community in this area I'm aware of that has that as a ceiling except for Auburn. The norm I would say in this area is more 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 like, for your highest density zone, it's more like 30, and for your middle density zone, the number's a lot more like 18 to 20. Mr. Ward: Did, does anyone know as to what Auburn accomplished there? Their aim? Mr. Stroh: I think it's kind of early to. Mr. Ward: Did it stop development in Auburn? Mr. Stroh: I think it's kind of early to say. Auburn's kind of in a, in an interesting position because they're so far south they don't, they're not getting all this multifamily pressure. Mr Ward: I 'm doing a fantastic lot of building in Auburn. I was trying to be facetious. Mr. Stroh: They are not growing as fast as Kent is. Mr. Ward: No, I know. (Unclear) they stopped development. Mr. Stroh: Well, I don't think they stopped development either, but I am not, not the best person to tell you what's been going on there. Chairman Badger: Alright. I would like to offer any one of the speakers a minute or two of rebuttal or anything if you, any of you, would care to do so? All right, three of you have indicated. Let's go in the order that we did before. Larry, you were first. I 'll give you about a minute or two for your comments. Mr. Frazier: Last time I got thirty seconds. I 'll take two or three minutes though. I have a couple of questions if I can direct them to you and maybe you can direct them back to staff, if that would be the procedure you'd like to, to utilize. I need to know if, if there's not going to be a significant discussion of the Comprehensive Plan and its role to play in the development process in the Kent area, and it's going to be dealt with in a, a matter of years by the multifamily reduction. If it in fact takes place at 20% as is being proposed, is in fact, this going to be a change of significance, enough significance or maybe no significance at all as far as the city is concerned? Is it considered a non-project under the SEPA rules and would there have to be a Declaration of Nonsignificance issued? Mr. Harris: Just to answer that, I think, we've already done that, haven't we? It's a Declaration of Nonsignificance and since it's a non-project situation. 16 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 Mr. Frazier: I objected to that in the very first letter that we, we gave and we still would like to go on the record that because we believe that a Comprehensive Plan is of a major significance in the development strategy for a community that changes of this magnitude that should have been a declaration of, of, should have been an EIS on a non-project done and still would like to maintain that for the record. I would suggest that there, you know the red book as it's currently before you, is a pretty good document. It's got a lot of basic facts in it and things of this nature, I agree that some of the discussion about the things we're trying to achieve in terms of the environments in their community and Dan read some of those. I would suggest though that with, because of the major impact that this proposal has before you, and I hope you understand that it is a major impact, that it is being viewed as where is the justification for the 20% reduction; where did that figure come from; and does the city understand the impact of that particular reduction? I would suggest, with all due respect to the elected officials, that they had a considerable amount of pressure put on them from the community for obvious reasons, they've been hit with a lot of development, that it's more of a political reduction there as opposed to a technical reduction. And I believe that that is part of the reason why we would like to see an EIS done on this project and it be put into a broader framework, rather than having it done in the manner that it's currently being done. I guess I have said enough tonight. I do appreciate your being attentive to what I have to say. We would like to see more time on this particular issue by this Planning Commission because I understand it's the only one that's going to hold a public hearing unless the Council decides to go for a public hearing. We will be calling for a public hearing on this issue as opposed to not having a public, it's too important an issue for this community and for the property owners and the impact it's going to have on them. Thank you. Chairman Badger: Thank you. Loren, did you wish a second? Mr. Combs: Just briefly your honor. Chairman Badger: Come forth. Mr. Combs: Thank you. I had to use "your honor" so you would let me get back up here. I promise to be brief. I appreciate the position that your Planning Department is in because I 've sat there trying to get through an idea that I honestly believe in and I can't understand sometimes why they don't move quite as quick as they should. But I 've also sat up there and I hope you respect the request, you take a little time and look at this proposal. You need to look at your mandate under Resolution 1123. Mr. Stroh went through some of the things and said no we're addressing that one somewhere else, we can address this one 17 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 somewhere else. But Resolution 1123 said those were the concerns that the Council had that they wanted you to consider and that's