Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 10/20/1992 CITY OF LMH JT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES tt�y�II6�� OCTOBER 20, 1992 4: 00 PM COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT OTHER CITY STAFF Leona Orr, Chair Norm Angelo Jon Johnson Mary Berg Tom Brubaker Laurie Evezich COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT Gary Gill Bob Hutchinson Jim Bennett Tony McCarthy Larry Webb Don Wickstrom PLANNING STAFF Helen Wickstrom Ed White Sharon Clamp James Harris GUESTS Kevin O'Neill Margaret Porter Ted Knapp Fred Satterstrom Don McDaniel Janet Shull Paul Morford John Murdock Jean Parietti Raul Ramos Barb Simpson VISIONING FOLLOW-UP (J. SHULL) Planner Janet Shull reviewed a report prepared by Parks, Planning and Public Works Department staff in accordance with Resolution 1318 dated July 21, 1992 . This Resolution directed the three departments to collaborate on an implementation plan to carry out the Kent Visioning Program and specific recommendations of A. Nelessen Associates. Ms. Shull explained the plan has two primary components; actions which can be implemented through the comprehensive planning process, and actions which must be implemented through special programs. Actions addressed in the comprehensive planning process are broken down into two phases: Phase one consists of general strategies which can be incorporated into the comprehensive plan update process. This includes land use visions and the community design element, the transportation element, and visions for parks. Phase two consists of strategies which can be addressed as development regulations updates. The Planning and Public Works Departments will have primary responsibility for implementation of phase two which includes: CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1992 PAGE 2 1. Updates to zoning and land use regulations with focus on ways to obtain more mixed use within the City, parking, and design guidelines. 2 . Updates to street design standards to allow more opportunities for on-street parking, to include traffic calming devices, and to encourage more pedestrian elements. 3 . Update subdivision code to require streets to connect with other streets in adjacent subdivisions and encourage alleys. The second phase of the plan addresses four special projects which do not fit into the comprehensive planning process and are staff and cost intensive: 1. City endorsement of projects which demonstrate Kent's visions such as providing incentives in the updated regulations, and sponsoring design competitions for strategic sites. 2. The Power of Paint Program, a method by which the City could try out modifications to existing street design prior to committing to any reconstruction. 3. A downtown formal parks program. There are currently three downtown formal parks projects being considered: a downtown centerpiece fountain project, a formal display garden in conjunction with performing arts center development, and a connecting walkway between Kherson Park and Meeker Street. 4. A water-oriented park at the west end of James Street. Councilmember Johnson is concerned about street design standards to allow more opportunity for on-street parking. Mr. Johnson is concerned primarily about residential neighborhoods where streets are not wide enough for two cars to pass one another if vehicles are parked on both sides of the street. In addition, he is concerned about the use of traffic circles because they can impede emergency vehicle access. Chair Orr expressed a concern about marked crosswalks with raised paving and questioned what is meant by raised paving. She is also concerned about connecting the roads between subdivisions. This opens streets up for additional traffic which may be a concern to many residents. Paul Morford stated his son is building houses in the downtown area of Kent known as North Park. The City requires 32 foot wide streets. He feels the street, Second Avenue North, is wider than it needs to be. His son elected to put parking in front even though there are alleys and the lots are 40 feet wide. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1992 PAGE 3 Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Chair Orr SECONDED a motion to approve the Visioning Program Implementation Plan and recommended that it go before the Council on November 3 . Motion carried. REVISIONS TO URBAN GROWTH AREAS - (K. O'NEILL) Planner Kevin O'Neill presented a revised interim urban growth area map and distributed a map of the previous interim urban growth area boundary for comparison purposes. At the September 15 Planning Committee meeting, based on comments received from adjacent cities specifically Sea Tac, staff was directed to revise the map so that the boundary does not overlap the boundaries of any other incorporated city. He pointed out that the map has been amended to exclude areas within Tukwila, Sea Tac and Des Moines to the west of the city limits. The map has also been revised to exclude the Renton watershed area which is located to the south of SE 192nd Street, as well as exclude area to the north of SE 196th Street which the Soos Creek Plan identifies as part of Renton's urban growth area. