Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 02/16/1988 A� Y Y \ KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE February 16, 1988 4:00 PM Council Members Present Staff Present Judy Woods Charlene Anderson Steve Dowell Jim Hansen Jon Johnson Jim Harris Paul Mann Fred Satterstrom Dan Stroh City Administrator Others Present J. Brent McFall Larry Frazier - Seattle Master Builders Dee Moschel - Chamber of Commerce Raul Ramos - The Mueller Group Dennis Riebe - Centron Tom Sharp - SDM Properties MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Chairwoman Woods stated the Planning Commission had held a number of hearings on the amendment to multifamily development standards and there had been considerable public input; the purpose in bringing this issue back to the Planning Committee is to have staff answer questions and address concerns from the Council and to further clarify the issue for other participants in the process. Chairwoman Woods added that at no time had the Planning Committee considered the 20% reduction in multifamily density to be uniformly extended to all areas of the city and stated the Planning Department was looking at additional options for the reduction to take into account issues such as rail transit. Councilman Johnson had no questions and stated the issue had adequate public hearings at the Planning Commission level, as has been the policy. Councilman Dowell had voted to bring the issue to the Planning Committee to address a concern about these amended standards having an impact on density and because Mr. Sharp of SDM Properties had stated that Stratford Arms and Titus Mansion would not have been built had these amended standards been in effect at the time. Councilman Dowell added that there were several good ideas incorporated into the amended standards from the report of the Executive Committee on City Design Policy and that the purpose of the amended standards was to enhance the 1 - Z i I i Minutes of Planning Committee Meeting February 16, 1988 quality of multifamil development. Jim Harris stated it was not the intention of the sta dards to lower density although it is possible that developers would] need to change their design in order to obtain the density they desire. Mr. Harris added that density bonus is available through the P.U.D. process. Dan Stroh commented that it was his impression that M . Riebe's comment at the Planning Commission that these standards woule affect density related to the first proposal presented by staff and not to the proposal as it exists today. Mr. Stroh confirmed that some of the concepts of the report on design were incorporated into the, proposed amendment to multifamily development standards, i.e. , buffering single family adjacent to multifamily and providing for a better} streetscape. He added that sometimes minor and sometimes major modiflications to design would be needed to bring a development into lin with the proposed standards but he does not believe that density ould be affected. Mr. Stroh further stated that Stratford Arms was an nusual site and replied to Chairwoman Woods that smaller lots would ha%e a harder time complying with the standards but in most cases could st' ll be built to the same density. Fred Satterstrom stated the Council wanted to keep bulky, large structures away from single family areas as much as possible. Staff believes the setback is reasonable. Mr. Stroh commented th t the Administrative Design Review (ADR) process provides a safety valve in allowing different approaches to accomplishing the samelobjective, at the Planning Director's discretion after considering three criteria. Councilman Dowell questioned whether the three criteria really allowed much flexibility. Mr. Harris stated staff intends to work ith developers and let them know up front where there is a problem. ]Developers will need to be flexible also. ADR allows flexibility with a semblance of permanency. i Mr. Stroh replied to Councilman Mann that the perimeter landscaping requirement would not (preclude having patios or other such amenities. Mr. Satterstrom stated the intention is to avoid having pavement from the perimeter of the lot right up to the building. He further replied to Councilman Mann that there are developers putting in perimeter foundation landscaping now and getting the density they want. Mr. Stroh commented that ithe proposed standards attempt to upgrade the landscaping to provide bulk and screening. In response to Councilman Mann, discussion occurred on adding a statement regarding the timing of this process and review of the process by the Council Planning Committee after a per'od of time. Chairwoman Woods requested that staff prepare such tatements. Mr. Frazier questioned whether amendments could be made to the Planning Commission's recommendation without having additio al public hearings. Committee members and Mr. Harris stated that the City Council is an open meeting, input from the public can be taken ani the Council can amend recommendations that come 2 i I .0 Minutes of Planning Committee Meeting February 16, 1988 to them for action. Chairwoman Woods added that if Council desires extensive revision to a recommendation before them, Council would usually remand the issue to the recommending body for additional hearings. Discussion occurred on Stratford Arms and on the impact of the proposed development standards on smaller lots in general. Mr. Sharp commented that he believes the city is encouraging the development of larger parcels because the proposed amendments discourage development of smaller lots. Mr. Ramos was concerned about lots with two street frontages and asked if there could be flexibility to allow more stringent standards on the more visible street and less stringent standards on the other street, while retaining a variable setback. Staff agreed to add such an amendment. Mr. Ramos further expressed concern that there are rights of way for streets that will probably never be built or never opened; he asked for an amendment to the proposal to address that possibility early on in the development review stage. Staff agreed to add such an amendment. City Administrator McFall stated the city would have to maintain utility easements however. Mr. Frazier expressed concern about the process used in the public hearings on multifamily development standards and multifamily density reduction. He added that he would like to have the Planning Director award density bonus for superior design. Discussion occurred. Chairwoman Woods added that perhaps density bonus could be considered in a future proposal to amend development standards. Discussion occurred on the effect of the proposed standards on smaller lots. Jim Hansen stated the city has a procedure for obtaining a Variance and that would be an appropriate avenue of relief. Mr. Riebe agreed and added that it is staff's intent to assist developers. Mr. Satterstrom added there is an "in-town P.U.D." process on the books that applies to sites less than one acre. He suggests taking a look at the P.U.D. process to make it workable. Mr. Harris agreed and developers were asked to assist staff in this regard. The Committee agreed to have staff return with an amended proposal at the March 1 meeting and also forward it to the City Council meeting of March 1, 1988. P.U.D. As stated above, it was agreed that staff and the developers would work together to arrive at a workable P.U.D. ordinance. 3 Minutes of Planning C mmittee Meeting February 16, 1988 i i PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S11988 WORK PROGRAM This issue will be discussed at the next Planning Committee meeting. ADJOURNMENT I i The meeting was adjour ed at 5:35 PM. i i I i I i f i i i i i i i i i I 4 I