Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 03/15/1994 (3). KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE March 15, 1994 4:00 PM Committee Members Present Leona Orr, Chair Jon Johnson Tim Clark Planning Staff Jim Harris Margaret Porter Fred Satterstrom Betsy Czark City Attorney's Office Other City Staff Arthur Martin Other Ouests Bob McIssac INTERIM POTENTIAL GROWTH AREA (J. Harris) (Corrections at the request of King County Planning Director Jim Harris went over some modifications submitted by King County on the potential interim growth boundaries. Chair Orr said it was her understanding that when the City of Kent passed the resolution on the interim growth boundaries that King County probably would be responding with some minor changes. Jim said he agreed. King County now has reviewed the growth area boundaries and has made minor corrections. Mr. Harris suggested the map be redrawn to show these corrections and to not amend the resolution. The three Committee members agreed. Mr. Harris said he would see that the map is redrawn indicating these corrections. GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE (F. Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom informed the Committee that the City of Kent does not have six more months to complete the Comprehensive Plan as indicated in recent newspaper articles in the Valley Daily News and Seattle times. The Legislature gave an additional six month period to the end of the year for cities and counties who did not finish their comprehensive plan by July lst the ability to continue to collect impact fees until December 31, 1994, as long as their plan is adopted by the end of the year. Mr. Satterstrom said the one thing that has an impact directly to the Comprehensive Plan is the progress on the Capital Facilities Plan. There is a lot of transition on this project. A lot of people who were CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 15, 1994 PAGE 2 working on this months ago are no longer working on it right now nor directing the project. Over the next eight weeks, the Mayor and Brent McFall have devised an extensive work program where they will be intensively working with Henderson, Young & Company to come up with alternatives for the Council's consideration on the Capital Facilities Plan. Also, it was reported that the Transportation element is expected to be partially completed so it can be put into the Comprehensive Plan around April 1st. The Parks consultant, Beckwith Consulting Group, is also not finished with their work at the present time. Fred said the Planning Department will not be able to make the April hearing schedule with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission hearing dates cannot be reliably set with all the lose ends. The issue is over how to control things that are outside the Planning Department and the interdependence on all of these contracts and decisions that are being made. The Planning Commission hearings could begin no sooner than the end of May 1994 or later. Fred explained the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is contingent upon the land use and transportation elements; the land use and transportation elements cannot be considered separately from the Capital Facilities element. The Capital Facilities element has to -be done in order to call it truly a Comprehensive Plan because that's the whole thrust of GMA. A video will be coming out soon explaining the alternatives to the Comprehensive Plan. Community Forums will be held like those which were done two years ago. Fred stated that if anyone is interested in forming a group with their co-workers, people at school, people in their neighborhoods, or other employees are welcome to contact the Planning Department and Planning Department will train whoever would like to convene a meeting and Survey forms will be provided. With much discussion, it was agreed information needs to be given to the Council members of whatever the Planning Commission will be receiving. This will keep the Council informed before the Comprehensive Plan is brought to the Council. The information packets would have a memo attached stating, "you are getting this information so that you can follow where the Planning Commission is going but it is inappropriate to try to contact Planning Commissioners and influence their decision-making process". Also, additional information will be given to the Council when the Planning Commissioners receive any clarification information. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 15, 1994 PAGE 3 1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) LOCAL PROGRAM POLICIES AND ESTIMATED FUNDING LEVELS - (B. Czark) Planner Betsy Czark explained the 1995 Local Program Policies and the City of Kent qualifies to receive "pass-through" funds for its 1995 CDBG program. She mentioned the City has not yet received its exact estimate for the 1995 funds from King County. However, the County predicts that the 1995 funding will be at approximately the same level as 1994. The 1994 CDBG funds totaled $373,101. In addition, we are recapturing $38,830 of our 1993 CDBG funds of projects that did not get off the ground. Staff requested that the following actions be approved: 1. Approval to accept 1995 Pass -Through funds. 2. Approval to accept the $38,830 in 1993 recaptured funds for the 1995 program year. 3. Allocate the maximum available of 1995 Pass -Through funds for Public (Human) Services for the City of Kent. 4. Allocate the City's fair share maximum of 1995 Pass -Through funds to Planning and Administration. 