what you're here for. I respectfully ask you to look at it and to make sure that what you're doing pinpoints those concerns and doesn't use the broad brush. I brought with me some numbers given to me by my client. I didn't think I was going to have to use them but I think it's important at this stage that you understand the effect of the broad brush approach and why it is important to pinpoint it. Not only is a pinpoint more accurate and you'll more directly attack what your concern is, but let me throw out some numbers. On my client's particular project, the lost opportunity cost, if you went with the broad brush approach, and assume an area to build to maximum density, is $621, 000. Now I submit to you that you ought to be real careful when you start using a broad brush when you're talking about those kinds of numbers. And as one of the gentlemen pointed out, you do have people that have bought land, moms and pops or developers or whoever they are, they bought land with an expectation of being able to realize the opportunity that this land afforded given the existing zoning. You are talking about too big of numbers to use a broad brush. Ms. Stoner: Would you define your term please? I hate to interrupt you but I don't think I am going to get your point unless I 'm clear about what. Mr. Combs: No, I appreciate that. I 'm not an economist so forgive me if this isn't technically correct. But what they do in the appraisal world is if you are going to build an apartment complex, they will come up with a value and attach that to it and that is the opportunity that can be created out of that piece of ground. The lost opportunity then, is they no longer have the opportunity to do that, it would be a smaller scale, and the difference between the two is this $621, 000. I asked my client, again, I 'm kind of simple when it comes to numbers so I said well, translate that into, for me, into money. How much money would I have in my pocket if I'd of built the bigger unit, 'cause I know I 'd have had to spend some more in lost opportunity cost to build these extra units that you've taken away from me. The lost profit off of, off of this given project, if that were, if they wanted to build to maximum which they did not, but if they were, under the broad brush approach, the loss to them would have been $272,000 because you are taking the gravy. When you knock off the top, you're knocking off the gravy because they plug in their cost, there's a certain basic cost that you have to incur no matter how many you build, when you build 19 or 23 . When you knock off that 20% or that 18%, you're knocking off the profit because almost a, 100% of that extra unit is profit and you're skimming off the profit. So I just ask you to consider carefully using the broad brush, when you're impacting, my client it's not going to affect that much because we're not building at maximum 18 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 density, but there are people out there that you are extremely adversely impacting, too much so to use a broad brush and I ask you to consider it. I did it again, your honor, I'm sorry. Chairman Badger: Loren, before you leave. Mr. Combs: Yes sir. Chairman Badger: Do you know anything about Auburn in this area? Mr. Combs: I know a little bit your honor. Chairman Badger: Do you know, do you know if they had zoning permitting higher than 18 units per acre before? Mr. Combs: Yes they did. And many cities still do. For example, one of the cities I represent has zoning far in excess of what you have. Chairman Badger: Did Auburn actually downzone that? Mr. Combs: Well, that's a tricky term, your honor. What you're doing in my mind is a downzone. But they do it by sleight of hand, where if they change a number from MRM to a different number, a different lettering, that that's technically a downzone, but what you've done is a downzone under the guise of a text change, because you then have taken a zone that was 23 units to the acre and changed it to 18, but you're calling it a text amendment but I still can't build those five units no matter what you call it. Chairman Badger: I guess that answers my question. Mr. Combs: I, I tried not to; attorneys tend not to answer questions, your honor. Thank you kindly. Chairman Badger: Thank you. Michael, did you or David wish any comments? Mr. Halinen: I 've got a brief one. Chairman Badger: Good Mr. Halinen: Again, David Halinen for the record. I would like to talk about two points, one last addressed by Mr. Combs regarding the gravy quote, unquote element of a, a multifamily development project being tied into the, the last number of units. To quite an extent, that may be an over-simplification. I, I think it makes a valid point, but I think another element of that is that a developer will not go 19 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 forward with a project unless there are profits to be made. What effectively will happen is that some of the projects will not happen and the effect on the market is to raise the rents overall. So I think that, that is a, a impact of the proposal that you have to, I think that it's provable, that this will, will in fact have some impact upon rents in the city. The other comment relates to Mr. Stroh's reference to the grounding of the proposal in the Comprehensive Plan. He chose as a