Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 12/14/1987 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • December 14, 1987 The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Byrne at 7: 30 p.m. on Monday, December 14, 1987, in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: James Byrne, Chairman Robert Badger, Vice Chairman Russell E. Dunham Greg Greenstreet Linda Martinez Nancy Rudy Carol Stoner Raymond Ward COMMISSION MEMBER ABSENT: Anne Biteman, Excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Project Planner Dan Stroh, Assistant Planner Charlene Anderson, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Dunham MOVED that MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 23 , 1987 the Planning Commission minutes for the November 23 , 1987 public hearing be approved as presented. Commissioner Badger SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Commissioner Ward MOVED and Commissioner Dunham SECONDED the motion to open the public hearing. Motion carried. Dan Stroh presented a brief explanation of the origin and purpose of the multifamily development standards proposal. The proposal addresses the impact of multifamily developments on entryways and arterials and buffering multifamily from single-family residential. Mr. Stroh stated that staff had met with Centron, developer of The Lakes project, prior to tonight' s meeting and had discussed some excellent concepts regarding this issue. • Larry Frazier, Director of Government Affairs, Seattle Master Builders Association, 2155 - 112th Avenue NE #100, Bellevue, WA 98004 presented 4�a F PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • December 14, 1987 Page Two a letter outlining three areas of concern about staff's proposal -- 1) economic and design impacts, 2) de facto impacts on density, and 3) possible error in issuing DNS on proposal rather than requiring EIS which would outline all potential impacts. Dennis Riebe, Architect, Centron, 3025 - 112th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA agreed with Mr. Frazier that the proposed development standards would achieve a density reduction, even though that is not the intent of the proposal. Mr. Riebe stressed that development standards alternatives tie together, that it is impossible to look at one area (e.g. , increased parking ratio) without realizing that it would affect, perhaps negatively, other design aspects. Mr. Riebe presented three alternatives to staff 's recommendations. 1) Minimum Yard Requirements: The proposed increased setbacks on property abutting arterials and other streets is acceptable. Rather than requiring a 35 ' setback for front, side and rear yards abutting single family residential or any other district, Mr. Riebe proposes incorporating an average 30 ' setback along with a minimum setback such that building modulation will create variety. (A 20 ' setback along a side or interior property line seems adequate. ) Using an average setback requirement allows staff to evaluate projects on a case-by-case basis. • 2) Height Limitations: The proposed height limitations would cause density reduction; to achieve highest and best use of a property, developments would be created with external roadway systems and buildings facing the rear of the property. Mr. Riebe suggests modulation of building facades where "x" lineal feet of wall requires building modulation or offset. Topography also plays a part in providing natural building modulation. 3) Landscaping: To require increased depths and quality of landscaping is no problem. However, a berm along street frontages where parking abuts landscaping is not always possible due to topographical considerations. The code should be written to provide some flexibility in achieving the goals intended by this requirement. The 10 ' landscaping strip along side and rear property lines is fine. Mr. Riebe suggests that rather than requiring a 6 ' high, sight- obscuring fence where multifamily property lines abut single-family districts, the code should be flexible. Mr. Riebe would like staff to clarify or eliminate the statement that, "The revised standards would only affect such properties if they were to expand or be rebuilt. " If a project expanded by 20 units, would the standards apply to the 20 units only or to the entire project? Dan Stroh stated the proposed standards would effect a more creative • use of land. It is not intended that density is affected; Mr. Stroh provided an example of the proposed standards and indicated that the x PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 14, 1987 Page Three sample project could still be built at the currently-allowed density. Staff can provide renderings in the zoning code to illustrate the new requirements. Regarding environmental impacts of these proposed standards, it was determined they would not be of adequate overall impact to require an EIS. Staff believes the concept of average setback could be a viable approach to creating a better street transition and transition between multifamily and single family development. Staff will also consider the building modulation approach outlined by Centron where after "x" number of lineal feet of building there would be required a modulation or offset. When considering Centron' s alternatives, staff will look at several items including building height at the minimum setback and length of offset required, along with other quantitative changes. There appears to be a general consensus on the need for increased landscaping. Flexibility could be written in the code to consider topography. In addition, staff believes that coupled with landscaping, the 61 , sight-obscuring fence will have an impact on reducing the impact of the development and suggests that most large developments • will have fencing anyway to define the property boundary and reduce ingress and egress across the property. In clarifying questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Stroh stated that the standards would apply to new development, not existing development. The standards would apply to phases not presently under construction; those phases each have to go through SEPA review as well. Mr. Stroh added that there seems to be sentiment toward a design review process wherein standards could be tightened but there would be flexibility as well. Mr. Harris suggested the Commission continue this issue to a workshop session on January 11, 1988 and a public hearing on January 25, 1988. Commissioner Martinez MOVED and Commissioner Badger SECONDED the motion to continue the issue as requested by Mr. Harris. Motion carried. Commissioner Ward stated the dialogue between staff and the developers is good. He added that staff should consider whether the proposed standards will reduce density. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8: 45 PM. R sp ctfully ub 'tted, 0 Jam s P. Harris, Secretary