Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 01/25/1988
0 s KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE a� � 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 S19CONSWO the motion. Motion carried4 Jim Harris distributed the Kent 2000 report and suggested that it be placed on the Commission docket in February. Beceu of Washington's Birthday holiday on February 15, the February P41aming Commission workshop will be held on February 22 (with a TAi , Force meeting scheduled at 6:30 followed by the regular workshop , 7:30 PM) . The February Planning Commission public hearing will bo � ,eld on February 29, 1988. MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Chairman Badger opened the public hearing. Dan Stroh described �the proposed amendments and stated their purpose. Xr4,, Stroh identified in the staff, roport 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-Viractor discretion in requiring an alternative screening method if' b*rming 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 developent 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 98,055, represented the Shelter Corporation. Mr. Combs congratul,atedlij,etaff on their proposal. Dennis Riebe, Architect for Centron, 3025 - 112th Aiaitel NE, Bellevue, WA thanked staff for allowing him to be involved 1in the process of examining the proposed amendments. Mr. Riebe supports Administrative Design Review (ADR) and suggested the Planning Comm*:,scion 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 Otandards, e.g. , parking, landscaping, building separations within t$ew.u. ite. 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 reducer, 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, ted 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 Ahe multifamily development standards. Mr. Stroh added staff needs to ,00dress 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 y 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 wkth within the site and #ts 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. i 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. M y submitted, Jam P. Hal-rid, Secretary b � � KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUT ,,P 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 iw 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 b);i�f update on the recent multifamily activity in the city. We are sbOwi pg, 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.1,q a big chunk of new multifamily development that, those that have already got their permits of course, their building permits would not be, agfected by the density reduction. Those that are within the SEPA prosy and have not yet got their building permits would presumably. Jgstww4nted 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 singlp family areas. This should be taken together with efforts that the ciW .,s undertaking and has undertaken to protect and increase single f ily 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 ,got;ten 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 were trying to get at+,, his to try to reestablish some balance in the housing options and a4�a some people have a choice. Those who want to live in multifamily Vuuld still have } �I 1 Y 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 belie 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 ad long now, that it really would be very desirable to, to bring some rolution 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 Fo ner: There isn't a sunset clause in here is there? Mr. Stroh: The proposal doesn't halte any sunset clause in it. Chairman Badger: Alright, Dan. rThank you. On the sign-up sheet, let's, again let's try to follow tfte same proposition, about 7 minutes or so if you can. The first name ", 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 S PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT w MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 about here and I kind of got cult in half and so II;a going to take the opportunity to refer back to some of my comments preViapsly and to kind of try and tie it together. I believe I understano,t ;, jogic that the City of Kent is trying to proceed in in terms of this cnsity reduction question. So many years ago this community throughri .. processes at that time allowed themselves the opportunity to put ,nu*rus amounts of multifamily development here. That happened to be tbe4,p6licy that was under consideration at that time and was adopted -qff .c�Ally, legally within your documents. Many people, property owTwXs,, friends and neighbors of yours, purchased property on the basi%,,o ,<those plans and policies that the City of Kent i�hdicated that they wg* to propagate. Through time and through circumstances, the increase* urban activity, you've had a situation where you do have consider je,,i impact on those transportation networks both inside the city as well K', s 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 ear Builders is currently having, and don't get me wrong, I likq=king with good professionals and I think you have those people here,;,ina; your particular department, but I think there is a way of looking at, iisues and in our , opinion you cannot segregate the ,two issues. If you,iat ce a look at the height limitations that were put on in the standards,;} the landscaping and the setbacks, tie that together with the, soma' kind, of a across- , the-board reduction of 20%, which I have never under*toW at this point where the 20% reduction came from, and maybe staff ,c4p, clarify that for me, maybe I have missed that information somewhere,1,a14pnq the line, to do that in a manner whereby you create a situation, V ,prd these people who have relied upon this policy and direction that he, City of Kent has had for years and to do it in a manner that toes not, in my opinion, amount to full discussion of a very, very "t matter, is not quite right. I don't mean that to be very cri�e of the City of Rent, I mean that from the standpoint of the human star), of people who live in this area who have purchased property on fi p basis of good faith from the plans and zoning designations that , k4yoi been on this area for years. So, from that standpoint, the secolnd , tssue that I'll get to then is density, of course. And I would like toix d for you my concerns. Second and still of concern to the Seattiq, Master Builders Association is the overall question of a density reduction by some 20% in all multifamily zones. Resolution Number 123 pe l ,y the Council on December 1, 1986 is where that came from, generally,. II don't think that I have to quote it to you;. they have a copy q t, l#ere