Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 04/19/1988 KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE April 19, 1988 3:30 PM Council Members Present Others Present Judy Woods, Chair Anne Biteman Steve Dowell Larry K. Frazier Lowell A. Hall City Administrator David Hyde Michael Ledbetter J. Brent McFall Dee Moschel Leona Orr Staff Present Colin Quinn Susan Rae Sampson Charlene Anderson T. M. Sharp Jim Harris Michael Spence Fred Satterstrom Carol Stoner Dan Stroh Pam Studeman Laurie Sundstedt Mary H. Williams 20% MULTIFAMILY DENSITY REDUCTION Chairwoman Woods stated the purpose of the meeting, added that the Planning Committee would take no action at this time, and asked for public comment. Lauri Sundstedt, 24805 - 114th Avenue SE, Kent supported the 20% reduction in multifamily density. If apartment complexes all over the City have signs indicating "Now Renting, " it means there are currently too many apartments in Kent. Tom Sharp, 11126 SE 256th, Kent suggested there is an elitist attitude prevailing about apartment dwellers; the single family homeowner says "I have mine and we are going to keep you out. " Mr. Sharp is a small developer and stated people in his apartments could afford a single family home but for various reasons have chosen to reside in a multifamily dwelling unit. Mr. Sharp stated that if the City's intention is to reduce densities, then single family districts also should be subject to the reduction, for example by increasing lot size requirements. The 20% reduction in units per acre will increase apartment prices and essentially lower value; it represents an economic burden. Mr. Sharp believes developers must be the ones to protect the interests of apartment dwellers since most of them cannot or do not vote. Mr. Sharp does not understand where the attitude comes from that apartments are bad. People will choose to live either in single family or in multifamily residences. It appears to him that the City is getting its way by shutting the door. Leona Orr, 24909 - 114th Avenue SE, Kent stated the request for a 20% reduction in multifamily density came about from a Town Hall meeting i � P City Council Planning Committee Minutes of Meeting April 19 1988 about a year-and-a-h4lf ago. There was congestion in Kent that the streets couldn't handle, the schools couldn't handle, and the Fire and Police Department need additional staff to handle. With an imbalance of 60% multifamily im the City, reduction must begin somewhere. Ms. Orr added that at one of the Planning Commission hearings on this issue, it was stated hat there was a survey done which indicated that there were not enough jobs in Kent available to fill housing, meaning many people living in Kent do not work here. Developers are not now building to maximum 'density so the 20% reduction shouldn't make a difference. Ms. Orr �upports the 20% reduction in multifamily density at least until the City can catch up with services required. Mike Spence, Governme6tal Affairs Director, Seattle King County Board of Realtors, 2810 Ea tlake Avenue East, Seattle 98102 stated that wherever he goes he Isees people downzoning, i.e. , Bear Creek, Soos Creek, Enumclaw. Wi#h King County predicting 500, 000 more people by the year 2000, Kent should be planning to accommodate the influx within their own city limits rather than pushing people to outlying areas and have them travel through the area anyway. With 500, 000 additional people in the area, supply and demand will get out of whack. He suggests creatively; solving the traffic problems. Housing affordability will bean issue with the 20% reduction. He added that the "Now Renting" s ins are seasonal and the Cain & Scott vacancy reports show vacancy ates are under 3%. In the near future, aesthetic problems might arise,; but in the long term multifamily building is reasonable. He requjested that rather than an across-the-board 20% reduction in multifamily density, there might be reason to require the reduction in some areas only. I Lowell Hall, 22823 - 134th Avenue SE, Kent 98042 is a real estate broker that has lived in the area since 1968. He has watched influx and outflow and Kent is presently once again experiencing an influx. He is concerned about his grandchildren being able to afford housing and questions whether the City is looking far enough ahead in considering the 20% reduction. The 20% reduction takes 20% of the value of a property but of the owner's pocket because the developer will deduct that amount when purchasing the property; the $70, 000 for the developer's mitigation fees was deducted from Mr. Hall when he recently sold his property. There are financial considerations here and owners and buildors are risking more and more whenever they pay more and get less. Housing payments today are terribly high and a 20% reduction in multifamily density will force apartment costs to be high also. If costs becomeltoo high, developers will stop building housing. Traffic congestion isja problem on East Hill but we are facing these problems. Developers dare paying fees to mitigate the traffic problems. He knows Americans can1buckle down, meet a problem and solve it. There has been a logical zoning setup in the City which works. He applauds the multifamily desig changes that recently passed and believes they will help looks and visibility in multifamily areas. 