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Chair Orr SECONDED a motion to approve the revised interim urban growth boundary map and asked that a resolution be prepared for the Council. Motion carried. This item will be forwarded to the Council on November 3 . PERMIT PROCESS REPORT (J. HARRIS) Chair Leona Orr announced that although this item is listed as an action item, no action will be taken today due to the absence of the third Committee member. Paul Morford stated he chaired the Chamber of Commerce committee which started out with tenant improvements and was chair of the Mayor's task force which included the whole permit process. The committee looked through all the permits and had good representation from the City (city administrator, city councilmember, city attorney, an architect) . The committee feels this process must start with an organization with the product being to get the permit out. Mr. Morford used an analogy of a car going down an assembly line. Staff wants to get permits out in a timely manner but they also want to get them out safe. A car going down a Detroit assembly line certainly needs to come out safe but it also needs to come out in a timely manner. Based on this analogy and discussions with department heads and staff, the committee feels a small organization with a cross-trained staff is needed. Raul Ramos stated in 1989 when the Council was discussing the development of the Centennial Center, they expressed the strong desire to have a permit center where people can go to receive centralized services and an organization of people with similar expertise who would work on similar permits. There have been some CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1992 PAGE 4 accomplishments by Planning, Public Works and Code Enforcement staff but there has not yet been the formation of a one-stop permit center the way Mr. Ramos believes the Council envisioned many years ago. The committee opted for a new organization, the Office of Development Permits and Inspections, which would be more exclusive and which would streamline staff who would function specifically to work and process and improve the whole series of permits. The Office of Development Permits and Inspections will be the building block upon which, over time and through Council review, similar permit review functions and personnel can be added. The personnel is intended to come from existing permit review functions. It is not the committee's intention to create a super agency like BALD. Mr. Ramos' first preference is for the Council to adopt the committee's recommendation to form the new Office of Development Permits and Inspections. This department will physically be located within the Code Enforcement section, and over time staff will be added from other departments such as Planning. They will work together to allow people to go to one counter. Planning, Code Enforcement and Public Works staff has come up with a proposal which Mr. Ramos feels is worth looking at. They have proposed a six month review period and they have adopted a lot of the recommendations of the committee. He feels the Council should link the adoption of staff s_ proposal with the committee's complete recommendation. If certain expectation are not met as a result of the six month experimentation as proposed by the three departments, then the Council should go back and adopt the committee's recommendation for a formal permit center. Mr. Ramos feels evaluation criteria needs to be added to the departments' proposal which a Council appointed committee would use to evaluate their performance. He feels this is fair to everyone who has worked on the issue and to those who have expressed concerns about the process. Ted Knapp stated that a number of years ago the Council sent Jim Hansen to the Bay Area to look at how other cities handle permit processing. Mr. Knapp accompanied Mr. Hansen on this trip and stated that several cities had one-stop permit centers which operated extremely efficiently. They saw applicants, without an appointment, get all their questions answered at one counter. Mr. Knapp is concerned that the department proposal is more status quo than is progress but is willing to try it. Planning Director James Harris explained that department heads from Planning, Public Works, and Fire were asked by the mayor to respond to the Mayor's Permit Process Advisory Committee report. Mr. Harris stated that in a memo from the three department heads to the Mayor, they state that their proposal, although different from the Mayor's committee, will accomplish most of what the committee proposes. The department heads do not feel that the present system is broken, and they have been working with Jim Hansen for 1-2 years CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1992 PAGE 5 to fine tune the system. They feel their proposal will create a faster turn-around time for a certain class of permits and will not be disruptive to staff. The committee's proposal will create a drastic change in a time when there is terrible disruption with the City having just gone through layoffs and not knowing what is over the horizon for future City finances. He added that any committee formed in the future should have department involvement. Norm Angelo requested that due to time, this item be carried over to the next meeting. Don Wickstrom commented that the department heads tried to incorporate many of the recommendations of the committee and have developed a checklist to save time for both staff and the public. Barb Simpson distributed a copy of a memo and survey sent to Chamber members on October 19, 1992 and summarized the few responses that have been received so far. Respondents indicated they have applied for 