for you. In our letter of December 14, 1087 this issue was ra As of this date, very little discussion hap been undertaken by, staff or by , the Planning Commission. At the January 11, 1988� vwrkjsession, your staff handed out some basic information about , mult_4 am ly activity , during 187 as well as statistical analysis of the e#6 units. Plus they did the red book prior to this time and as Da;►,, 11:, , it had been hanging around for quite awhile, and the alternatis,�",' Were in there, 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 You will recall it is the Associatidn's position that the increasing setbacks, limiting heights apt' well as increasing landscaping requirements, density in multifamily areas are being reduced in the City of Kent. Even though you psed that this evening, it is still our opinion that you are reducing {ithose densities in some form. Now, to what extent that is, I think that's a debatable question. It 'is our professional opinion that the mint-tun lot sizes in your zoning code, which determines density, have ico ' 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 Hone 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.' d©cument, it does not 'require 'that you change that at the time you chge your regulatory ordinances which are the zoning ordinance in thin' case. It's not mandatory; it's suggested by state law that it be v,"d 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 takes it in, rather than doing it in a sedimental-type approach. At this time the Seattle Master Builders Association, for reasons cited, d*it 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 'ate, request it in this letter. I guess the one comment I would make,.,'-is that in Resolution 123, Section 1, the City Council hereby declar its intent to establish a goal of achieving an average density re7tction 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., iau that the standards that you -just adopted reduce density without chi Bing the Comprehensive Plan. I do not see this being done in a unifor*; 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 f©el'u' s" 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 wil: 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 q% stion, is that in fact the case? 4 d'7 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES J! VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT I � MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 � Mr. Harris: Well, we take our letter that you reco eod to the City Council in a normal manner. They then receive it and 'idolll -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 ;/its on and have another hearing. It is not in our hands here to say i)hat 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 underst, xipal that this is a public hearing, if they're going to take action as 1 understand it, potentially next week, a week from, what is it, tomorrow? today?, a week from tomorrow, Tuesday, that they should have off rded to them the complete record to make a recommendation from this ,kanning 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 b,e,';' a le to make a reasonable decision, whether it's denial or approval o •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 �irecommendation? 11 i Mr. Harris: Let me just say that the, the proceduree 't'hat the Council takes when they receive either a Hearing ExaZir`,sr� or Planning Commission or Human Services Commission recommendxation� is a set of minutes that will be extrapolated out of the, out of • he' 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 Dearing Examiner decision. Then the person must pay for a transcript oi 'the, of the. Mr. Frazier: OK w Chairman Badger: In particular, then, it would behocci 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 thee `old Lucky Store when I was in high school, and I remember several ye&Xs ago they were talking about the infilling of the urban areas. That eventually this outward growth was going to slow down and the growth uld then start to concentrate back into the developed areas and y* 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 preaervation and not be aesthetically offensive. I believe it is possible to implement those three, or implement procedures that would agopmplish taking care of those three concerns and the side benefit would be to obtain the 20% reduction from the maximum theoretical buildout uer 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 opts ns 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 tb#t you consider enacting a system under which developers would pay up front their fair share of the cost of providing increased services ne0+sssitated 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 ya,. MULTIFAMILY DENSITYi } ; January 25, 1988 was challenged. They, they wanted to come up wits ;, environmental ordinance to somehow make developers pay the costs, ,o, ', the impacts on the environment and in the park, system. And they hg4 ,A, bad experience with that. But, now this fair share concept is legally defensible if you do your drafting properly and you implement it p apply. Your city has already used a type of this fair sha ,� ' ' , papept in your transportation plan, which by the way, I consider, # excellent plan, where you have a fair share concept for your ,. st^west traffic corridors, where the developers will not protest the ,formation of the local improvement district at a future time, and yoq, ,pl;a'nners 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 corwept to address the Council ' s concern about the effect of deyelopment on your infrastructure and do it directly, up front. Say ,=th$j is what we are doing, and this is how we do it, rather than try and, gp it with a shot- gun approach, and say, well, we will across the b©aqrcl,,�,reduce densities 20% or graduated scale. You're not really addrg the Council's concern. I think this is a mpre appropriate way to ,do •it and from a developer's standpoint, I'll step over here and pu4t on imy 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 lan,,;fpr that, rather than try to do it through the back door by reduc n tepsity. Because you don't really accomplish it. You're still goinT, to have to deal with the infrastructure with a .19 unit per acre dgvplPpment as opposed to a 20.7 unit per acre or 22 unit per acre, you're; sti11 going to have the impact. It just may be a couple units less but, t4�ejimpact's still there. So I would ask that you consider studying t#pt i and there are, there are many municipalities that are studying thatF,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 reducti „ ip the multifamily densities, but by encouraging