Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 06/21/1988 KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE `ttn2 ��p June 21, 1988 4 : 00 PM Committee Members Present Others Present Judy Woods, Chair Larry Frazier Steve Dowell Greg Greenstreet Jon Johnson Lowell Hall Paul Morford Staff Present Leona Orr Lyle Price, Kent News Journal Charlene Anderson Nancy Rudy Jim Harris Tom Sharp Fred Satterstrom Carol Stoner Dan Stroh 20% MULTIFAMILY DENSITY REDUCTION Chairwoman Woods distributed copies of her 6-16-88 memo and addendum with recommendations on this issue. Dan Stroh reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation and the first three additions. Fred Satterstrom reviewed the addendum of three points. The recommendation is to adopt the Planning Commission' s recommendations and to add six additional recommendations. The Planning Commission's recommendation includes a 20% "graduated scale" reduction city-wide, a selective look at the CBD area, a selective look at "overzoned" areas, and an annexation policy which ensures "that single-family has a significant part in our community. " The six additions include exemption of MR-D zoned properties, exemption of small lots of record (15, 000 or fewer square feet) , encouragement of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance amendments, amending the Planning Commission's recommendation to state that the "graduated scale" reduction is an interim measure effective until completion and adoption of an area-by-area residential analysis, definition of the area-by-area residential study, and directing the Planning Department to work with the City Council to develop a work program for the area-by-area analysis. Councilman Johnson asked if a property owner with a total ownership of approximately one acre, which acre had been platted years ago into several tiny lots, would be affected by a 20% reduction in multifamily density. Mr. Stroh responded that presently the property owner would not be eligible to develop under multiple family because the owner could not meet the minimum lot size. It is not the intent of the recommendation to exempt from the 20% reduction an owner of several small properties who could do a lot line adjustment with a resulting lot size greater than 15, 000 square feet. In response to Councilman Dowell, Mr. Stroh responded that 1/3 acre (15,000 square feet) is not inconsiderable. For the MR-H high density district, under the revision of 28 units per acre, a developer could have a 9-unit project, approximately a $. 5 million project. For a single-family residential development, 9 units is the cutoff for a short plat action. Above i CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1988 AT 4: 00 PM that, a developer must go through a long plat process. Paul Morford stated developers won't touch projects less than approximately 150 units. The new multifamily development standards have a big impact on small lots. In the interim, he would like to see an exemption for min 'mum lot sizes of 2-1/2 acres. In response to Carol Stoner, Mr. Mor ord stated the 2-1/2 acre parcel he owns is zoned MR-M. Mr. Harris stated that is approximately 23 units per acre. Mr. Morford discussed �he constraints on the land due to various ordinances. Councilm n Dowell stated that on the MR-M zoned areas, the reduction requirementlwould be to 19 units per acre (under 20%) . Dan Stroh stated staff as trying not to put a big burden on smaller projects. Tom Sharp compared developers and manufacturers. Land is part of a developer's inventory ' Mr. Sharp questioned whether anyone would like to have someone take away 20% of their inventory in order to keep people away. Why not have a similar reduction in single family, manufacturing and dommercial operations? It appears that for "political expediency" the City is using multifamily land to quiet discontent for single family owners. Greg Greenstreet sta ed he is a construction worker and makes his living by growth. e is also a single family owner and wants his investment protected. 1 Schools are overcrowded; bond issues are going up to help pay for sc�ools. In doing replacement work for multifamily development, he sees what happens in 20 years to the developments. Money is not put back into multifamily as it is for single family. The lifestyle, clientele, density, the quality of the project and the quality of life in that area determine the amount of money that is put back into the buildings. New money is going outside the City to new projects. With the freeways and Boeing, Kent is going to have growth even with the 20% eduction; he wants quality growth. Value of property will rise with the growth that is coming here. He wants to keep a quality community. Quality of life is what we are talking about. I Chairwoman Woods sta4d she knows buildings are being rebuilt but she added that Paul Morford and Tom Sharp have done quality work in Kent. Leona Orr agreed with Mr. Greenstreet about growth. She added that a teacher with who she talked stated the biggest problem in the schools is the turnover of students; apartment dwellers come and go; they don't put down roots. Carol Stoner stated lissrs. Morford and Sharp are not the only ones paying for the impacts of growth. Even King County residents are paying. The questiori is how Kent is going to manage its growth. 2 I i I CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1988 AT 4:00 PM Everyone has a right to live where they want to live. The question is, do we want to make a choice about the balance of housing or do we let the market determine that balance? Lowell Hall asked if reducing density by 20% will increase the quality of life or reduce the number of children going in and out of schools. He does not think it will make much difference. Mr. Hall added that there is not much single family land in Kent on which to build and suggested the issue is a political football. He agreed that the area- by-area analysis is needed. The City of Kent has a good tax base because of industry and 200-unit apartments which put $8-$10 million more on the tax books. Apartments pay their fair share of road tax, school tax, drainage tax, etc. Look at the bigger picture. Nancy Rudy stated the 20% reduction will make a difference - 20% difference. Apartment complexes do pay taxes, put in roads and put in money for fire, police, etc. However, water rationing (for example) occurs because of growth. Money cannot buy resources that are not there. The 20% reduction is a start and will allow the City to assess each area. Fred Satterstrom clarified for Larry Frazier that "zoning amendments" to implement the area-by-area study involve both text and map amendments. In response to Mr. Frazier, Chairwoman Woods offered to amend the recommendation under Section C. Area-by-Area Residential Study, as follows: "The results of this area-by-area study would be implemented through zoning (text and/or map) amendments to be initiated within one year. " Mr. Frazier stated Seattle Master Builders can support the Planning Committee recommendation. Mr. Frazier can understand Mr. Sharp' s comments but he added that Seattle Master Builders wants to see quality communities; quality communities have better business. Jim Harris stated that recommendation "D" is a very important element. The Planning Department will work with the City Council to establish a work program for the area-by-area analysis. Timelines will be established. Work has begun on the CBD Plan and that plan is a very crucial part of the study. Mr. Morford questioned exempting The Lakes from the 20% density reduction. Mr. Harris stated that The Lakes came into the City under a planned development; a lot of agreements were signed between Centron and the City of Kent on water, sewer, storm drainage, etc. He added that The Lakes project was constructed well below the allowable units per acre. Councilman Johnson added that he believes The Lakes is in an area which is suitable for multifamily and where the City would want to encourage multifamily anyway. Chairwoman Woods stated she believes there is a legal issue involved in not exempting that project. 3 i CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1988 AT 4:00 PM I Councilman Johnson added that there are plans to upgrade the infrastructure in tha area. James Street is finished and 64th will be done. Chairwoman Woods clarified for Tom Sharp that the recommendation is that within one year the area-by-area analysis will be completed, i.e. , the staff work will be done. The process will have been completed pending action by the City Council. Fred Satterstrom added that a work program will be worked out by staff and the City Council. He stated that staff can initiate the public hearing process but after that point it is out of staff's ands. Councilman Dowell MOVED and Councilman Johnson SECONDED the motion to forward to the City Council the Planning Commission' s recommendation with additions listed in Chairwoman Woods' June 16, 1988 memo to the Planning Committee and addendum, with amended wording under Addendum Section C. Motion carried unanimously. HISTORIC PRESERVATION i Discussion of this it4m was deferred to July 5. NEXT MEETING DATE i The next Planning Com4ittee meeting will be at 5: 00 PM on July 5. I I i i i i i i i I 4 i