Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 02/29/1988 ifs i go KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAR 9 1988 CITY OF KENO' February 29, 1988 1 CITY CLERK The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Badger at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, February 29, 1988, in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Badger, Chairman Linda Martinez, Vice Chairwoman Anne Biteman Russell E. Dunham Elmira Forner Greg Greenstreet Nancy Rudy Carol Stoner Raymond Ward 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. S,toner MOVED and MINUTES FOR JANUARY 25, 1988 Commissioner Word SECONDED the motion to approve the minutes of the January 25 , 1988 Planning Commission public hearing as presented. Motion carried. Jim Harris informed the Commissioners that a Planning Commission task force meeting is scheduled for March 21 at 6:30 PM to-be followed by a regular workshop session at 7:39 PM. On the agenda fbr, the task force meeting is a presentation by staff of all City of Kent comprehensive plans, including Fire, Transportation, Land Use, etc. The regularly- scheduled Planning Commission public hearing date, ,will be March 28th, provided there is an item to be heard. , RIVERBEND GOLF COURSE BRIDGE Chairman Badger opened the VARIANCE #SMV-88-1 public hear�n , ; on a request by the City of Kent Parks & Ti 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 29, 1988 Recreation Department for a variance from the Kent Shoreline Master Program to allow the construction of a bridge and impervious surface within 200 feet of the Green River Shoreline Corridor and 75 foot setback line from the centerline of the dike. These improvements are part of the proposed Riverbend Golf Course. Stephen Clifton presented the staff report. View foils were shown depicting the location of the site, zoning of the site and surrounding land uses. Mr. Clifton reviewed the designations for this site from the City-wide Comprehensive Plan, Valley Floor Plan and Shoreline Master Plan; he also reviewed the goals and policies of those plans relevant to the site and discussed how the proposed variance promotes those goals and policies. A Determination of Nonsignificance with mitigating conditions was issued for this project on January 7, 1988. The bridge will have no impact on the wetland and landscaping will be provided to soften the impacts of the bridge. Mr. Clifton described the conditions under which a variance from the Kent Shoreline Master Program canibe granted and the Findings of the Planning Department concerning those conditions. Staff recommends approval with conditions. In response to Commissioners Rudy and Forner, Mr. Clifton stated the bridge is for pedestrians and bicyclists and there is no separation provided between the two uses. Commissioner Ward questioned whether the purpose of the bridge wad to separate golf traffic from other traffic. Mr. Clifton responded that was correct and that the Meeker Bridge did not provide safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Further, adequate signage will be provided to notify motor vehicle traffic to slow down. Motorcycle access to the golf course was discussed. Commissioner Biteman questioned whether there were provisions for preventing vandalism. Neil Sullivan of the City of Kent Parks & Recreation Department stated the w®et side of the golf course would be fenced along Prager Road and gates would be locked at night. In response to Commissioner Dunhata, Mr. Sullivan confirmed that pedestrians and bicyclists who are ' not golfers could gain access from the east side. Commissioner Martinez MOVED and Commissioner Rudy SECONDED the motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Rudy MOVED and Commissioner Biteman SECONDED the motion to accept the City of Kent Parks and Recreation Department's request for variance. Motion carried. 2 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES T February 29 , 1988 MULTIFAMILY DENSITY (Cont'd) Chairman Badq,er opened the public hear,lr-4 Commissioners were allowed s4veral minutes to read lettero gubmitted to the record by 0:ea;ttle Master Builders Association and the Kent Chamber. o f ,Cpmmerce. Dan Stroh commented that the "Red Book" on multifamily „iensity had been submitted for award to the American Planning )on oiation/Planning Association of Washington. Mr. Stroh provided a synopsis of the history of this 4ssue and stated that it had received a great deal of public exposure, via newspaper editorials, as an issue in the recent election, a at , several public hearings and work sessions, at the Town Hall meet; g� and through Planning Department staff discussion with developers., The graduated scale reduction option was recommended for sever;-a, ,,'reasons: 1) it accomplishes the 20% reduction that the Council regVesjted, 2) it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Map, ' ) I it is equitable because all properties are affected, 4) plenty of research has been done on this option, and 5) it furthers the intended,j' public purposes stated in Resolution No. 1123, of a) neighborhood Oreservation, b) environmental suitability, c) reduction of impacts -on, infrastructure and public services and d) helping to provide A of housing opportunities. 