single family construction. If you decrease the density, let's say, from 23 units per alt ,',to 19 units per acre, you still visually have an apartment complex,,t t �may have 2 or 3 less units in it, but you still have an apartalt,,, gomplex and you haven't really addressed what the Council is real;!y ,P0A erned about and that is keeping the proper ratio, preserving the ng borhoods, your single family neighborhoods. I think that the key, y Xo address this directly again is not the shot-gun approach or the.;, 1 reduction of the densities in multifamily, but use Option D rah ks one that was suggested by your, your planners in their multifaa7 study. And, and use that concept where you encourage single fan ' :;: evelopment, if that's what the Council wants, then, then let's n©t ;uae the shot-gun approach because you still are going to have an Apa;1 unit in the -single family house, and the apartment may have a ;c pl;e less units in it but you haven't increased the houses, and I tl4n �i:tibat's where your Council is expressing its concern. Option ,Di , 4,; 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 sate 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 1-ithink more adequately address this concern head on than does the proposal that is being recommended by your planners. Option C, in my mid# 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 Oft 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 Is an area we want to keep single family. " Well, I liked the idea then. I was disjointed, but it was a good concept to have low, medium-income single fdZily 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 multifa 'ly in those areas. That is a good concept that hits the nail on th4l' h,ead and does not do a shot-gun approach. The other option, that 104s Option C. The other option is Option F and this is a reduction %sed on environmental constraints. This is a reduction that will more "likely than not automatically take place. And that's something you aid 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 environme��. one is a logical thing to carry out the concerns of the Council. It-*iill probably occur anyway and you will end up with a density reduction ',of 31.61%. That's not what the Council was after. You 'should addiVAs 'it again head on, use Option F, implement it, and you'll, you'll gdt' 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 th*"4,board. In the project I looked at there was an effect on the ftns:ty. The last issue is the 20% reduction. I submit that one of t benefits of the above- proposals and you can quote some numbers bec&Wm it's, it's in- the documents you have, is that you specifically adcss- each concern with a specific solution while at the same time the vide benefit is you're going to "get your 20% reduction, but you've kin, you've been honest in your approach. I strongly encourage you -tq` use this technique as opposed to the shot-gun approach because, agairi;' it does not directly address the concerns. But there is another iis'A* that no one has brought up and that is that you may want to substi0itially reduce multifamily in some areas and actually consider increasing the density in others. An 8 ` J PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT , MULTIFAMILY DENSITY , , January 25, 1988 example of a substantial reduction is the area s®t�,.,, forth in your housing and community development neighborhood strq y,area. You do an across-the-board reduction can a graduated . sca, ja,,� y�u stall have multiple family in the area that you wanted to ag only single family. You haven't addressed the issue. The otr , issue is the intensive multifamily areas. The regional transport;44oni ,plan prepared by the Puget Sound Council of Governments encourages,,�rc4nstruction of housing close to rapid transit hand hard rail termina*.i You are not doing that by the proposal that they have made, Th , March 26, 1987 transit amendment to the regional transportation glan9 recommends that land use planners seek to minimize future transporta_,on problems by encouraging the development of, housing near empip # centers and logically it should be near where they can get ,#-o,, „hose employment centers with the least use of ,single occupancy vahli�les. In other words, put your dense housing near where the rail =,ta3*inals 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 ern the train and get to Seattle and Tacoma, , maybe go as far as Ol ia. Your plan doesn't address that. If you lgok at intense areas.,,bf, 4tifamily, you want to get the people close to the rails, otherwise ©u're defeating the purpose. You're going to end up with a gridlecX . ygtem. As late as today, the mayors of the City of Bellevue, Eiverjattl, Tacoma and Seattle met on the radio, and ,,,I don't know if zany f_'`O you had the opportunity to hear that broadcast. I did and wa$,,'ttas#inftted because,- guess what they discussed? Moss transit, and oll '-the development problems that cities are going to have in the next ;,* to $© years. One of the things that came up was the light rail system they're going to be proposing. And to do an across-the-board d , reduction is counter productive for those goals. They're taliq g,;iablout a massive gridlock system unless we do something. And I t4jnk'�;ypu now have a golden opportunity to address that through this issue. You should encourage the maintenance of high density in., the valley floor because that's where the rail system is going to go. ��,'Xpqically there is a right of way that already ,exists, and that's whegt4p it's going to be. This, the proposal does not address that. to ;conclusion, Mr. Stroh indicated to you, and I have the utmost, fraspect for this gentleman because I've used his thoughts for my own ,,�gl�ents, but he indicated to you that this matte is- over a year old , dlthat you need to get some action on 4t. I agree that you need to ;,g .#ome action on it, but you must remember that they've had it a yes,;. t only got to the public's eye in the middle of November. The , d has only had this concept two months. And this is a major issue fp ,your city. And I think it needs to be looked at especially if you',akgging to do it, do it right and address all the ,,issues. It's, I ono age you not to take the easy way out by recommending the across-t.h 4rd, mindless,, 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITYY 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 r*duction 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 checked today, does meet the development standards you just a*moved because it's going to be a quality project regardless. And ern if you go with the worst density proposal these guys could drum up, '"I re still going to be able to do our project, so what 1, what I 'm pVoposing here is something that is good for your city and goad for the area. My client wanted me here anyway but their project is a goad 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? 