Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 01/17/1989 KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE January 17, 1989 4: 00 PM Committee Members Present Plannina Staff Present Judy Woods, Chair Charlene Anderson Steve Dowell Lauri Anderson Jon Johnson Fred Satterstrom Dan Stroh City Administration Other City Staff Jim Harris, Acting City Administrator Jim Hansen, Ass't City Administrator Carolyn Lake Alana McIalwain John Marchione Don Wickstrom Others Present Eric Campbell, Architect Robert Stettner, HUD MOSS PLANNING AREA Jpon reviewing separate requests for Certificates of Water and Sewer Availability, City staff determined that the proposed land uses for the Moss and Elkins properties were not in accordance with the City of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Planning staff was asked to update the Comp Plan for this area. In order to review the "bigger picture" in light of the city's policies in the study area, and after learning of a request in the county to rezone the Bigford property just south of the proposed study area, staff received support from the City Council Planning Committee to enlarge the study area to include the Bigford property. Planning staff is not recommending an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the study area at this time. Dan Stroh distributed a revision to the Circulation Element of the staff report. Lauri Anderson, Planner, outlined the study area and identified on a map the Moss, Elkins and Bigford properties, the King County and City of Kent zoning including Comp Plan designations, and other land uses in the area. In the county, most of the area is zoned "G" which is a holding zone. Some of the area is zoned Agricultural and there are two pieces of land which are part of the King County Agricultural Farmland Preservation Program. Ms. Anderson showed a video of the study area. Staff identified several concerns in the "Area 1" study area: proximity to the Green River, amount of site coverage allowed by industrial and commercial operations and runoff and pollutants associated with such development, location in a region of seismic activity and flood plain, circulation which is inadequate for truck traffic. In the ongoing study of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, it is proposed that multifamily be sited in the Valley Floor; low density multifamily might be appropriate for those ^.ITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE AINUTES OF MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 1989 areas abutting the single family residences in the study area. In addition, commercial and industrial uses make up less than 20% of the land area in this study and there are over 1100 acres of vacant or undeveloped industrial land elsewhere in the city. "Area 2" contains prime farmland. Discussion occurred on options to the City's approval of water and sewer availability. Councilman Johnson MOVED and Councilman Dowell SECONDED the motion to not recommend pursuing an amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Horseshoe Bend area at this time. Motion carried unanimously. The issue of water and sewer availability will return to the Public Works Committee. AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMO PROJECT (HUD) Fred Satterstrom stated that Kent has always had an active interest in affordable housing. He had worked on a study of affordable housing, subsequent to which the City Council approved ordinances related to Planned Unit Developments and zero lot line developments in support of affordable housing. Bob Stettner of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development stated hat the proposed demonstration project relates to market rate housing, not low income or subsidized housing. After reviewing some alarming statistics in 1982 related to affordable housing, HUD devised 4 ways to address the problem. These include innovative design, financial enhancements, regulatory reform and streamlined processes. Considerable work has been done on financial enhancements and HUD has worked to streamline their own procedures. Now there is emphasis on regulatory reform. Specifically HUD is attempting to arrange a partnership between itself, the developer and the city to seek ways to reduce the cost of housing. Fifty percent of the cost of a house is in the construction of a house; the remainder is in everything else. There is no set formula in this project; it is tailored to individual communities. Whatever is permitted, HUD assures that the dollar savings are passed to the homeowner. For the Kent area, it is anticipated that in a particular development that is envisioned, with some flexibility there could be achieved at least a $3000 per unit savings. HUD is looking for a resolution from the City of Kent to invite the project into the community by acknowledging a need for affordable housing and by supporting a review of existing land development standards to allow flexibility in a one-time demonstration project. Flexibility might include narrower streets, sidewalks on one side only, etc. HUD will review all projects before they are submitted to the city to ensure the projects will not increase the city's maintenance or lessen the quality of standards or architectural character. From 1982 to 1984 HUD did 39 demonstration projects across the country. 2 ^.ITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE .4INUTES OF MEETING OF JANUARY 17, 1989 There were two projects in Washington State, one in Everett (81 single family, zero lot line units) which generated a $10, 000 per unit cost savings, and one in Lacey (104 units) . Both communities have allowed a second phase. Mr. Stettner described additional locations developed since 1984 and indicated Kent was targeted as a project site for 1989. He stated that with traffic conditions, it is important that people live in the area where they work and that cities take into account the ideas developers have for reducing the cost of housing. Eric Campbell displayed three sketches of proposed housing. The development anticipates rezoning to 7200 sq. ft. lots with 60 foot widths (saves approx. $2000 per lot) . Off-street parking with landscape islands is proposed (saves approx. $800 per lot) . Pricing ranges from $85, 000 to $95, 000 for 1300 to 1810 sq. ft houses. This issue will be discussed again on February 7, 1989. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:15 PM. 3 34 '00 LO 0 y mz; 5T AV m Owille Taco inlamrional A ;p rz 65 V AV �.OST V, y �A �R -4/000 W- 72 AV S 0 -u SM CAR ST F P R J� I" u P a ST sw .9N/IV "T 011 i AV MAST VALI Ilk $92 ST -SE 104 AV ir? E —it '.2 Ask c3 A iK H AV SO; A. t -4 SW 13 AV 14 + 44 -xv ek 156 AV E SE + 17, A I A�Soo Creek 9 V SE Ai� 49 104 E I SE il�v. w 0 AV K -LV ;I*el g�- E 10400 + SE T7 1308 AV 2 FIR to IN flf#M J S AV SE 4 D3 Lac CZ 3 L sr 276 AV SE Q Horseshoe Bend Land Use Study Final Report REVISION (replacing Circulation section on page 6 of report) circulation Area 1 is fairly well isolated from the industrial/commercial uses along 78th Avenue S. and Central Avenue. Currently, access to Area 1 from the northwest, southwest and southeast can only be achieved by crossing narrow bridges over the Green River at 78th Avenue S. and 83rd Avenue S. , or through narrow railroad underpasses at S. 259th Street and S. 266th Street. Access from the north travels through the older residential neighborhoods south of W. Willis Street, along 1st and 3rd Avenues. Access from the east, along S. 259th Street, traverses the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. Area 1 has no direct rail access. Development of commercial establishments or industry in this area would require improvement and expansion of transportation corridors to facilitate truck traffic through the area. Bridges or underpasses would have to be enlarged to accommodate increased traffic and pedestrian and bicycle safety would initially be jeopardized.