0a In response to Commissioner Martinez' question, Mr: strdh stated that although the graduated scale reduction does not addee all the issues of Resolution #1123, it needs to be done as one measure of the solution; others things need to be done also, e.g. , developers need to help out with the infrastructure 'problem. Commissioner Ward asked why the figure of a 1120" reduction and what was the rationale of its application. Mr. Stroh stated that Council wanted the reduction impact to be significant but ,,nat too much as to preclude a reasonable and economic use of property. ,Jred Satterstrom added that 20% is the amount, a developer could earn, back through a P.U.D. , not that that was the reason behind the ,2P% "ei re, however. Mr. Stroh stated further that the graduated scale r�dution puts the most .reduction where the problem is the greatest. Co*ni',ssioner Forner added it had previously been stated that this 20% reduction would bring Kent's density more in line with other cities of comparO,le growth. In response to Commissioner Ward, Mr. Stroh stated tbat .,results of early work on growth rate showed Kent was absorbing a liher share of residential growth than its growth in population; graplhs,.,show Kent was getting more than its "share" of ' multifamily. 3 a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 29 . 1988 Larry Frazier, Seattle Master Builders Association, 2155 - 112th Avenue NE, Suite 100, Bellevue stated he has been against separating the issues of reduction in multifamily density and multifamily development standards. He further does not understand where the 20% figure came from and stated that a 20% reduction in the commercial and industrial areas, as in multifamily, would help reduce transportation impacts also. The City of Kent has encouraged commercial, industrial and multifamily development for years. Mr. Frazier questioned how to change a policy in a reasonable, measured fashion. He stated the 20% reduction cannot justify it. Mr. Frazier read into the record a letter to the Commission dated February 23, 1988 in which the Association objects to the process used in considering this issue and is concerned the City is not taking into consideration fiscal and other impacts to property owners. The Association supports an evaluation of individual areas whereby impacts of this dahsity reduction on transportation, neighborhoods, etc would be considered. He further states the current process is "open for legal littgation." Mr. Frazier urged the Commission to question this legislative policy change that does not have supporting documentation. In response to Commissioner 13ite*an, Mr. Frazier stated that even though land might not be develod, it was purchased according to policies in effect at the time and so there would be a financial impact. Commissioner Forner asked if the Seattle Master Builders were considering the impact on other 'property owners and the City if multifamily density were not reduced. Mr. Frazier stated developers were paying exactions up front as 4 "fair share" of expenditures to the community. He added that if the ;ity is looking for tax support, it needs to look at commercial and industrial areas as well because they provide impacts. The Association Wpuld like to be helpful but finds it difficult because of the process u in considering this issue. Commissioner Martinez expressed concern that if the City re-evaluates the Comprehensive Plan', it would tke at least a year and a half and the development impacts would be terse, beyond control. Mr. Frazier does not consider a year and a,* half to be long _and stated the alternative to re-evaluating the Comprehensive Plan is to do "radical surgery. " He added that the Adustrial growth beginning in 1963 encouraged multifamily and t across-the-board reduction in multifamily density, which is a poit-tical reaction to citizen response, is not "planning." Commissioner Forner restated that the 20% reduction brings the City of Kent in line with other communities. Mr. Frazier responded that each community is unique; if all communities were the same, a regional agency could do t4.e planning for all areas. Dee Moschel, 448 Alpine Way, Kent, Chairwoman of the Local Government Committee, represented the Kent Chaikber of Commerce. Ms. Moschel read into the record the Position statement from the Chamber's letter to the 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 29, 1988 Commission dated February 29, 1988. The Chamber does;;;,'not support the 20% reduction in multifamily units and suggests incr!