411 right, the next gentleman, Mike Spence. Mr. Spence: Mike Spence with the:'teattle-King County Association of Realtors. I've given you my ad ess in the previous proceedings. That's kind of a tough act to ,`foliow here. I think both of my predecessors have said the same thi4gs 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 'eouple of concerns about the blanket 20% reduction too. Number one iS just, number one is what I stated earlier about the, the real effect,lbn property values and tax base and I think people who have acquired property under a� certain level ok land use, I, I don't think it's fair toi .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 affe,6ts the supply and demand curves of affordable housing and I think thatI 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 predecossors talked about at, great length, is the fact that there are seal other alternatives out there. There's, there's several groups amass the state and, &cross the Puget Sound region that are looking at _ ftrastructure finance. The Seattle- King County Economic Development 06uncil is doing some work on that. It is my understanding that there'-s a task force here in ,the City of Kent that's looking at a road W,tigation ordinance.' A bill was introduced in the legislature down?;:,Iin Olympia last Friday dealing with road mitigation. So we would urgd�.Jrou 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 bistricts and some local improvement districts, road improvement distrittis, and, and as Amy predecessor said though, the, the shifting trend into+ perhaps light rail or bus, I think 10 14, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT ''`'` " MULTIFAMILY DENSITY ``° January 25, 1988 all should be, should be figured into this, and, and,, end' we would just request that you plan the density of the City of Kent iaround some good thought as to what's going to happen in the future,, lath economically and infrastructurally, so I will say no more than tt,,,,r !Thank you. Chairman Badger: Thank you Michael. David Halinen., ;.z Mr. Halinen: Chairman, members of the Commission., y name is David Halinen. My address is 3015 - 112th Avenue NE, Sui 203, Bellevue 98004. I am here tonight on behalf of the Wright Group,, developer of multifamily housing in the Kent and adjoining South, County area. I want to join in with Mr. Combs as to the remark, t he made. He stole most of my thunder regarding the, he usiect t1,y4 ,, term shot-gun approach. I was going to use, the term overly or, essively broad brush as to the current density ,reduction proposal you,, 'e before you. I, I think it is quite appropriate to try to focus r4 specifically, with the specific concerns that were raised by th* ,.Council when it considered the, the (unclear) , the (unclear) subject,_i#1 ,D6cember 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 ,,,.tbe 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 e , city that are experiencing relative, or relatively greater lack ' qt infrastructure problems than others. I would surmise, and I stand be corrected, that probably some of the outlying areas probably of, t last Hill area perhaps where there I ve been, as I understand it, may,;,of the concerns expressed about the burgeoning multifamily develop 'they may well have a, more of an urgency in terms of infrastructure;, ublic service concerns. By using the approach that Mr. Combs sugoeg a in trying to focus on some of the other possibilities for dressing these underlying concerns, we'd be able to, for example, ,aci,'e a effectively the density reduction on the, , on the East Hill, p h�ps leave the density alone in other areas of the city or, or it , be appropriate to actually increase densities especially in lightpo tkhe light rail rapid transit possibilities that the future may bt forth for the community. With that, I think I'll adjourn up 8 you have any questions. Thank you. Chairman Badger: Thank you. Dan, would you likeu.� pave any more comment tonight? ,'Y Dan Stroh: I would. Thank you. There were a lot . o iconcerns raised tonight and that's great because we really wanted to gd' ,� an opportunity to hear some concerns that people had about the Apr seal. It is a broad-brush proposal and it does go very, has sD*�' Major impacts, there's no question about that. I'm trying to re,pcn '; point by point ' f 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 to some of the concerns that -ere 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 this Comprehensive Plan and directives. The Comprehensive Plan was (unolear) of course in the original Resolution 1123 and that was consid*red 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 Misting 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 t0 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' + omprehensive Plan that we think the current proposal does in fact sati*fy and help to further. A big one for instance is in the Housing-' ' Element insuring an adequate and balanced supply of housing units 6ffering 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 Co*prehensive Plan and that for the current proposal an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan really isn't necessary, or called for. Mr. Cobs raised a number of points that I think are, are quite important. Going over the concerns that Council actually raised in Resolution 112 , 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 tram. The 20% came from Council and we're trying to respond to the 4pproach and the, the kind of, of direction that the Council actuallf asked us to go in. So the 20% is not just something the Planning D iartment invented in order to carry out these three objectives. It 66mds from the Council and it's, we tried to look at ways of achieing those objectives in the most reasonable way while accomplishi"� 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 politm and our other public services, on our transportation networks, on out' water and sewer system as we strive to deal with this incredible multifamily growth. The development impact fees I think possibly iii a viable concept but not as an alternative to this, perhaps on, Pp of this. As Mr. Combs himself said, even if we were to accompli 20%- reduction, we would still have all the development impacts that tie 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. Sq that it may be that, that's an approach the