Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 04/30/1985 (3) KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 30, 1985 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Douglas Cullen at 7: 30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 30, 1985, in the Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Douglas Cullen, Chairman Robert Anderson, Vice Chairman Richard Foslin Chuck Lambert Jill Spier Raymond Ward COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Badger, excused James Byrne, excused Nancy Rudy, excused PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James Harris, Planning Director James Hansen, Principal Planner Ed Heiser, Assistant Planner Lois Ricketts, Recording Secretary CITY STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Leigh Ann Tift, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION Commissioner Anderson MOVED that MINUTES FOR MARCH 26, 1985 the minutes of the March 26, 1985, Planning Commission meeting be approved as written. Commissioner Foslin SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Mr. Harris announced that the next Planning Commission workshop would be held the third Tuesday of May, May 21 , and the next Planning Commission meeting would be held on the fourth Wednesday of May, May 29, because of the Memorial Day holiday. The City Council would be meeting on Tuesday, May 28. Chairman Cullen suggested that the Commission study the By Laws of the Planning . Commission for the workshop which will be held on Tuesday, May 21 . He felt that some changes may be needed. -1- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 1985 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER Chairman Cullen pointed out that THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE the rationale for the continuation ZONING CODE RELATING TO PLANNED UNIT was to allow the staff time to DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND MIXED UNIT prepare comprehensive comments DEVELOPMENT (MUD) to a letter that had been presented by Raul Ramos at the beginning of hearing held on the 26th of March. Ed Heiser, Assistant Planner for the Kent Planning Department, stated that staff had been able to identify some changes to the proposed ordinance. Following is the letter: and a)1n&iica,`6at1t401tah:&n pp /�IIII R<aiEuaiune.ebrynen Ittl yaa.—hw.nvexmen. L,Wu,e LLh 601West Mecker,Suae201.Ken,WA9a0S2.(ID6)054-69n 3-24'95' March 26, 1995 Kent Planning Commission City of Kent P O Box 310 Kent, WA 98032 RE Proposal DI1O/MUD OrdmIaiKe Dear Plaritung Commissioners: This letter is to express my general support for the proposed PUD/Mt/D Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Department The Ordinance streamlines the review process and eliminates duplication of Hearings by the Examiner and City Council This time savings is certainly in the best interest of property owners as well as slit. genetal public. However, the PUB may be unworkable us that ul order to utilize one Ordinance, you have to have a mixture of residential uses b e., apartmenu and single faindy uses) within the development. These types of developments are no, conunun withuu sit K,,,u are, The closest example of taus type of development o the Lakes Project It will uoelaut a mixture of apartments, townhouses, patio-type homes (zero lot lines) and rondumuuurris The Ordinance as proposed would not allow .i PUB solely on townhouses The prupuscd Ordinance should encourage and not require a mixture of housing types within a PUB Olherwne, this would be discriminatory and impractical since mostly all developments are single purpose uses Consequently,you may havens Ordinance that just fills space in a Zoning Code. In order for the PUB to be workable and thus acceptable, you should consider making the following modifications. 1. On Page 2 under Permitted Use, Item I should read. —developments are encouraged to tntttide a nNxhue at tries , 2. A development composed entirely of mub-family uses should be allowed as it PUD. 7. Eliminate the anti-multiple family tune of the Ordinance loured on Page 2 0. Add another criterions (tried "Variety of Ilotisin`" and attach a lour (4) percent density bomis to it The other Mlllw Irmo shuuid lit adjusted to reflect the new criterion. INotc: no more than , 20 percent Autsity bonus tan be given on any one project.) S. Alter na live sta lement:A development computed entirely of multi-family units should not be considered as a PUB,except if part of a remise with an approved master plan. Ilem 04 above would he a positive incentive to property owners to consider a mixture of housing types within their dtveipoments Also wish Iht above iiggeai-d modifications, the PUB Ordinance can be expected to lit used more reasonably and without being exclusionary. Therefore, I urge you to Lonsider making these thangcs and incorporate them within the proposed PUD Ordinance <7sully Ramos. i2art Rani AICP Prey ent • -2- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 1985 Mr. Heiser pointed out that whether a PUD should be required to have a variety of housing types, including a mixture of single family and multifamily types, had been discussed at the previous hearing. The following exception, taken from the top of page 3 of the draft ordinance, was presented at the meeting: Exception: A PUD may be composed of a variety of multifamily units (and include no single family units) only if the development had been rezoned prior to 1985 as part of an approved master plan. After consideration the following expansion was presented: Exception: A PUD may be composed of multifamily units and include no single family units) only if the development has been rezoned prior to 1985 as part of an approved master plan which contains a variety of multifamily units . In addition, PUD' s in the Downtown Redevelopment Area may be composed exclusively of multifamily units. However, PUD' s in the Downtown Redevelopment Area need not be pre- viously approved as a part of an approved master plan. Mr. Heiser mentioned that when the Lakes property was approved, they were permitted to apply for a PUD to achieve a 20 per cent bonus if they met all the criteria outlined in the code. Staff felt it was unfair to penalize the Lakes development, thus this exception has been written in such a way that the Lakes would be able to apply for a Planned Unit Development and include no single family units. In the downtown area minimum lot size would be approximately 21 ,000 square feet (three standard lots) . Staff felt it would be unreasonable