%40iT1g multifamily density in the CBD to complement commuter rail and, on,, "economically stronger downtown." Commissioner Forner questioned whither the Chamber is proposing an increase of actual units per acre,I, or an increase in multifamily zoning. Suzette Cooke, Executive Director of the Kent Chamber of Commerce, believes the Commission needs to look at tranp9qrtgtion issues, commuter rail and other communities. The Chamber suests increasing density along corridors and where transportation is heaviest. Congestion and appearance (e.g. , elimination of view) appear to be the major concerns regarding multifamily density. It ;,, makes sense to increase the convenience by which people receive services and have an option to not have to drive. Ms. Cooke suggts looking at opportunities within the core area to provide incr",sled variety of options. Commissioner Ward stated placing people closer, , p multi-transit opportunities, combining the multi-transit system of ltses and trains, and increasing density within corridors solves tronsportation and quality of life problems. One could increase density w,; n corridors and decrease density in the hills. Ms. Cooke added that if the percentage of multifamily to, single family is scary, one needs to look ahead to future annexati.pns: More single family residences will be annexed and the percentages, ill change. Ms. Cooke confirmed for Commissioner Martinez that the ;, Only guideline provided by the Chamber is a request to increase den ity in the CBD; the Chamber did not , discuss increasing densities .4n � other areas. Commissioner Dunham stated the Chamber can address it ;, d±esire for such increased densities via a zoning change and added Oat people will still go where transit doesn't so increasing densities in the corridors does not necessarily solve the transportation problem. Ms. Cooke stated transportation impacts are easier to cont l� if they are confined to a particular area, or corridor rather ,; , an if they are created by people going to the county for multi:&axt, yj then driving through Kent for services. Commissioner Form ;�jjptlsted downtown currently has the greatest poteAtial for multifamily,,,,. ;akcOording to the research outlined in the "Red Book. " , i Leona Orr, 24909 - 114th Avenue SE, Kent respond ;, + Commissioner Ward's concern about lack of citizen input by pros t�.ng a ,petition brought against multifamily. The lack of police andwJ�q protection is a concern; she doesn't want any more multifam#y ,;;dnvelopment and doesn't believe the City can wait one-and-a-half yesxs,,,for a solution. I Mr. Stroh restated the sources of the 20% reduct,�on figure, the 5 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 29. 1988 multifamily potential in the downtown' core, and the amount of study that has gone into this issue. In response to Chairman Badger, Mr. Stroh stated that during the past`°year, it varies whether developers have built out to full potential o snot. MR-M zones have been close to maximum potential, MR-H zones are, farther away. Staff believes the proposed 20% reduction will have 8n impact but perhaps not as much as if developers were currently all building to full potential. Commissioner Martinez MOVED and Comissioner Dunham SECONDED the motion to close the public hearing. Motion carried. The Commission took a short recess. Commissioner Dunham stated he is for the 20% reduction in multifamily density. Regarding the Seattle H6ter Builders Association statement that the proposal shows a ladk of Concern for property owners, Commissioner Dunham stated any investment is a gamble. He added a 20% reduction in density will hardly affect anything since MR-H zones are not being built out to full potential. Regarding the Chamber's suggestion, he supports the work ,the Chamber is doing in the CBD but believes the request for an increase in multifamily density in the downtown core can be achieved thritiugh a rezone and does not have to preclude adoption of the proposal before the Commission. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept staff's recommendation for Alternate B for an aim of 20% `°,'redduction and to attach to that recommendation language to do the 'following: a) Direct annexation so that we insure there is indeed single 'family guidelines and insure that single family has a significant pt in our community, b) Look at the CBD including perhaps increasing densities in that zone either through rezoning or upgrading and adding Fiore density, and c) Direct that we will look at the overzoned areas ii*".the City to examine whether in fact some of those should be reConsiderd. -Commissioner Stoner SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Ward asked for an explanation of "overzoned. " Commissioner Martinez responded t} t the Commission has discussed and it states in the Red Book that 'the ' are areas that are inappropriately zoned for multifamily, e.g, Sotth;}of Willis. She added the City will probably have to look at the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Ward stated he was hoping to attach to -the motion language that stated we would look at the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Stoner responded that the additional language is 's' eally an extension of things the Commission has looked at and focftses on things it has studied; the guideline for single family in anii6kation areas is there. The CBD is currently being studied and regarding mass transit, there is tremendous competition for transportation dollars; the City has existing rail but not enough bodies in terms of filling seats. Overzoned areas were addressed in the "Red Book." Commissioner Forner stated the 6 + ! i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 29. 