city, you know, will ha to look at in broadening. Right now we get (unclear) transp,0rt tign mitigation conditions. We are able to get some development s that way to generate some money to begin to take care of 1*4 transportation problems we have. We may need ito broaden that, bu y r'a'don't really see it as an alternative to displace the 20% reduction tIwe are trying to get at here. We also with 20% reduction will have„$a,' a significant' impact on reducing those infrastructure needs or at 04'st' the pace that we're having to try to deal with them as the multtf .:ily comes in at the rate that it's been coming in in recent ye4*0.; 'on the single family versus multifamily objective the Council ha ,, !ood. We, we're doing a couple things ,on that front other than just,"". ' reduction, because the 20% reduction itself doesn't really a4CO �.ish this goal all by itself. The Council asked us to do the m ;t a illy reduction and look at ways to encourage single family and �� (kind of got a list, and I won't go through it now, but I kind10c have a list of things that the city has done in the recent past tb" trIr to encourage single family development and try to retain the ekisG` single family development that we now have in the city. So } it's not an either/or kind of thing but that single family objep 'v is something that we're trying to approach on top of the across - , 0,-board density reduction. The third objective, the, the neighboih dlpreservation, keeping the integrity of the existing neighborhoodc: " think does tie in with the single family versus multifamily ratio ,'' 'the impact that multifamily development has on single families, " lei higher those densities are, the more impact that there is. In th�e'�e1oss-the-board density reduction approach, where you do have exists 4 neighborhoods that are being significantly impacted by the multifaZ' , , this is not going to cut out all impact, just as the propdsca Tou passed in development standards is not going to cut out all ` mom , but it will have a role to play, and an important role to play. Vth',ink what we're trying to here is bring our densities, in part we''re''I'toing to bring our densities into line with the norm in this area. '+; ,And as we have talked about at some earlier meeting, if you compkt ,''to Auburn, if you compare us to the county, Renton, if you comps.fit .,00}}-to other area localities, our maximum density ceilings in comparable'.,�,,4 �tricts are on the high side. Auburn took a much more aggressive app oh at reducing multifamily development. Their maximum density , iling in their maximum multifamily district is now 18 units to the' "ei re. Ours is still 40. Now Auburn is not the model of what '„p is in this ( y but just area. Auburn, Auburn, unclear ` and the are not ', ��' ;, rtn, , to give you an example of another community that wetita1 further than we're going, that's the community directly south „+df 04 So that, I think that the across-the-board density reduction Will have a significant impact on all three of these objec iv "but it won't accomplish anything all by itself. Neither will else that's NA i 13 x PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 been proposed. It's kind of a estaing 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 Opmplementing it. Just a couple of other points. Option F, deals ' with reduction by environmental constraints. We looked at that inhe report, to be honest and to face the point that there are some sitei,,,that are constrained by the, as we pointed out about the last issue, =oome sites that are constrained by the natural features that mean ko* can't get the tensity ceilings on them no matter what you did. And;.,we pointed that out in the report. We tried to make a calculation on haw much of the theoretical buildout potential those environmentally co", trained sites actually represented. 11.4% I think, is what the red rep+gt shows. I don't think the Council was talking about the 20% reducti±'n being accomplished by, you know, really what's a phantom. That den ity never existed really. The red report says that density, you knoiO,, was never really there because, because of steep slopes, drainae, other kinds of environmental problems, you can never could devel9p that. If we were to pretend like we're taking action by saying we' d going to implement Option F, we haven't done anything, that de fact* density that really doesn't exist. We did try to document that in the d report, in all fairness, to show that that was land that was zoned 4tifamily. We tried to account for all the multifamily land in the cl*y, but I don't think that's a real density. And taking action to .rez6he that land to some other district really would . not be a very meaniful action to take. A couple of other points made by some other 41)eakers. 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 ting tonight is an across-the-board approach designed to (unclear) ok, what we're looking at tonight, designed to accomplish some thine'} the Council has asked us to do, designed to bring us in line wi' other localities, it would have significant, immediate effect. ItIO. not an end point. In the future, there's always going to be 'adjust Oats that are being made. We are going to be bringing new land into th.e city. The annexation of the new land will be associated with new �!4nnexation zoning for these areas. Some of these may in fact be'suit�pe for multifamily. Others might be suitable for single fimily.r But it'r'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 int structure needs and -services needs, it may be that there may be areas down in the valley that where additional multifamily zoning would'`oe, 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!