to expect a developer to develop a mixture of residential units on a site of this size. The second amendment involves the Downtown Redevelopment and the PUD/MUD Regulations, page 20 K, of the proposed ordinance. Page 21 K3 includes the exception which is proposed as follows: 3. PUDs/MUDS within the downtown area may include developments that are either 100 percent multifamily units or a combination of multifamily and single family units. Commissioner Anderson felt that the words "prior to 1985" made it appear as if we were doing this for one particular project. It seemed to him that anyone who would submit an approved master plan even after 1985 should be allowed to omit single family units in a PUD. He questioned whether this was a fair way to write an ordinance. It would still leave the same control in • the future for the Planning Department to review and approve a master plan as part of a rezone. -3- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 1985 Mr. Heiser agreed that it would have the same effect and that there were no other master plans for residential development in Kent at the present time. Commissioner Anderson felt that "prior to 1985" should be deleted to state that a PUD may be composed of multifamily units only if the development has been rezoned as part of an approved master plan. Commissioner Lambert felt that if this were deleted, another developer could take advantage of this at a later time. Commissioner Spier asked if the purpose was to have the new developments include single family homes. She felt that the removal of "prior to 1985" would be moving away from the single family requirement. Commissioner Anderson agreed that this was the idea, except they were writing an ordinance after the fact to allow one specific project. Commissioner Spier responded that she would like to have the year left in. Mr. Heiser stated that he undestood Commissioner Anderson's concern. He felt that it was also important to remember that the Planning Commission previously reviewed the importance of including single family residential as a mix. This had been discussed in both January and February. At that time the Planning Commission was in agreement that a PUD should include a mix of housing. That was one important topic that had been discussed in the meetings . Commissioner Lambert responded that he had never agreed with that because he had heard during several hearings that single family dwellers do not wish to live around apartment dwellers. The most recent hearing was the LeBlanc Gardens on East Hill . Mr. Harris stated that the residents who spoke were not living in areas that were developed as a PUD. They were developed as apartments with perhaps some single family, but never integrated. If there were to be a problem with apart- ments being located next to single family dwellings, that would be taken into consideration at the time of design. When single family already exists in an area that is zoned for multifamily or adjacent to multifamily, this will happen. Commissioner Lambert wished to know what percentage of the dwellings must be single family dwellings. Mr. Heiser responded that there was no percentage mix that had been allocated. Commissioner Lambert asked if they could have a PUD with one single family dwelling and have the remaining units as multifamily dwellings. Mr. Heiser pointed out that this would be subject to public review and debate. He felt that the Planning Department would strive for a reasonable mix, and • that one unit would not be sufficient to be considered a mix. -4- Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 30,1985 Mr. Harris responded that he would report to the Hearing Examiner in a case of this type to find out if the spirit of the ordinance was being met. Commissioner Ward felt that the ideal situation would be to have a good mix-- a good interrelationship between single family and multifamily. He felt that was the purpose of a PUD. Mr. Heiser added that when there was a mix, then a bonus could be achieved. Commissioner Ward agreed. Developers would need to take into consideration the sellingof single family residences to individuals who would be willing 9 Y 9 to live next to a multifamily development. Commissioner Lambert felt that these individuals would be difficult to find. Mr. Harris explained that the Meridian Valley Country Club Estates was an example of this arrangement. They have built expensive, single family homes, and then a row of townhouses was constructed beside the Country Club. This appears to be a workable arrangement. He felt that the larger the site, the easier it would be to make a combination arrangement. Commissioner Anderson explained that the feeling in a single family home is • that all the space up to the fence belongs to the resident, whereas in a multiple family dwelling,the grounds are common to all the residents. He felt that it would be easier to sell multifamily homes if no single family dwellings were in the development. Commissioner Lambert added that the apartment dweller had control of the space in the immediate apartment only, not the yard or surrounding area. This must be shared. He wondered how people living in a single family residential area would accept "apartment dwellers. " Commissioner Spier stated that if a person were buying a single family home in a PUD, then the purchaser would know what is going to exist there. She reminded the Commission that there seemed to be a preponderance of multifamily dwellings being built in Kent and much fewer single family homes. She had understood that the idea was to try to make more of a mixture of housing again so that the emphasis should be more on single family homes in Kent. Mr. Harris agreed, but if the developer had property that was zoned multifamily, he could develop without including single family homes. He wouldn 't need to go to the City for a PUD, because a multifamily zoning designation allows dispersal of the units throughout the site. It ' s the single family that create the cookie-cutter, rigid outlines of lots. The classic PUD would be a single family PUD. Because of the present market and probably the future also, this is not likely, because the payoff for the developer would be the higher density part of the PUD. He did not feel that the City of Kent would be totally multifamily in the future. He felt this was unrealistic and that there would • be and should be a mix of housing in the City of Kent. By allowing a PUD to be simply multifamily would be perpetuating the mix. The bonus would