1988 a Comprehensive Plan is a separate issue and the Planning Commission task force will be discussing redoing the Comprehensive Pl , , , Commissioner Rudy stated the issue of multifamily density in a Tres, e.g. , CBD, needs to be addressed within a study of that pa;%g .ar area. One cannot now consider density affecting rail or ' = transit until something is done about rail or mass transit; then ,`gne can address housing to match it. Commissioner Ward disagreed arta., 9ta ed Kent needs to look ahead, to plan for' mass transit a ,fie ated housing opportunities. Commissioner Ward is against an aorOp'a�the-board 20% reduction in density; it will have nil affect on trans rtatilon impacts in the area so there has to be another solution. If true aim is to reduce the number of people, one needs to look at, the ioverall issue considering commercial and industrial development as Well. He would like to look at the Comprehensive Plan. In respontal. to Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner Ward stated that he is not s sting that the Commission delay the 20% reduction and redo the Co 'rioe#sive Plan; he is stating the Comprehensive Plan has parameters an�h�i' iis not sure the proposal -is complying with those parameters. Commisoloner Ward would agree to reduction by a higher percentage on the East and West Hills and reduction on annexed properties by 20% to encourage single family, but nothing will mitigate the number of people. Multi$am,ily will go to the outskirts and travel through Kent. Commissioner Stoner stated the graduated reduction of 20t is equitable. It does not negate a particular zoning designation; it keeps the same zoning designation but the maximum density is lower. Commissioner Ward stated there would be no effedt , anyway since developers haven't been building to maximum density' a'nd he is concerned about investors and lawsuits. Commissioner Forner agrees with Commissioner Dunham and supports the statement of the Chamber to provide high density in the CBD; however, that density can be accomplished through other means, ;e.g. , a CBD Plan that specifies higher density for that area. Con*issioner Forner agrees that one must plan for rail before it comes i3mv the number of people must be there before transportation will come' in., She supports the 20% reduction in multifamily density because, it provides a way to direct quality density in downtown while preserving t ality in rural neighborhoods. Through this recommendation, the Como s�sion is making a statement to say the City will take control of this vapid growth. Commissioner Greenstreet supports the motion of Commissioner Martinez including a review of overzoned areas. He believes it is important to review the CBD area and density based on fact and not speculation, based on a plan and input from the Chamber. The ;City can offset density with more open space and plan a more livable ;community before rail comes in. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 29, 1988 Commissioner Biteman Is concer d` about the percentage growth in multifamily as presented in the caphs comparing 1970 and 1987. She likes Kent as a community. Commissioner Martinez stated it $ important to send the additional language to the Council and Plannip,g Department. The 20% reduction in multifamily density buys time and"hill send a message that we have an intent in the community to take control and the Planning Commission wants a serious part in this effort. The vote on the motion Was 7 fib.', 1 against (Ward) , 1 abstention (Dunham) . Motion carried. Commissioner Rudy MOVED and Commissioner Dunham SECONDED the motion to adjourn. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:30 PM. Aesptfully submitted, 3a s P. rris, becietary 8 VERBATIM MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION. Pr, FEBRUARY 29, 1988 EXCERPT FROM AGENDA ITEM FOR MULTIFAMILY b00ITY Chairman Badger: I would like to call the meeting back to order after the recess we had here and I would like to ask (unclear.), the Commission members to begin the discussion on this issue. Commissioner Dunham: Ok, I'm going to go with (uncliia Personally I am for the 20% reduction (unclear) . Going along V' the Seattle Master Builders letter about our lack of concern for e ' fiscal impact of property owners, we have discussed that. , investment is a gamble. I've lost money on real estate (unclear)' As of right now, the Chamber (unclear) MR-M zone. They are not being; guilt to their full potential (unclear) right now being built (unploar) to their maximum because of the streets (unclear) . I 've lived in Kent for 24 years and I've seen (unclear) go from a halfway rural town to (unclear) we're getting to gridlock right now. And like I sa'Wjanybody who does ` invest in, any investment is going to have (uncles ) ,4 ,(unclear) and the Chamber, I believe that what you're (unclear) t, I'' port what you were doing with the Central Business District. I �I 4Ve that can be, done with rezoning and not by cutting away 20% (une�).. As of right now the 20% is not as, is hardly, at the present ,i'-t *e, impact the development. And the increase in the multifamily daiwn: ,.dare would be a ' zoning change and not a, not a density reduction change. And I'd like to go on record that I fully (unclear) . Commissioner Martinez: Mr. Chair? Chairman Badger: Yes. ;' Commissioner Martinez: I would like to make a motion.,.' I would like to move that we accept the staff's recommendation for alt roate B, for the 20% reduction, for an aim of 20% reduction. However, i Would also like to attach to that some language to do the following. ', 4,± would like to have language that would direct annexation so that we npure that there is indeed single family guidelines and that we in uve that single family has a significant part in our community. I would like to have language attached to my motion, or to the proposal. -that we look at the Central Business District, including perhaps incre�s#q densities in, in that, in that zone either through rezoning or' s0044 upgrading and adding more density, and I would also like to prppose, that we direct that we will look at the overzoned areas in the citw+y, t oxamine whether in fact some of those should be reconsidered. i 1 y VERBATIM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 291 1988 EXCERPT FROM 14ULTIFAMILX DENSITY Commissioner Stoner: I'll second thit motion. Chairman Badger: I would love to be able to repeat it. Commissioner Martinez: I have notaq b Chairman Badger: Let me ask if" here is, there's a second to that motion? Commissioner Stoner: There is a seed. Chairman Badger: Charlotte, would' you like to try to (unclear) . Mr. Harris: Let me, let me paraphtase that Linda Martinez is the one that stated it so maybe she coul;V,walk you through ` it. I've got it written down here (unclear) . I'm wit sure that you have to have every word to be able to, to carry on (ucl'ear) . She talks about directing annexations so that we insure that there is single family dwelling guidelines. " Commissioner Martinez: Right ` Mr. Harris: That we look at the CeAtral Business District toward maybe increasing the density there; prepa� :*, ' propose to look at the overzoned areas of the City (unclear) Commissioner Martinez: That is cor ect. Mr. Harris: (unclear) "d , +b Commissioner Martinez: That's zoniAg at the and, yea. Chairman Badger: (unclear) second fiat motion from Carol. Commissioner Stoner: Yea Commissioner Ward: Just a point_"" clarification, (unclear) what do you mean by overzoned? L;.4 Commissioner Martinez: We have, we stave in the red book and we've also discussed in some of our, in some- of our hearings that there may be places that are inappropriately zoo for multifamily. I think the, one of the areas that we've discu"ed is, and I'm, I, I, I, I'm not good at directions, is South of Gowe, or Willis, thank you. There are, there may be other places that we're unaware of at this moment that are "overzoned". And I think that it is appropriate, if we are interested 2 ' VERBATIM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 29, 1988 EXCERPT FROM MULTIFAMILY DENSITY , T in, in encouraging single family growth in, in our cppmunity, and we may or may not be, but if we ar4, to look at rather Oxosely at all of that. Where we have said that multifamily should be.. "lwhere we have said single family should be. It may mean we need to look at Comp, at the Comprehensive Plan, I mean I think we will have to look at the Comprehensive Plan. (Unclear) Commissioner Ward: Yea, I was hoping that you w6uld, oWtAch that, that language (unclear) that special language in there, that the, that the, we have verbiage in there that we would take a look at the Comprehensive Plan. All of what you are suggesting th n points in that direction (unclear) . (Unclear) Commissioner Stoner: But, but it, but I see th*gi ,three (unclear- microphone was turned off because of noise interf4i4i e, and voice was not picked up; please see minutes typed from shorth4nd1#otes) Mr. Harris: You're not going i}tto the machine. (Unclear) Commissioner Stoner: Is the machine on? y Mr. Harris: This machine's on. (unclear) We, hav ,'­ to pick her up across (unclear) we've just got 'to get a better (unple'fr) (Unclear) Commissioner Stoner: All right,, I'll go back