for-instance a reference to one of the Comp Plan's policies in a, the Housing Element section. That choice I think is, is symptomatic of the broad brush approach and the lack of a relation to the Comprehensive Plan. I believe the cited policy urged the benefits to the city of a mix of housing types in the city which is probably a laudable and a good goal for the city to have. However. , I would suggest that rather than supporting the mix, this proposal actually tends to inhibit the mix. What we're doing is squeezing down the relative densities between single family and multifamily housing. I frankly can't logically understand how the 20% reduction on multifamily housing in any way enhances the mix. So I, I think again it's symptomatic of the fact that this proposal doesn't have good linkage with the Comprehensive Plan and that should be I think a red flag for you in terms of your consideration of the matter tonight. Thank you. Chairman Badger: Thank you very much. Commission, it's approaching ten o'clock. What will your procedure wish be for tonight? Do you wish to continue this meeting, continue the public hearing? (Unclear) Ms. Stoner: Mr. Chairman, you mean to continue the public hearing until February? Chairman Badger: Yes, go ahead. Ms. Forner: I would like to make just a comment, perhaps not on the public hearing but just based on the amendment itself. I don't know if this is an appropriate time to (unclear) . Mr. Harris: I guess we have a motion and a second so (unclear) Chairman Badger: We have a motion and a second (unclear) discussion tonight to continue. Does everybody fully understand there's been a motion and second make to continue the public hearing to the first available public hearing opportunity date whether that's (unclear) Mr. Harris: We want an explicit date, and that would be February 29th. Chairman Badger: to February 29th. 20 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 Mr. Ward: This is leap year isn't it? Chairman Badger: There's been a motion and second made to continue the hearing until February 29th. Will anyone call for the question? Mr. Ward: So called. Chairman Badger: All in favor of continuing the public hearing until February 29th on the multifamily density issue? Aye? Opposed? One opposed (unclear) . I do so agree that it's then been continued to February 29th. Is there anything further or I would like to close public hearing? Mr. Harris: Well, I would like to Chairman Badger: It has been continued. Mr. Harris: I would like to suggest that on, now on your February 22nd you are going to have your task force that night. I'd like some direction from the Commission possibly on what you would like from this staff concerning this matter for that work session, because if we just come back to the public hearing on the 29th you've got all this material that's before you now, would you like the staff to do some further review on the relationship to the Comp Plan, relationship to the ordinance? There are a number of items (unclear) Ms. Stoner: I also think it would be helpful to have verbatim minutes at that meeting so that we can go back over the testimony we've heard tonight on this issue. Mr. Harris: And that will be done on the 22nd. Chairman Badger: On the workshop date. Mr. Harris: OK, we'll do that. Mr. Ward• Jim, Mr. Harris: Elmira Forner has some question that probably needs to be answered. (Unclear) Ms. Forner: I don't know if this is the appropriate time but it is dealing on this subject and that was kind of the. 21 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 Mr. Ward: Why don't you go ahead and say it and we'll make a determination. Ms. Forner: I guess I have not been involved in this whole process of, of the reduction for multifamily units, but I have been very involved in this area on the transportation issue. I have been involved on the subcommittee to the Standing Committee to the Puget Sound Council of Governments and I've also been involved with METRO, so I understand the problem quite well from this point and I agree very much with the public comments, especially Mr. Combs about, you know, the alternatives to our problem. The, the one thing I don't agree with and I think that we've kind of got away from the purpose of this amendment, or whatever it is, of reducing the, the number of multifamily homes, and that to me instead of, it's, it's not a shot-gun approach as far as I am concerned; it 's a finger-in-the-dike approach; it's, it's an opportunity for us to introduce some of the things that they have just mentioned. I don't know how many transportation plans that we have gone through and planned and finally adopted and by the time you adopt them they are obsolete. And I feel that in our Planning Department if we keep procrastinating, by the time we finally decide that all these neat things that we're supposed to do to make this valley a nice, livable place, and we're going to have light rail come down, and we're going to have, you know, all these plans and special places and we're going to have an industry here and have it all planned out, we are never going to get there unless we start acting now to say we need some time. And so I feel that reducing the, the rapid growth to a manageable rate buys us some time to do the things that you people want done. And if we don't find time, they're not going to get done and