2 i i ( City Council Planning Committee Minutes of Meeting of April 19 , 1988 Mary H. Williams, 25331 - 68th Avenue South, Kent 98032 supports the 20% reduction. She considers Kent a valley; there is very little here, not much for children to do. Quality of life is what she thinks about. People can't get to libraries. She advocates more small homes with a bit of ground for growing vegetables. She doesn't want to cover the soil with concrete and blacktop. Multifamily areas will be slum areas in years because apartment dwellers move out. She is aware how costly things are and how tough it is but she wants more single family. David Hyde, 10625 SE 281 Street, Kent 98031 stated the Puget Sound area is the ninth most active area in the country for residential real estate; commercial is even higher. With a half million people projected to move into the area by the year 2000, housing will be a problem. Multifamily density reduction would not be an advantageous solution. Mr. Hyde wants more work done to alleviate traffic congestion by building additional roads; east/west corridors are now being researched. A price increase will occur as a result of the 20% reduction. Reduction in specific areas only might be a better solution than an across-the-board reduction. Colin Quinn, 3025 - 112th Avenue NE, Bellevue represents Centron, the largest multifamily builder in the Pacific Northwest. The Lakes is one of the company's chief developments. Mr. Quinn paraphrased a March 31, 1988 letter he had written to the Mayor and City Council. The Lakes is exempt from the 20% reduction because a Master Plan for the project has been approved by the City. Mr. Quinn stated the 20% reduction is a political solution to be problem rather than a planning solution. What started the process was a series of town meetings where people in neighborhoods felt their lifestyle was being affected by multifamily units. These people do have concerns and the City has an obligation to fulfill the neighborhood dreams, but an across-the-board reduction will not solve the issue of impact to neighborhoods. The ratio of single family to multifamily is a hot issue and one doesn't often hear the argument that this is a positive indication that the community is thriving and changing with the times. The City has done a good job of allowing a large number of multifamily units to meet the demand. To meet the requirements for housing, one needs to be sensitive to demand, changing socioeconomic patterns occurring throughout America. Single parents, empty nesters, senior citizens are choosing multifamily dwellings. Patterns and lifestyles are changing. People are moving approximately once every seven years so home equity is not an issue; single family home purchases might not be advantageous given this mobility. Mr. Quinn philosophically opposes governmental interference in market forces affecting people's choices and lifestyles. A 20% reduction in multifamily density will not provide a balance of opportunities, will foreclose a viable housing opportunity, discriminate against a class in the City desiring to live in multifamily dwelling units, and interfere with socioeconomic patterns. 3 i a I ~ I City Council Planning Committee Minutes of Meeting of April 19 1988 A 20% reduction will 4ot be in the best interests of the public welfare and safety. It has Ibeen his experience, and statistics show, that multifamily developme is are a more effective use of the land, water, sewer, and represent a better return for dollars spent on infrastructure. Trips generated and students generated, as well as service needs are less with multifamily than with single family. At a recent PSCOG symposium, it was stated that the solution to traffic problems is putting people where jobs are, not building more streets, etc. The employment base in the City is in warehousing and manufacturing. For each executive there are six support people renting apartments. By foreclosing the opportunity of multifamily near an expanded job base, people will have further to travel to work and this will cause additional , trip generation, clogged arterials. METRO will provide service when densities have increased; this METRO service is a key to solving traffic problems. Vacancy signs at apartment buildings do not mean apartment. buildings are empty; there is a 98% occupancy rate in the area. Demand is here. Banks wouldn't be lending money for building unless they were convinced there was demand and it was a good investment. Developers need to speak for those multifamily people who haven't yet arrived; they need affordable housing or they will be forced to live elsew�ere. His letter states the 20% reduction in multifamily density i� a generic solution to a complex problem; Kent deserves better than generic solution. Information generated in the "Red Book" is working its way through the system. The 20% reduction is so broad it misses the point of protecting single family neighborhoods. The reduction should be only in areas which are affected by the problem. If there are too many people in the area, then the City should look at redu ing both single family and multifamily. In response to the comment regarding builders not building to maximum density anyway so who cares, property owners care. The 20% reduction reduces property values. Developers care because with less land to work with, it becomes I difficult to build projects the way they should be built. The Lakes c n create amenities because there's lots of space with which to work. In response to Chairwoman Woods, Mr. Quinn suggested that a good EIS would be a source of information regarding number of students generated from a multifamily development. He stated multifamily student g neration is approximately . 3 students per unit; single family is double that. Mr. Quinn stated families don't live in apartments. Apartments have single parents, empty nesters, senior citizens, Yuppies with no children, etc. Anne Biteman, 24324 ilitary Road, Kent 98032 has been a property owner since 1960 and has deep concerns about apartments. She is a school nurse and sees flow cost housing with 4, 5, and 6 children in an apartment. She agrees that in expensive apartments one might not find many children. She stated the Planning Commission mandate from the City Council was to reduce multifamily; many developers did not vent their concerns at the Planning Commission public hearings. The Planning Commission worked six months on the reduction issue and their 4 I i i i I i • • City Council Planning Committee Minutes of Meeting of April 19. 