•#; not the end point. And this is going to be a shifting thing as ,ccnsiderations are made and as the Comprehensive Plan is a kind of a -#ynamic kind of document (unclear) . We'll follow that. This is not ark;;;{end point and I can see adjustments being made on down the road, where in fact we may be wanting to reduce 14 111 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT 4 I 1 i r,. MULTIFAMILY DENSITY ' January 25, 1988 densities further in some areas, maybe rezone enti, ± for multifamily in some areas, on down the road. But this is the ow that, that will have a significant impact at this time. mod; it's not an unreasonable action. It's well thought out I be�L ve. It's well documented; we've done some significant studies on it, ,t;trlying 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 talks g, 'about earlier, this 888 units plus 1200 and some units under SEPA. Ymh might say we are looking at somewhere between 800 and a thous units being permitted each year, so I don't know if we want to ntinue to study this and study this and study this, before we really t a e any action. I could say, I think I'll, unless you have some queW;ir a,,, ' 1 Chairman Badger: Dan, in particular, how did Auburn q4 its dawn to 18 units per acre? What did they do, actually rezone? Mr. Stroh: Auburn undertook a major Comprehensive.j Plan amendment (unclear) September 1986. They ,were trying as, thi*, q; the best I know what went on, they were trying to, there was strori' ,concern there raised about preservation of single family. AO,4410, .as I say, experienced the same thing we did in going from a prodpaainantly single family into predominantly, multifamily, where by 1,984 they were 55% multifamily or over 55% I believe they said. So ,,#4oy, they very drastically set up some districts where they said that. their primary, in fact, they say their primary ,focus in their resigen�i*j development is towards single family. Ano I believe they ti, t least one district where multifamily is al�lowed as a conditiono�lg,I,'Usa at somewhat less than 18 units to the acre. It may, I'm not she;,#4,t that figure is but the only one where it's allowed outright istwthis district where it's allowed at 18 units to the acre. After 'they finished their Comprehensive Plan amendment , then they went through; a �f"tng amendment and I 'm not, I don't know the Whole history of, of;, n ;fact somebody else, one of the other planners here may be more fg*tXior with that, but they, they went very aggressively after trying, tq,!!pxteserve single family. They said that they were both trying to prosoWe,isingle family and restore the, the family orientation of the city, ''�0,' that they went after this very, very aggressively in the way that, Chairman Badger: I still didn,lt really under � rhethar they downzoned the land. � Mr. Stroh: Yea, and I don't know the answer to t, jotw' ,I ,think they must have because I can't imagine that in, some people *'e been in the area longer than I have, but they, they must ,Akte ;head much more intensive multifamily districts prior to that, that „oc ion, because I$ is, is, there's no community in this area I'm aware qgg , of has that as a ceiling except for Auburn. The norm I would say in t�s area is more 15 Sri T PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 like, for your highest density zorM' it's more like 34, and for your middle density zone, the number's -a :dot more like 18 to 20. Mr. ward: Did, does anyone know aiV,to what Auburn accomplished there? Their aim? Mr. Stroh: I think it's kind of Gaily to. Mr. ward: Did it stop development tn Auburn? r. Stroh: I think it's kind of 90mly to say. Auburn's kind of in a, in an interesting position becaud ° they're so far south they don't, they're not getting all -this multifamily pressure. .,� , Mr ward: I 'm doing a fantastic jot of building in Auburn. I was trying to be facetious. r. Stroh: They are not growing a4-jtast as Rent is. Mr. ward: No, I know. (Unclear) they stopped development. Mr. Stroh: well, I don't think thby hopped development either, but I am not, not the best person to tell;you what's been gbing on there. Chairman Badggr: Alright. I wtftld 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, the° cif you have indicated. Let's go in the order that we did before. ry, you were' first. I'll give, you about a minute or two for your cozMhts. Mr. Frazier: Last time I got thi seconds. I'll take two or three minutes though. I have a couple- 4f°� questions if I can, direct them to you and maybe you can direct theft ak to staff, if that Mould be the procedure you'd like to, to utiliz4 -°' I heed to know if, if there's not going to be a significant discussi ' of the Comprehensive Plan and its role to play in the , developpment -*mess in the Dent area,, and it's going to be dealt with in ` a, a wetter of years by the multifamily reduction. If it in fact takes place at 20% as is being proposed, is in fact, this going tip be a change'6f significance, enough significance or maybe no significance at all as ,far as the city is concerned.? Is it considered a non-project under thoi; SIPA rules and would there have to be a Declaration of Nonsignifidanci�,issued? Mr. Harris: Just to answer that-, I ` think, we've already done that, haven't Ve? It's a Declaration of Nonsignificanc4 ,and since it's a non-project situation. V,T' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ''' VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 Mr. Frazier: I objected to that in the very first . ter 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 i ficance in the development strategy for a community that chang4g; o ''this magnitude that should have been a declaration of, of, shouid, ;�-` �reen an EIS on a non-project done and still IMould like to maii��,h "that for the record. I would suggest that there, you know the , `book as it'-s ' currently before you, is a pretty good document. �141,,si got a lot of basic facts in it and things of this nature, I agre ,that some of the , discussion about the things we're trying to achieve,',,' terms of the environments in their community and Dan read some -dht ose. I would suggest though that with, because of the major ict that this proposal has before you, and I hope you understand lit is a major impact, that it is being viewed as where is the justi .cation for the 20% reduction; where did that " figure come from; does the city understand the impact of that particular reduction'�'`,T Mould suggest, with all due respect to the elected officials, ' t they had a considerable amount of pressure put on them from 't (community for obvious reasons, they've been hit with a lot of deer N rat, that it's more of a political reduction there as oppoa®dt'"' " o�,' a technical reduction. And I believe that that is part of the reon why we would like to see an EIS done on this project and it be p " '. into a broader framework, rather than having it done in the manner' iot 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 , gisee more time on this particular issue by this Planning Ca i'i n because I understand it's the only one that's going to hd�d;, '; tblic hearing unless the Council decides to go for a public h .3n+ : We will be calling for a public hearing on ' this issue as oppos tIo not having a public, it's too important an issue for this c'OXVti and for the property owners and the impact it's going to have oii , Thank you. Chairman Badger: Thank you. Loren, did you wish a si pnd? Mr. Combs:, Just briefly your honor. ' Chairman Badger: Come forth. Mr. Combs: Thank you. I had to use "your honor" "4q ' would let me get