5. Approval of the proposed 1995 Local Program Policies. 6. Forward these recommendations to the full City Council for consideration at its April 19, 1994 meeting. Planner Czark explained three(3) changes to the 1994 Local Program Policies. The first one is a revision to Part IV - "Public (Human) Services", to include special populations that CDBG regards as groups with a presumed benefit. It also adds a line regarding projects that are encouraged: "Preventative and subsistence programs are encouraged, especially those that leverage other services and financial resources." The second revision is the addition of Part V - "Funding Priorities", which is to make explicit the funding priorities that the Human Services Commission has always implicitly used in its application review process. The third revision is in Part VI - "Additional Evaluation Criteria", which is to reduce redundancies with other sections of the policies. The items that were deleted are now covered in either Part VI or Part V. Councilmember Clark MOVED and Chair Orr SECONDED a motion to approve the aforementioned six(6) actions. Motion carried. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MARCH 15, 1994 PAGE 4 ADDED ITEMS Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application and Regulatory Review Application - (J. Harris) Mr. Harris explained there is a potential problem occurring because of a person has applied for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a rezone. With the Planning Department already involved with Comprehensive Plan project for GMA, it is difficult to handle these requests with the GMA. Mr. Satterstrom stated there very few comprehensive plan amendments in the history of the Planning Department. City Attorney Lubovich said to Fred that a person who submits an application for a rezone has the right to have the rezone application processed, even though it may be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. This doesn't mean staff would recommend approval; it would go to the Hearing Examiner with an obvious conflict between the request and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is askincj the Council committee members how to proceed on these kinds of issues particularly since we're so close to finishing the overall Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Clark SECONDED a motion to recommend to putting these Comprehensive Plan actions on hold and to fold them into the current Comprehensive Plan process until the Comprehensive Plan is done. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m. PC0315.MIN CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES November 7, 1995 Committee member Clark questioned if the proposed Accessory Housing amendment had a requirement within it for off-street parking. He also asked if there would be any conflict with the accessory housing and the request to amend the development standards in regard to the minimum lot size. Ms. Phillips explained that there is a section that stipulates that driveways must be 20 feet long. Ms. Evezich, Assistant City Attorney, questioned whether the existing and expected future traffic volumes and right of way requirements are documented somewhere by the Public Works Department. Ms. Evezich mentioned that if there is a traffic plan that is going to be the basis for the Public Works Department requiring a setback or a right of way requirement, then that language needs to be included in the Zoning Code Amendment. The verbiage will be added to the draft Ordinance to indicate what documentation will be used to approve or disapprove setback requirements. Committee member Johnson MOVED to approve and send to the full Council the single family development standards zoning code amendment on November 21, 1995. The motion was SECONDED by Committee member Clark. Chair Orr clarified if the motion included the identification of the documentation that will be used by the Public Works Department. Committee member Johnson confirmed that his motion did include such documentation. The motion carried. ADULT USE ZONING #ZCA-95-3 - (R. Lubovich) The City Attorney's office received copies of existing Ordinances from other jurisdictions. Ms. Evezich will provide the Committee with a legislative history from those jurisdictions at the next meeting for action. None of those jurisdictions have a 1,000 foot buffer from a legal nonconforming residential use in a commercial area but rather all of their restrictions address residential in terms of a district or a zone. Incorporated into the findings will be a support of a recommendation for a zoning code change in reducing the setback to within 1,000 feet of nonconforming residential uses. SCHOOL IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE - (L. Evezich) Mr. Rodger Anderson from the Seattle King County Association of Realtors, 12015 115th NE, Kirkland. Mr. Anderson is proposing an exemption to the School Impact Fee Ordinance to accommodate low income housing. He presented the Committee an example of an exemption currently in place in Bainbridge Island. Chair Orr recommended continuing with the adoption of the existing Ordinance and then have the Council take a look at the possible exemption during the next six months. Ms. Evezich recommended a Resolution to indicate the Planning Committee would consider the proposed exemption to the School Impact Fee Ordinance during the next six months. Mr. Fred High, Kent School District. Mr. High commented on the exemption for the School Impact Fee Ordinance for low income housing. Mr. High discussed the reasoning behind requesting the mitigation fees. He presented the committee with a cost analysis demonstrating the average costs that are generated to the schools with each new single family residence. 