but, ',''the idea of the annexation areas, there being, a guideline for the " 'jaltio of single family to multifamily in annexAtion areas, I, I hk is something, that's been touched on. The CHID study is coming UP4, and I think that is the place to address the Chamber's concern fat multifamily density in the core because the; discussions I've h44r ti bput light rail and, and that kind of mass transit in this area,,,,*u; st that there's competition for those dollars from a lot of comma in this area and that the advantage that South King County has ; , we have rail in place. The disadvantage that we have is that of have all of the bodies in terms of filling the seats and, ad','., !s still a bit of a horse race to see who is going to come up wit � ,; th some money to actually put that into place. And I think that is ;490, , 44to be a factor in our decisions about multifamily density in thq,. town. And, and 3 'VERBATIM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 29, 1988 EXCERPT FROM )!MULTIFAMILY DENSITY the other issue is the overzoned a "s and that Option C in, in the, in the study. And so I think you c ►in take a look at those issues based on what we have done and will be doing. Commissioner Forner: I guess (unc*.ear) agree with Linda. I feel that the Comprehensive Plan is a different issue that we discussed at our task force, that would be a, an issue that we were going to take up at our next task force. We actually discussed looking at the possibility of, of redoing the Comprehensive plan at that time. Perhaps that is the time we should be (unclear) wej*Mould (unclear) . Chairman Badger: Yes Nancy. Commissioner Rudy: I think that the issue of (unclear) density in multifamily (unclear) area (unclear) needs to be taken up in conjunction with a study or the Omission looking at that particular area (unclear) . I don't think that we can now even for the next year or so consider density that would affect rail or mass transit of some kind until we know that there is oin4 to be some, something done in the way of rail or mass transit or TiZatever and .know where it's going to be and what's it's going to be. Then we can adjust the, the housing to match it because it will tak '' considerable time for that to be (unclear) . I don't think that this is the time to be concerned with that. Commissioner Ward: (unclear) I'm,"+against a straight across-the-board 20% reduction (unclear) without, without there being a foundation for, for its application, a foundation in the sense that a 20% reduction (unclear) private property expert would have to have (unclear) transportation problems in the area. The strongest voice I 've heard so far is that, that transportation is a true consideration in the, in the multifamily reduction. Since it wrstld have close to nil effect on the transportation issue, then there h4lK to be another solution. We're not truly recognizing what the probleam`1s. The problem, wouldn't be solved by a reduction in multifamily ('unclear) zoning. I am somewhat receptive to the discussion by the one gentleman who indicated that, that if our true aim ' is to rid4c+e` the number of people and/or concentration of people, then we should look at the overall zoning, we should look at the overall picture and not (unclear) one given zoning level in multifamily. We should pi;O)c the commercial and industrial and the overall (unclear) and that's ` hy (unclear) looking at the Comp Plan, which is my understanding (clear) determine (unclear) by which all of our planning reference shitld be made. In response to the statement that, that we don't hav+e} Aass transit, transit as yet in the area, I think that's what planning is' about. That's planning for the day that we will have it and if we think about it positively enough 4" VERBATIM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 29, 1988 ` EXCERPT FROM MULTIFAMILY DENSITY (unclear) seemingly is a solution to the problem. A 0� reduction in my mind would not reduce people coming' in here unless ll?ws stop growth. We're no longer again a small-town village type of a concept. That, that has gone by the wayside. We can control it, ws' can control the development by making strategic plans. And it has ,be*i suggested that we reduce the density of multifamily to, to, to acdbnp Jsh the same. I don't think that's going to go. I, I think thaVs54L , decision made during a political year. It was suggested by an ili#ly ual who in turn by, through that suggestion brought it up to Wi "#= .uded in that Resolution which in turn now we 'are trying to 'determ�i*:' rom whence it came. I made a comment in an earlier meeting 'tp''t1W' bffect that I haven't heard from, from the citizenry who were 'so ':'opcerned about, about the people problem in Kent and fortunately (unclear) her statement and you were a long time coming but I was-' We'll ode, I was very happy to see you come. I'm such more influen+cdd� ` �` Xent's people (unclear) have had to, to, individuals, you