back up here. I promise to be brief. I app d the position that your Planning Department is in because I've r, re trying to get through an idea that I honestly believe in anAd 'It understand sometimes why they don't move quite as quick as th4$'" ct ld. But I 've also sat up there and I hope you respect the request,°, u; take a little time and look at this proposal. You need to look at ; mandate under Resolution 1123. Mr. Stroh went through some of the, nos and said no we're addressing that one somewhere else, ' we car,' roass this one I J 17 i 14Fi � S PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 a, somewhere else. But Resolution 11; , said those were the concerns that the Council had that they wanted yofto consider and that's what you're here for. I respectfully ask you #.6 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 11 rs given to me by my client. I didn't think I was going to have to`,uze them but I think it's important at this stage that you understapd 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 omt some numbers. On my client's particular project, the lost opportunity cost, if you went with the broad brush approach, and assume ap- areato build to maximum density, is $621,000. Now I submit to yoWI;that you ought to be real careful when you start using a broad bru when you're talking about those kinds of numbers. And as one of thew gentlemen pointed out, you do have people that have bought land, mo `,-and pops or developers or whoever they are, they bought land with' an expectation of being able to realize the opportunity that this land ,afforAed given the existing zoning. You are talking about too big of numbero,to use a broad brush. Ms. Stoner: Would you define your term please? I bate to interrupt you but I don't think I am going " ,,-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 apartment complex, they will come up with a value and attach that to 'Tt,and that is the opportunity that can be created out of that piece cf ,ground. The lost opportunity then, is they no longer have the oppounity 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 sample 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 thalt were, if they wanted to build to maximum which they did not, but U, they were, under the -broad brush ., approach, the loss to them would, ve been $272,000 because you are taking the gravy. When you kn,6ck -�Tf the top, you're knocking off the gravy because they plug in thsii ,-,4cost, there's a certain basic cost that you have to incur, no matter hr itany you build, when you build 19 or 23. When; you knock off that , , � or that 18%, you're knocking off the profit because almost a, 100C,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, w n ,you're impacting, my client it's not going to affect that much because we're not building at maximum is r; PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT !,,' j 1 MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 density, but there are people out there that, ,^fit are extremely adversely impacting, too much so to use a broad b" . ',+*0d I ask you to consider it. I did it again, your honor, I'm so ''`t Chairman Badger: Loren, before you leave. Mr. Combs: Yes sir. Chairman Badger: Do you know anything about Auburn. tr4this area? Mr. Combs: I know a little bit your honor. Chairman Badger: Do you know, do you know if• hoy had zoning permitting higher than 18 units per acre before? i .' Mr. Combs: Yes they did. And many cities stillo4o* J�,Vgrr example, one of the cities I represent has zoning far in exceswott..�k4t, you have. 4 s��.� Chairman Badger: Did Auburn actually downzone that?'' l Mr. Combs: Well, that's a tricky term, your honor- 2 ' t 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 k , a different lettering, that that's technically a downzone, but'}*. , you've done is a downzone under the guise of a text change, b � iou then have taken a zone that was 23 units to the acre and chsnodl ,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 rswer questions, your honor. Thank you kindly. Chairman Badger: Thank you. Michael, did yoW,.,,Or,'' f vid wish any comments? Mr. Halinen: I've got a brief one. Chairman Badger: Good Mr. Halinen: Again, David Halinen for the recorMi would like to talk about two points, one last addressed by Mr. regarding the gravy quote, unquote element of a, a multifamily de lbpment project being tied into the, the last 'umber of units. rifOr ite an extent, that may be an over-simplification. I, I think it ' jM 'a valid point, but I think another element of that is that a 4' dr will not go 19 j III II PLMNING COMMISSION MINUT9S VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 forward with a project unless thew are profits to be made. That effectively will happen is that a of the projects will not happen and the effect on the Market is to lC $se► 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 wily 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 =6� 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'= Osited 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 suppcarting the mix, this proposal actually tends to inhibit the mix. What We're doing is squeezing down the relative densities between , single tami.ly and multifamily housing. I frankly can't logically understand how the. 20% reduction on multifamily housing In any way enhances the ;auix. So I, I think again it's symptomatic of the fact, that this - roposal 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 gt the matter tonight. Thank you. 9hairman Badger: Thank you very such. Commission, it's approaching ten o'clock. What will yqur procedure wish be for tonight? Do you wish to continue this -meeting, OontAnu+e the public hearing? (Unclear) ? Ms. Stoner: Mr. Chairman; you yar n to continue the public hearing until February? Chairman Bad=: Yes, go mead. �� a orner: I would like , to zakaj,,dust a comment, perhaps not on the public hearing but just based on tl*amendment itself. I don't know if this is an appropriate time to (unclear) . :fir. Harm: I guess we have a motjgln and a second so (unclear) Chaim adorer: We have a motion and a second (unclear), discussion tonight to continue. Does everyI fully understand there's been a motion and second make to continue- the public I hearing to the first available public hearing, opportunitV, date whether that's (unclear) Mr. Harris: We want an explicit dam, and that would be February 29th. Chairman Badger: to February 29th. I a0 r 16 A ill l 1 f- i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ''''' VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITYr '�°'�` 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 thil, �kstion? Mr. Ward: So called. Chairman Badger: All in favor of continuing the p4bl� c hearing until February 29th on the multifamily density issue? iV," ` !Opposed? One opposed (unclear) . I do so agtee that it's then: b �ike continued to February 29th. Is there anything further or I' . w+pu :`' to close public hearing? Mr. Harris: Well, I would like to Chairman Badger: It has been continued. oil , , Mr. Harris: I would like to suggest that on, now aii"y, r; 'February 22nd you are going to have your task force that nicIA-,. 