we're going to end up with a big sprawling mess that we'll never find solutions for. And that's kind of the comment I wanted to make on this is that it's not the end of the world. And that's why I said is there a sunset clause on it. I 'd like to say, hey let's do this and say in three years, take another look at it and in the meantime we can go ahead with some of these projects, look at the Comprehensive Plan, but if you wait to go through the Comprehensive Plan again, that's going to be five years and there's going to be multifamily solid all over the valley. I mean, I'm probably out of turn speaking like that but I have been involved in this kind of planning for eight years in this valley and I know what trying to play catch up is like and, and it's not fun, so that's. Chairman Badger: Would you like staff to address any particular one of your comments for the workshop? Ms. Forner: No, I just. Chairman Badger: Would you like them to address (unclear) 22 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 Ms. Forner: I think we need to keep this in perspective as a finger- in-the-dike approach to addressing the problem. I don't think, I think we need this in order to address the problems that have been suggested to (unclear) Mr. Harris: Mr. Chairman. I would like to say that generally the testimony is in your hands now and all we would do is highlight anything that you would like us to highlight, for instance the, relate our action back to the ordinance, discuss our action in relation to the Comprehensive Plan in more detail. Points well taken here except that we are advocating a staff report, a staff recommendation (unclear) 20% reduction in the manner that we put in the red book here. It's going to be up to you in your debate to determine if that's the way you want to go. Ms. Rudy: If we are going to continue this hearing and we are, can we do something about limiting testimony in the next session to new testimony from new people so we don't rehash the same ground that we have at the last two hearings? Chairman Badger: Do you have any comments, Carol? Ms. Stoner: I, I think it's possible to do that if we have and read verbatim minutes from, from this. Ms. Rudy: It seems to me we've done that before. Ms. Stoner: Yea, I think it's a possibility. Chairman Badger: Are there any other comments? Mr. Ward: I want to say (unclear) I would like to see staff address some of the, some of the comments made in regard to our adherence to the Comprehensive Plan. I think, I think that's (unclear) . I would further like to see, to get some input from staff as to, assuming at the next public hearing time that we will, will, a vote will be made as to what our recommendation is to be to the Council regarding the, the, the shot-gun approach (unclear) been suggested, that we have, have something, you know, regarding a status report of (unclear) transportation outlook looks for (unclear) I think that's an important point for consideration. I disagree with our Commission here in this (unclear) it's much broader than that, I think that, that a question has been raised and asked a number of times as to where the 20% came from and I think one person said it and, and it, and I think that we would have to (unclear) that if we want to control multifamily development that there are better ways of doing it and (unclear) ways 23 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 (unclear) first issue (unclear) we voted upon. One personal comment I'd like to make is that, that supposedly there's a lot of people out there who are, are against the rapid growth and development as far as multifamily in the Kent area but I was surprised to see that none of them spoke tonight and that's one question. I don't know whether we're not advertising strongly enough or whether basic people, John Q. Public, will come out and I just think developers (unclear) but the people who are out there, who are saying that we are tired of the multifamily development in the area, who want to see it reduced, I would like to, I sure would like to see them come up here and say that, but I haven't seen them tonight. And even though that much testimony in the past has been given in workshops and what have you that indicate that a, that a, there's a lot of people claim that the, that they are tired of the rapid multifamily development (unclear) , I think the economy determines how development goes. I think we have a, a fantastic situation in Kent with the rapid growth and development than we have had in (unclear) and it's sort of unusual and it's something that the, the (unclear) but every time you have development you are going to have, to have people. (Unclear) Chairman Badger: Is there any better way, Jim, of getting a newspaper article before our next. Mr. Harris: I, it's hard for me to answer that because without the press being involved in this kind of situation, it is difficult. We have to try to get the articles in the newspaper and they only put articles in the newspaper if there's something catchy. And we have talked them into putting articles like this in the paper but it's difficult. It's not easy. If they're not attending, they only attend at the City Council. They will not attend Board of Adjustment, Human Services or Planning Commission. Mr. Ward: (unclear) Respectfully submitted, r Jam s P. Ha ris, Secretary 24