Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 11/23/1987 • KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 23, 1987 The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Byrne at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, November 23, 1987, in the Kent City Hall , City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: James Byrne, Chairman Robert Badger, Vice Chairman Anne Biteman Russell E. Dunham Greg Greenstreet Linda Martinez Nancy Rudy Carol Stoner Raymond Ward PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director James M. Hansen, Principal Planner • Fred Satterstrom, Project Planner Dan Stroh, Assistant Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 26, 1987 Planning Commission minutes for the October 26, 1987, public hearing be approved as presented. Commissioner Dunham SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT (RR#87-3) Mr. Stroh presented the list of business LIMITED COMMERCIAL IN and professional services and personal PROFESSIONAL AND OFFICE DISTRICT services requested by the Commission. Commissioner Stoner MOVED that the Commission adopt the following additions to the principal and conditional uses listed in Section 15.04. 150: accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services; educational and scientific research services; architectural and urban planning services; medical and dental laboratory services; advertising services; blueprinting and photocopying services; business and management consulting services; consumer and mercantile credit reporting services--adjustment and collection services; detective and protective services; research and development services; stenographic services and other duplicating and mailing services; news syndicate services; employment services; • schools: driving (auto only) , business and stenographic; business associations and organizations r Kent Planning Commission Minutes • November 23, 1987 The following personal services may be permitted as conditional uses subject to being part of a planned development which is at least 50 percent occupied by office uses: beauty and barber services (including schools) ; tanning salons; nail manicuring services Commissioner Badger SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Mr. Satterstrom presented the City Council 's request for the Planning Department and Planning Commission to review multifamily development standards with comments from the public, recommending text changes to the standards which would make the multifamily developments more compatible with adjoining land uses and provide adequate buffers along streets and entry ways. This would be one way of attempt- ing to improve the quality of life not only in the multifamily development but also as it affects adjacent developments. Mr. Stroh presented the proposal to amend Chapters 15.04.040 through 14.04.060 and Chapter 15.07 of the Kent Zoning Code to change the minimum yard requirements depending upon the type of street frontage involved, to encourage lower roof lines if they are close to the street, and to change the landscaping requirement standards in the Garden Density (MRG) , Medium Density (MRM) and High Density • (MRH) Multifamily Residential Districts. Discussion followed regarding these standards and walkway areas in developments. Mr. Stroh explained that sidewalks are not addressed in the development standards but are implemented through the SEPA process. Colin Quinn, representing Centron, 3025 112th Avenue NE, Bellevue, supported the attempt to review the standards. He felt that setbacks, heights of buildings and landscaping were very important, but he would like to see a varying placement of buildings on a site. Through modulation and rotation of buildings, interesting spaces can be created between buildings to provide a more interesting, livable space. Building rotation eliminates straight lines. Increasing the setback requirement would inhibit the ability to rotate the building configuration. He contended that a building could be placed as closely as currently allowed, but this might be only a corner of the building. The effect achieved could be dramatic and could make a project appear to have less wall area. He assured the Commission that he would meet or exceed any standards set by the City of Kent, and he has done this with The Lakes project. He felt the staff should be given more flexibility and that each design solution should be handled on a case-by-case basis with the option to appeal . David Parks, 25946 129th Place SE, Kent, felt that the requirements did not address the issue of privacy. He felt that a six-foot-high fence does not provide adequate privacy when a multifamily development abuts a single family residential • area. He suggested that trees need to be carefully selected because deciduous trees do not provide privacy in the winter. -2- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • November 23, 1987 Lowell Hall , 22823 134th Avenue SE, Kent, pointed out that angles in buildings increase the cost of the structure and would increase the cost of the rent. He expressed concern about providing housing that could be afforded by the renters. He felt that the landscape plan should take into consideration the type of vegetation and coverage it could provide during the entire year and that the maintenance of this landscaping should be provided. I Mr. Stroh was not certain if the rotation approach could be reached through standards or if this approach would require a design review committee. He felt that some extra time should be spent considering flexibility in standards. Commissioner Ward MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Badger SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Ward MOVED to continue the hearing at a special meeting on December 14, 1987. Commissioner Dunham SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. MULTIFAMILY DENSITY Mr. Stroh presented the current proposal to amend the density provisions to provide a "graduated scale" reduction in the maximum permitted densities of the multifamily districts. The percentage reduction in each zone would be directly based on that zone' s density with the resulting overall reduction in development potential of approximately 20 percent. The proposal is designed to accomplish the Council ' s intended density reduction in a fair and equitable manner. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Option B in the "Report on Multifamily Density" and suggests that the Commission recommend to the City Council that Chapters 15.04.030 through 14.04.060 of the Kent Zoning Code be amended to accomplish this proposal . Colin Quinn stated that he is philosophically opposed to any attempt to dictate market demand by means of government regulations. He felt this was a political , not a planning, issue. There has been a dramatic shift from single family to multifamily development because of the changing American lifestyle. Many people are divorced and cannot afford a house payment, and many others are falling into an age group which does not choose to have the responsibilities of single family dwelling. There are no regulations that can alter these changing needs. He felt that if people lived near their jobs, there would be less transportation impact on the freeways and bridges. This could be accomplished with multifamily units so that the workers could live near their jobs. He felt that the public should have their choice of housing, and that a realistic density would be 18-25 units per acre. Lowell Hall felt that this study was a response to the traffic and utility problems. The area between the Cedar River and the Green River is the largest area left in King County for housing, and the largest growth will be in the area east of Kent. If land is downzoned, the developers will build east of the city • limits of Kent and the city will still have traffic problems but no revenue from the developments. -3- Kent Planning Commission Minutes • November 23, 1987 Mary H. Williams, 25331 68th Avenue South, taught school in Kent for 45 years and feels that the quality of life is better in a single family residential area than in a multifamily development. David Halinen, representing Wright Group, a multifamily developer, 10900 NE Eighth Street, Suite 1000, Bellevue, felt that it is important to provide housing where the jobs are located. He suggested incentives, such as density bonuses, when certain performance standards are met. Andy Miller, 18606 SE 287th Street, Kent, stated that his taxes had increased 31 percent this year and expressed concern about who would bear the cost for the new multifamily developments. He commented that traffic in Kent is as congested on the weekend as it is during the week. Jim Orr, 24909 114th Avenue SE, Kent, felt that people on the East Hill are over- whelmingly in favor of more single family development in the area. He suggested that where multifamily is to be developed, it should be spread out to certain locations. Leona Orr suggested that costs for building single family residences be reduced. She felt that multifamily housing would not decrease the costs of services and hoped that the single family residents would not be carrying the tax burden for those who live in multifamily units. • Mr. Stroh concluded by stating that the proposal is not intended to stop multi- family developments but only to reduce the densities of these developments. This proposal does not involve rezoning any land from multifamily to single family use. Commissioner Rudy MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Stoner MOVED to continue the hearing until January. Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner Badger was elected as Chairman and Commissioner Martinez as Vice Chairman for 1988. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Ward MOVED and Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, i^Y'YT-Z Jame P. Harris, Secretary -4-