then be given for doing what could be done under multifamily zoning, which thwarts the idea of a PUD. -5- i Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 1985 Commissioner Lambert responded that it was unfortunate that a bonus for single family PUD (of executive-type homes of which Kent was lacking) could not be given. Mr. Harris responded that housing is an ever-changing market. It appears at the moment that it is changing back towards more single family dwellings. Mr. Heiser commented that a PUD could be developed in a single family zone with nothing but single family housing. A bonus could be achieved by preserv- ing wetlands or steep slopes. Mr. Raul Ramos, Land America Corporation, representing the Lakes, pointed out that the City of Kent approved the Lakes Rezone with a master plan. One of the conditions was that the Lakes would be allowed to use the PUD ordinance to maximize density on certain portions of the property. This is stated in the conditions of the rezone. The master plan contained a variety of multi- family housing types but did not contain any single family housing. It is not economically feasible in this development to have single family housing. He emphasized thatthe Lakes has an approved master plan and that the Planning Department monitors it as it goes through each phase of the development process. t There are apartments, condominiums, low-rise condominiums, townhouses, and they are proposing to have patio-type homes which would probably be the closest approximation to single family homes. The Lakes have what they feel is a • variety of housing types, although there is no classic single family home con- struction. In a sense one of the major premises of the PUD ordinance is to encourage a variety of housing types. Since they have an approved master plan and have a variety of multifamily housing types, he felt they basically met the spirit of the new PUD ordinance. He also mentioned a condition in the rezone which he wished would remain intact. He agreed with Commissioner Anderson regarding the phrase "prior to 1985. " He felt he was being singled out and that others would be excluded, and he did not like this feeling. He t felt other developers should have the same opportunity. He hoped that the Commission would agree with the proposed amendment but encouraged them to remove the "prior to 1985. " Commissioner Ward responded that he understood that this amendment was written to help his project. Mr. Ramos stated that the Lakes has a PUD ordinance at the present time which they can utilize to increase the density over certain portions of the property as it developed. Their wish is to keep this intact. Commissioner Ward asked how "prior to 1985" affected the Lakes operation. Mr. Ramos responded that they received their rezone approval prior to 1985. If "prior to 1985" is included, they would be the only one who would be able to use that particular exception, as Mr. Anderson had pointed out. This seemed to be fair to them but unfair to others who might have a project similar to their project in the future. Mr. Ward contended that a definite starting time was needed. -6- 1 Kent Planning Commission Minutes April 30, 1985 Mr. Ramos agreed that he could live with the proposed amendment. Commissioner Ward felt that it singled them out and they should be singled out. That was the reason this was included and there was nothing wrong if it did not s hinder what he was trying to do. Mr. Ramos agreed that it did not hinder anything they were trying to do. Commissioner Spier reminded him that this was what they were trying to avoid. Commissioner Ward added that the Commission was trying to avoid a blank check. Commissioner Anderson MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. u� Commissioner Anderson stated that an approved master plan gives the Planning Department the controls to decide whether a piece of property can be used as a PUD and still be allowed not to have single family units on it. If "prior to 1985" were taken out of the exception, a person who would desire to have a PUD with no single family units would be required to submit a master plan. If the master plan were turned down, then, in effect, the exception would not take place. The person must then file for a PUD with single family. Commissioner Spier felt that part of the purpose of this was to start ensuring that along with the multifamily dwellings there was going to be some single family dwellings. She felt they would be diverting the purpose if more exceptions were included. Commissioner felt that perhaps someone would come along with a better plan. Commissioner Spier wondered how it could be a better plan if the Commission was saying that they want to have more single family homes and the developer makes plans without including this type of home. Mr. Harris pointed out the following from the bottom of page 2: A PUD must contain a mixture of dwelling types. If multifamily dwellings are to be constructed in a PUD, then there must be a mix of other dwelling types, including single family residential . A development composed entirely of multifamily units shall not be considered as a PUD. Such a development shall only be permitted in the appropriate multifamily zoning district and is not eligible for the incentives pro- vided in the PUD regulations. Commissioner Lambert commented that he was not against a mixture, but if a a duplex were built instead of two single family homes, there would be more • open space and construction costs would be less. -7- Kent Planning Commission Minutes . April 30, 1985 Commissioner Ward wanted to encourage an interrelationship between multifamily and single family residences in a given area. Commissioner Lambert reminded the Commissioners of the many persons they had heard at hearings who did not wish to live adjacent to different housing types. Commissioner Spier responded that if the development had been planned, then the people who bought into the development would know what would be taking place in the area. Chairman Cullen MOVED to accept as proposed the Planning Department's draft Planned Unit Development/Mixed Use Development ordinance presented at this hearing. Commissioner Spier SECONDED the motion. Motion carried with Commis- sioners Anderson and Lambert opposing the motion. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Anderson MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Lambert SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8: 10 p.m. Respectfully, submitted, 4JamesP. Narris , Secretary -8-