1988 work is for nothing if all builders have to do is go to the City Council. Not many citizens attended the hearings either. The majority of speakers at the hearings were builders from outside the City and their good points were taken into consideration when drafting the Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Biteman stated that personally it bothers her that builders who live outside the City voice their objections to a 20% reduction of multifamily density within the City of Kent. Pam Studeman, 521 S 2nd, Kent 98032 stated her concern is not a reduction of multifamily density but a reworking of the zoning laws, perhaps placing emphasis on preserving downtown neighborhoods. An across-the-board reduction is rather arbitrary. Ms. Studeman is sympathetic to developers who want to get more profit out of the land but there has to be some quality control and respect for people who want to keep single family neighborhoods. The downtown neighborhoods of old and nice homes are slowly being eaten up. These houses have a history and charm that should be preserved. Ms. Studeman is referring to the South of Willis area. The area has industry on each side of it and railroad tracks. She added that there is a place for apartments but admitted that since she has purchased her home, she is more concerned about quality of life and of her surroundings than she was when she lived in an apartment. Further, those building apartments in the downtown neighborhoods should be required to take responsibility for the area, e.g. , storm drainage, sidewalks, road improvements. The City should consider changing some of the downtown neighborhoods into single family zoning so that the City can catch up with the decay and wear and tear that has occurred. Larry Frazier, Seattle Master Builders Association, 2155 - 112th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA stated he has written all kinds of correspondence to the Planning Commission, City Council and Planning Committee. He reminded those present that condominiums and townhouses are also part of the density issue, and those structures represent homeowners not renters. Mr. Frazier stated the Planning Commission had a political solution to the City Council ' s request for a 20% reduction. Staff provided information that was requested. The multifamily development standards and the 20% reduction issues should have been one issue and instead were split into two parts for consideration. Reduction already started with the multifamily development standards. Although Mr. Frazier gave the Planning Commission material that showed the 20% reduction would cause problems, he did not see that material incorporated into the ordinance recommended to the City Council. Mr. Frazier added that perhaps the Planning Commission should have been given more direction from the City Council. Mr. Frazier stated that multifamily density does not contribute to the many problems Kent has. For years, the City has by its comprehensive plan mandated where multifamily, commercial, transportation network, etc. will be and the policy provides a focus on multifamily development. The zoning 5 i City Council PlanninglCommittee Minutes of Meeting oflApril 19 1988 ordinance implements Ithat. People have purchased property based on that direction. The traffic is caused by everyone, including those passing through the �ity, not just by multifamily development. The entire comprehensive lan needs to be updated to look at all areas not just multifamily den ity and to consider industrial and commercial development, creationl of jobs, spinoffs and traffic. A review of the comprehensive plan m�ght show that multifamily density needs to be reduced in some areas; it might also show a need to reduce in commercial and industrial. Multifamily creates less traffic generation than single family. ; The City needs to prove that multifamily development is the ause of traffic problems; the taking issue is involved especially since the City for years has promoted multifamily development. Furtherl, developers have the right to make a living in this area whether the live in Kent or not. People's attitudes toward single family home ow ership is changing. More people are going to be housed in multifamilylbased among other things on pure economics. Mr. Frazier has the job of keeping housing costs low and he discussed increasing costs. He stated it was poor planning to do an across-the- board reduction; the ity needs to specify areas. The City needs to analyze the problems and come up with a better solution. There was some discussion and clarification on the statement made about builders who live inside or out I side of the City of Kent. Carol Stoner, 19708 - 121st Avenue SE, Renton, represented the Planning Commission. She stated there was citizen concern about multifamily development; that con ern was expressed at the Town Hall meeting in which the citizens asked the City Council to come up with a political solution to impacts of growth; who pays for impacts of growth. The City Council 's job is ! to manage growth. The speakers at the hearings did not say don't grjow but the City needs to make a decision that allows management of chat growth so that it can accommodate impacts in a reasonable fashion. ( Perhaps rather than comparing trips and students per unit, one needs to compare trips and students per acre. Impacts of zoning land can be measured by impacts per acre. There were not many citizens at the heari gs on this issue because the citizens spoke at the Town Hall meeting They saw the City Council respond and saw the process move forward aid the citizens felt the issue was being handled. One of the reasons the Planning Commission recommended a 20% reduction is because it is equit ble; everyone has to bite the bullet as property owners and whatever. The 20% reduction in multifamily density is one way to manage growth. I Chairwoman Woods ended public discussion for this meeting. She provided an example of a recent Council action which lessened density in single family zones, even further than what was recommended. I The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:50 PM. ( 6 i I I I I