'd like some direction from the Commission possibly on what you VOU 'i like from this staff concerning this matter for that work session,",'bq use if we just come back to � the public hearing on the 29th yowl+ got all this material that's before you I:ow, would you like t�6 gaff to do some: further review on the relationship to the Comp Pi � ;kOla�tiohship to n the ordinance? There are a numbir of items (uncleaiY, ai Ms. Stoner: I also think it would be helpful to h4ve �4erbatim minutes at that meeting so that we can go, back over the tis't �y we've heard tonight on this issue. ' Mr. Harris: And that will be done on the 22nd. y Chairman Badger: On the workshop date. Mr. Harris: OK, we'll do that. Mr. Ward: Jim, � Mr. Harris: Elmira Forner has some question that pi-lb**ty needs to be answered. (Unclear) Ms. Forner: I don't know if this is the approp;4t*,;,tine but it is dealing on this subject and that was kind of the. r6`' 21 i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 Mr. Ward: Why don't you go aad and say it and we'll make a determination. Ms. Forney: I guess I have not bee'n;,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. Cos -about, you know, the alternatives to our problem. The, the one thinq 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 sr 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 feex-- that in our Planning Department if we keep procrastinating, by the ti ,we finally decide , that all these neat things that we're supposed do to make this valley a nice, livable place, and we're going to eve light rail come down, and we're going to have, you know, all these;hplans and special places and we're going to have an industry here az+d 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 redwing the, the rapid growth to a manageable rate buys us some time V4, do the things that you people want done. And if we don't find t4me;,, ;theyIre 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 wot1d. 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 galley. 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 cats up is like and, and it's not , fun, so that's. Chairman Badger: Would you like stff to address any particular one of your comments for the workshop? Ms. Forney: No, I just. Chairman Badger: Would you like thei to address (unclear) 22 '4': ` PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 Ms. Forner: I think we need to keep this in perapo ,4, as a finger-- in-the-dike approach to addressing the problem. I dont, think, I think we need this in order to address the problems that. .ha ,� heen suggested to (unclear) Mr. Harris: Mr., Chairman. I would like to say !,, generally the testimony is in your hands now and all we wogjd jo is highlight anything that you would like. us, to highlight, for jAsi$pp0,e they relate, our action back to the ordinance, discuss our actioaj*,,rplation to the Comprehensive Plan in more detail. Points well tah�p epe except that we are advocating a staff report, a staff reoommeA4*tjm,, ,(unclear) 20% reduction in the manner that we put in the red boo);,, e. It's going to be up to you in your debate to determine if thattsi.�°. o way you want to go. Ads. Rudy: If we are going to continue this hearing; w*,, we are, can, we do something about limiting testimony in the n ,t�t,,mtossion to new testimony from new people so we don't rehash th® around 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 ij� , e ' have and read verbatim minutes from, from this, ,q' Ms. Rudv: It seems tome we've done that before. ; Ms. Stoner: Yea, I think it's a possibility. Chairman Badger: Are there any other comments? y. Mr. Ward: I want to say (unclear) I would like to, sta€f address some of the, some of the comments made in regard to .i, adherence to the Comprehensive Plan. , I thin, I think that's (Un'1 er) . 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 re rding the, the, the shot-gun approach (unclear) been suggested, th we have, have something, you know, regarding a status r of (unclear) transportation outlook looks for (unclear) I think-ii ;a ' an important point for consideration. I disagree with our C bere in this (unclear) it's much broader than that, I think tl' ,t,���`„�t a question has been raised and asked a number of times as to the 20% came from and I think one person said it and, and it, anc ' I think that we would have to (unclear) that if we want to control multifamily development that there are better ways of doing it a (unclear) ways 23 r' it ' i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT ` 11 i_� MULTIFAMILY DENSITY January 25, 1988 (unclear) first issue (unclear) we " voted upon. One personal comment I'd like to make is that, that s telly there's a lot of people out there who are, are against the ray growth and development as far as multifamily in the Rent area but` was surprised to see that none of them spoke tonight and that's one ronesti,on. I don't know whether we're not advertising strongly enough or whether basic people, John Q. Public, will come out and, I just �-thiak developers (unclear) but the people who are out there, who a saying that we are tired of the multifamily development in the aosa, who want to see it reduced, I would like to, I sure would like td ee6 them come up here and say that, but I haven't seen them tonight. - .-,find even though that, much testimony in the past has been given in workops 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 d4velopment (unclear) , I think the economy determines how development goes. I think we have a, a fantastic situation in Kent with tbo rapid growth and development than we have had in (unclear) and itlw,y,Aort of unusual and it's something that the, the (unclear) but every-tine you have development you are going to have, to have people. (Urfdlear) Chairman Badger: Is there any better way, Jim, of getting a newspaper article before our next. Hr- Harris: I, it's hard for me,,�to i 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 the '.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. turd: (unclear) M} f Rasoodtfully submitted, - r ' Jam P. Mai- is,, Secretary axC 3 24