know, p entatives of a- given cause, a given segment. You, you're being' t a late date, it seems that I still haven't., changed my mind ,ab 'the reduction (unclear) overinfluenced by virtue of the fact that'.t Rbigger, picture to me doesn't look the same as it does perhaps tc sty of the other Commissioners. Realizing of course that there is ' *otion on the floor, with a number of attachments which I can ag e ! with, but there are some segments of it which I ;.cannot, and therefore ,i2 feel as though that, that, to go along with the, suggestion of an over"" 120% reduction would be against my, my good conscience and what I hcXly believe in and so perhaps I'll be the only , one going against itL�Aut I 'll have to do that. Commissioner Martinez: Mr. Chair? Chairman Badger: Yes Commissioner Martinez: I hate to encourage you but 'I ,O#*�Ve a question. If you are against the 20% reduction and from all of '.., t�,'you have just said, the kernel of what you're saying is, is this act? You, you would encourage us to put off the 20% reductio: and redo the Comprehensive Plan? Is that, is that what you're saying? Commissioner Ward: No. I think that probe.. (unclear) the Comprehensive Plan has sort of set certain per, ets in which development and/or changes in given densities are, Jtt{,�be geared to I am not really sure that if I'm' totally complying t `° t. I would, I would agree to a reduction of a higher percentage 6i ; and West Hill 'cause I think that's truly where the crux of the ' flJ!lem basically lies. ' 5 l VERBATIM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 29, 1988 EXCERPT FROM MULTIFAMILY DENSITY Commissioner Martinez: Great (unGjar) Commissioner Ward: I think, , and, and I'm stealing this information because I think that, Est, that Bob Badger's suggestion in his memo to Council sort of hits the nail closer to the, on the head. I would agree with a 50% reduction and I'm sure that the builders would, would go bananas behind that given suggestion but if you, if you limit it to certain areas and try to funnel that, the true reduction that you're trying to get,,overall, to the areas In which they have the, the most impact, I would,' I would also go along 'with an idea that the reduction on any annexed '`properties could be 20% of what, the case might be to encourage the sixgle family residences, and in, spite of the fact that I truly do not bej;,Lave in good conscience that none of that will mitigate whatever problems people, people see so far as additional people coming in here. It is not truly going to reduce it. If they cannot build within the cc fines of Kent's city, they're going to build on the outskirts and they're going to drive through Kent as they've been doing all along. 1--,"think I'd just mention one of the earlier quotes (unclear) that, that (unclear) of the, of the property in the county is multifamily and it would be developed accordingly and those same people are, going to come-right into Kent. Commissioner Stoner: My', my conce: with, with, Y mean in many ways my heart says wouldn't it be ,wonderfa, to cut multifamily development on East and West Hill by 50%, but one of the real appeals to me of, of a graduated reduction of 20% is that-At is equitable. Commissioner Ward: (unclear) Commissioner Stoner: To, to, to,, I mean it shifts, it shifts the zoning code. It doesn't say to someone who has MR-M property that you can no longer build. It doesn't .maiy you must build at MR-G densities. It says you can have an MR-M zone_ t the maximum that you can build at that zone is less. And I thin^ ,, 'that's a kind of equity that is important. (Unclear) Commissioner Ward: Yea I ,quite a�e6 with your statement. It's very equitable. As a matter of fact, X"a so equitable that it truly does not have any effect. The net ..re t ,is the fact that, that, that the people aren't building to the density anyway so what you're doing officially is you've telling, lo Q. , you're telling Mrs. Orr and her constituents who signed this tition that yea we gave you a 20% reduction and we haven't given you anything. You haven't really gotten anything because the developer hasn't been building to the maximum 6 VERBATIM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 29, 1988 EXCERPT FROM MULTIFAMILY DENSITY level that he's allowed to build by the existing cg4q ,anyway. So he's going to still laugh all the way to the bank and W4-r e ',going to have (unclear) property owners who in turn will say y ra a taken away something for which I invested and (unclear) yob, ► reduced' the amount in which I can receive as ,a return on my oricl ipvestment. Chairman Badger: Yes Elmira. . I a Commissioner Ward: And I am concerned about tiT ogle. Those people too; they're people too. They're not all d S. These are private citizens who are sitting on, on, like yoB ,. d I, who are sitting on, on a piece of property that invested it with the intentions that one of these days that property is go," to be worth a certain amount of money and now through a legislative �rgcess, a quasi legislative process, we're saying their property',s. yq#th less. I wouldn't like anyone to tell me that if I had investod'.