Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 04/18/1995 CITY OF CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES April 18, 1995 4 : 00 PM Committee Members Present City Attorney' s Office Leona Orr, Chair Laurie Evezich Jon Johnson Roger Lubovich Tim Clark Planning Staff Other City Staff Jim Harris Margaret Porter Ed White Kevin O'Neill Fred Satterstrom Other Guests Linda Phillips Jay Bakst Barbara Ivanov Steven Nuss PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION GOALS AND POLICIES - (L. Phillips) Planner Linda Phillips went over the two proposed alternatives as explained in the agenda packet regarding revisions to the Kent Comprehensive Plan Non-motorized Transportation Goals and Policies . The first proposal alternative is dated January 13 , 1995, which includes proposed revisions as a result of a collaborative effort by the Kent Chamber of Commerce, the Kent Transit Advisory Board, and the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board. Members from each of these three organizations attended a series of joint meetings, coordinated by the Department of Public Works Traffic Engineer, to discuss their concerns regarding non-motorized transportation. Their common goals were to consolidate several of the proposed policies and draft proposed revisions which would be amenable to all, and which would be acceptable for adoption by the City Council . The second proposal is dated February 22, 1995, which is a memo from the Steve Babbitt, Chair of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board. This alternative is in response to the above proposed revisions . They support policies TR-7. 3 , TR-7.4, TR-7. 5, TR-7. 9, TR-7 . 10, and TR-7 . 11 but feel policies TR-7 . 1, TR-7 . 2 , TR-7 . 6, TR-7 . 7, and TR-7 . 8 are impotent in their present state because they can be interpreted in a manner in which no progress toward a more bicycle-friendly environment is guaranteed or required and all effort toward that goal is strictly voluntary. Linda said there are four options available for the City Council Planning Committee to consider on the Nonmotorized Policies are as follows : CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 18, 1995 PAGE 2 1 . The goals and policies dated January 13, 1995; 2 . The revisions as detailed in the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board dated February 22, 1995; 3 . The original language of the draft Kent Comprehensive Plan dated July 18, 1994 ; or 4 . New revisions sponsored by the City Council Planning Committee . Steve Nuss, 26220 42nd Avenue South in Kent, spoke on behalf of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board. He said the terms that were used to rewrite the policy dated January 13 , 1995 softened the original language . They were not very happy about that . He urged the Committee members to think about what the main goal is . If the goal is to get people out of the single occupant vehicle using alternate modes of transportation, then we need to make it as friendly for the other modes as possible, whether it is carpooling, bicycling, or walking. They feel some of the teeth of the language was taken out with the policy dated January 13 , 1995 . Jay Bakst, 13323 S .E. 185 Place in Renton, spoke on behalf of the Kent Chamber of Commerce . He stated there was a concern about putting strict mandated language in the Kent Comprehensive Plan that has to last for 20 years . They spent a lot of time identifying the proper set of words . Currently, he stated there doesn' t seem to be a lot of flexibility among City staff when a new development comes along because of various rules that need to be followed. If a developer comes up with a creative solution, they can' t do it because the rules still need to be followed. The solution they came up with was to be more flexible on the policies within the goals TR-7, but to add to the primary goal TR-1 which states, "Alternative flexible and creative transportation options that maximizes these requirements should also be allowed in the planning process" . Barbara Ivanov, Director of the Kent Chamber of Commerce, 524 W. Meeker #1 in Kent, added concerns about pedestrian and bicycle traffic within all residential and development areas and whether this is appropriate everywhere in the City. Also, a concern about whether people need storage rooms, the cost of impact to businesses in providing changing rooms and if they are needed. Maps on bicycle routes posted throughout town would be needed. Jay Bakst added that providing safe access could mean adding a pedestrian overpass and this doesn' t seem appropriate for a Comprehensive Plan. Chair Orr added that it is the City' s responsibility to cover the cost of this type of access . Steven Nuss added that in reference to Policy TR-7 . 8, changing rooms were intended for employers with over 100 employees . CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 18, 1995 PAGE 3 Chair Orr recommended several comments or revisions to the January 13 , 1995 version: Policy TR-7 . 1 - Whenever practical , accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic within all residential and development areas of the City. Policy TR-7 . 2 - Whenever practical, using incentives or regulations to encourage new construction to promote pedestrian and bicycle movements to pathways, transit services and arterial . Policy TR-7 . 6 - Whenever practical, premete provide safety and safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists to transit stops . Sign street intersections of streets with nonmotorized trails for both trail users and street users . Policy TR-7 . 7 - Whenever practical, using incentives or regulatory means, encourage bicycle storage facilities with adequate lighting or residential development projects, park- and-rides, employment and industrial centers, schools, activity centers and retail areas . Policy TR-7 . 8 - Whenever practical , using incentives or regulatory means, encourage employers to provide clothing change facilities . Policy TR-7 . 12 - Ensure that trail systems located in sensitive or conservation areas are compatible with the environment in which the trail is located as well as with the intended uses . Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Clark SECONDED a motion to adopt the amended changes discussed by the Committee at today' s meeting of the Nonmotorized Transportation Goals and Policies, which revised January 13 , 1995 version. Motion carried. AMENDMENT PROCEDURES FOR KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - (K. O'Neill) Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill stated that the Growth Management Act requires jurisdictions to establish procedures for amending comprehensive plans . According to state law, comprehensive plans can only be amended once a year. The draft ordinance in the agenda packet establishes a time line and process for annual amendments, and also outlines fees for comprehensive plan amendment applications . Mr. O'Neill went over the draft ordinance by each section. He said the ordinance states that amendments shall be submitted to the Planning Department by September 1 of each calendar year. This date was proposed in order to fit plan amendments into the same time as the budget process and the Capital Facilities Plan. The City may also submit amendments to update the Comprehensive Plan on an emergency basis in addition to the annual amendment process . CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES APRIL 18, 1995 PAGE 4 Assistant Attorney Laurie Evezich stated she would like to add two sections to the ordinance. She apologized for not letting anyone know before the meeting about these changes . The first addition Laurie recommended was a Standard of Review section. This would guide a reviewing body in considering whether or not a Comprehensive Plan amendment would be made. without such a standard, the City would risk challenges that its decision making was arbitrary or capricious . This way the City will not be in jeopardy of having someone coming back later and saying that the City has acted arbitrarily or capriciously. She suggested that the Standard of Review section could contain language to the effect "that a proposed amendment still maintained the consistency and cogency of the Comprehensive Plan and all of its elements, that it was in furtherance of the public health, safety, and welfare, and that it did not have a negative or unduly burdensome economic impact" etc . The second addition would be a Time of Review section so that once the September 1st threshold was met, that there was some certainty as to how soon the reviewing body would have to process this information and then make a decision afterwards . Specifically, she recommended that language be added that the City Council will receive an application and will review it within "x" number of days, and they make a decision as to affirm, deny, or modify the application and spell this out up front so the person who is making the application has some sense of what the process and the time of that process will be. Chair Orr responded by saying this is probably something that should be included. She added it is important that the Council know whether this is a 60-day process or 90-day process or whatever and that the people involved would need to know the time frame too. Mr. Harris recommended that perhaps the language could state when the Planning Commission would receive all the amendments and not the City Council because the Planning Commission could spend four months on the amendments . The question was asked if action was needed today. Mr. Satterstrom clarified that this item is on the agenda for action so this can go to the City Council . Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Clark SECONDED a motion to adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedures as outlined in the ordinance and at the next Planning Committee the Committee would review two new sections called Standard for Review and Time of Review. Motion carried. mp:pco418 .min