3 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES October 3, 1995 businesses to be located within the City of Kent (without opening up an inordinate amount of area) and still make it consistent with the zoning of those particular businesses in commercial areas. A check would be made for negative secondary effects on the residential uses which are legal nonconforming uses in the commercial areas. The staff recommendation for the Planning Committee is to consider that as a possibility for Adult Use Zoning. The staff would assist on a presentation on the amount of sites available based on that language being eliminated from the existing adult use ordinance. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom went over the four (4) alternatives considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission could not reach a consensus on any of the proposed Adult Use ordinance. The Commission, after the February 1995 public hearing, decided that it should go back to the Planning Department until Planning staff could come up with proposals for 20 sites for adult use. The item went back to the Commission in April 1995 with the following alternatives: No change to existing regulations, keeping the 1,000 setback from all five protected uses which included the 1,000 foot buffer from existing residences even though they might be in Commercial and Industrial zones. 2. A reduction of the 1,000 buffer around nonconforming residential uses to 250 feet, without the addition of the M 1 C zone. This would create 12 eligible sites. 3. A 250 foot buffer for nonconforming residential uses and adding Adult Use to the M1 C zoning district, a reduction of the 1,000 foot setback, and there is only one area in the City that is zoned MIC and it is in the middle of a industrial area. This created the most eligible sites out of all four alternatives, about 32 sites. 4. A zero foot buffer for nonconforming residential uses. It would be deleting the protective buffer for those residences in the Commercial or Industrial zones but maintaining the 1,000 buffer for all the other protected uses. That would be single family zoned areas, churches, schools, libraries, and public parks. This created about 19 sites eligible for adult use. Assistant City Attorney Laurie Evezich pointed out that the amount of appropriate sites depends on factors such as the size of the city and the number of available sites in relation to the number of square acres city-wide. Committeechair Orr raised the concern that the Meridian Annexation may change the number of sites required. Ms. Evezich stated that it is a determination by the court to as to whether or not there is an avenue of access to this type of information. If the Court finds that the 3 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES October 3, 1995 numbers are small in comparison to a very large population, that seems to be more incriminating a number of sites where there is availability for this type of business to move around. Ms. Evezich went on to say the City should not be concerned with the right number of sites, but with how the city finds a way to preserve the ordinance which has been found to be constitutional without opening it up unreasonably to a large number of sites. One way to do that is to review the ordinance and the way it is written now, and determine those areas that are protected, and how they are negatively impacted by this type of business. Upon doing that it was found that there were no findings to support a conclusion of negative secondary effects in relationship to nonconforming residential uses. There were negative secondary effects associated with this type of business on residential zones and residential districts. City Attorney Roger Lubovich added that the courts look at a particular pattern that is given and make a decision. In a particular case, 12-18 sites were not sufficient. In another case 22 sites were sufficient, but we cannot make a judgment because each case has different factors (population, acreage) In our case, the city has a potential of seven sites. The Court stated the seven sites were not enough. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom indicated that there are no eligible sites in the annexation area.. Assistant City Attorney Ms. Evezich brought to the Committee's attention the fact that the court requires, when trying to come up with the findings to support the basis for the decision to "zone" in a certain manner, is whether or not the areas that are being protected have been negatively impacted by these secondary effects. There was a study prepared by the Planning Department and findings in support of the negative secondary effects on the protected uses aforementioned. At the time the analysis was done, the record was deficient in indicating that there was a negative secondary impact on nonconforming residential uses within a commercial, manufacturing, and/or industrial area. Whatever direction is taken, the findings will need to support the conclusion. Committeechair Orr suggested that this item go before the Planning Committee the November 7, 1995, and action be taken. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. al