`,` Chairman Badger: Yes Elmira (unclear) Commissioner Forner: I would like to just go on , ,e , as agreeing with what Rusty said and also „supporting the sta,# nt ' of the Kent Chamber of Commerce in providing high density in di tt areas. Not, but I also support the 20% reduction because I th��' ,�e two things can be accomplished through othor means by rezoning , by developing what we call a CBD area that specifies higher densitytilthin that area which would be the standard area for a light rail. An do know that, I do agree with you when yqu say that plani't" .,' 6s to come, transportation will come in after the density. ''" ^ ''' oV don't have transportation come in and then build density. I tl, ttat much from being on Transportation, that, that you have to h,av °, the numbers of people there before the transportation come in, go , must plan for rail before it comes, as much as we don't like ut I think that can be accomplished. And the reason I' 4' like the 20% reduction is I think that it will provide us with of directing quality density in downtown white preserving the glsl tyr of our rural neighborhoods, that we can. And ' and I agree with a# you say, it, it doesn't do much but at least it �,s a statement fromrCry fission that says we are going to take control of this growth anal', II don't think it's going to impact any particular developer that,*u { d it's really not going to impact transportati+n and we agreed at t sk force that that was not our purpose of this was to do away Vi1� transportation problems because it wouldn't. We are trying to made a,.,`statement that says we are going to take control of this rapid gr9V 1,4�d, and try to bring it into some sort of a, a manageable progrei'. ,� I do support it. 7 i r VERBATIM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 29, 1988 EXCERPT FROM MULTIFAMILY DENSITY Chairman Badger: ' Greg. Commissioner Greenstreet: I support. Linda's motion (unclear) the three points, 20% reduction, review the aver dense area and as far as' the CBD, I agree that we should review that area. I'm against, it should not be based on speculation. It Should be a plan, receive input from the Chamber, and as far as where the density should be located and on the offset density with more open . ace and how to make this a livable community before the rail, comes_ through. Then the density not be allowed until we do have rail (unclear) taking place, ' The zoning can be changed (unclear) , I mean to sa"y, reacting or whatever to the plan. I support rail and that and the Chamber but (unclear) concerned with speculation. Chairman Badger: Anne. Commissioner Biteman: Yea, but I s looking years from 1970 to 1987 growth in multifamily. In 1970 it * s only 26% and now it's 58.6 and I guess I like to think of Kent as .^ community rather than just a bunch of highrise apartments. When I 46 on the East, Hill, 'I'm very happy that I don't live there. I live the West Hill and I like it as a community because I know my neigrs and it's' mostly single family homes so I 'd just like to leave ', something for the next generation. (unclear) Commissioner Martinez: I'd like td' � *ay one thing in support of the, of my own motion, and that is that, that I think it is important that we send the additional language to ,, the ' Council and to the Planning Department because I don't think t I 'agree with what everyone here has said. I don't think 20% reduction will get us anything except it will buy us a little time and it.' will send a message out, I- think Elvira said this very well, it 4JXX, help (unclear) that this is what we, we have an intent in' this a unity to take control of our own destiny. And I want it known t ' ' the Planning commission wants a serious part in, in that, ,in that, 4iotivity, that we are concerned and that we even have some plans to do%oome constructive strategy (unclear) and constructive planning for it. Commissioner Stoner: I call' for thi' question. Chairman Badger: Are you calli$i for the question, Carol? The question has been called. All ,dji4ission ceases. All in favor of the motion which I will ask (uziclear)" With by Charlotte or by Jim. Mr. Harris: (unclear) 8 41 4 VERBATIM MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 29, 1988 EXCERPT FROM MULTIFAMILY DENSITY Chairman Badger: Yes Mr. Harris: (unclear) Mrs. Anderson: (unclear - read motion from shorthand Motes) Chairman Badger: (unclear) All in favor. All opposed. Commissioner Dunham: I would like to go on record that I abstained. Chairman Badger: Russell abstained from voting. Motion carried. Do we have a motion to close the meeting? Commissioner Rudy: So move. Commissioner Dunham: Second Chairman Badger: It has been moved and seconded that we' close. All in favor. Respectfully submitted, *JamPA. !Ha—rrftS*' Secretly 9