2-3 permits within the past 12 months and had to come back to the City 2-3 times for each application. Target dates were rarely met. She quoted a comment from Heath Tecna, "Tenant improvement permits take 3-4 weeks, this is too long for minor projects. Major and new construction projects take 45-60 days and this is generally hard to schedule around especially the uncertainty of when the permits will be issued. " She indicted there are also some very specific suggestions. She offered copies and indicated she could tabulate the results for the next meeting. ADDED ITEMS SEATAC ANNEXATION/DEANNEXATION PROPOSAL (T. BRUBAKER) Assistant City Attorney Brubaker distributed a draft resolution and map and stated that Metro wishes to expand a park and ride lot on the west hill. The lot, which is inside the Kent city limits, will expand into the City of Sea Tac (shown as "A" on the map) . As it now stands, two sets of building, construction, and grading permits will be required and there will be the question of who is the agency of authority. After the lot is constructed, if a thief or other criminal action occurs there will be jurisdictional problems. Therefore, it is proposed that Sea Tac deannex the portion shown as "A" and Kent annex it. In addition, property shown as "B" was once an island of unincorporated county left over after Sea Tac incorporated. The boundary review board required Sea Tac to take this property because they did not want an island left. It totally invades Kent on all sides, and it is proposed that Kent take this property back. Property shown as "C" , is a portion of Grandview Park within the city limits of Kent. The park is run by King County, however, within three years Sea Tac will take over ownership and maintenance of the park. It has been requested that CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1992 PAGE 6 Kent deannex this section to Sea Tac so that when Sea Tac owns the park, they will also have city jurisdiction over the entire park. In summary, the sections marked A and B on the map would be annexed into Kent, and the section marked C would be deannexed from Kent and annexed to Sea Tac. A draft resolution to accomplish the above has been prepared and a SEPA review has begun. The Public Works Committee has approved the proposal. Mr. Brubaker asked the Committee to approve the annexation/deannexation conditioned on a determination of nonsignificance being issued by the City of Kent Planning Department. A statutory mechanism exists which allows Kent to issue a DNS and pass a resolution. When the boundary review board approves the City of Sea Tac will hold a public hearing and, if Sea Tac passes a similar resolution, it all happens automatically. Planning Director Harris stated the Planning Department has not received a SEPA application for this proposal. The Committee decided to defer action on this issue to their November 3 meeting. PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORK PROGRAM (F. SATTERSTROM) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom announced that two days after presenting the Committee with the Planning Department's work program the Department learned that it is losing a planner who is involved in both current and long-range planning. The Department is beginning the process of requesting that the position be filled. Depending on the outcome of that request, the work program may need to be adjusted. This is a critical loss for the Department particularly because the Council has referred the wetlands ordinance back to the Planning Commission and the staff member who has been working on this project has resigned. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. PC1020.92 CITY OF )711M CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES V7=?k OCTOBER 20, 1992 4 : 00 PM COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT OTHER CITY STAFF Leona Orr, Chair Norm Angelo Jon Johnson Mary Berg Tom Brubaker Laurie Evezich COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT Gary Gill Bob Hutchinson Jim Bennett Tony McCarthy Larry Webb Don Wickstrom PLANNING STAFF Helen Wickstrom Ed White Sharon Clamp James Harris GUESTS Kevin O'Neill Margaret Porter Ted Knapp Fred Satterstrom Don McDaniel Janet Shull Paul Morford John Murdock Jean Parietti Raul Ramos Barb Simpson VISIONING FOLLOW-UP (J. SHULL) Planner Janet Shull reviewed a report prepared by Parks, Planning and Public Works Department staff in accordance with Resolution 1318 dated July 21, 1992 . This Resolution directed the three departments to collaborate on an implementation plan to carry out the Kent Visioning Program and specific recommendations of A. Nelessen Associates. Ms. Shull explained the plan has two primary components; actions which can be implemented through the comprehensive planning process, and actions which must be implemented through special programs. Actions addressed in the comprehensive planning process are broken down into two phases: Phase one consists of general strategies which can be incorporated into the comprehensive plan update process. This includes land use visions and the community design element, the transportation element, and visions for parks. Phase two consists of strategies which can be addressed as development regulations updates. The Planning and Public Works Departments will have primary responsibility for implementation of phase two which includes: CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1992 PAGE 2 1. Updates to zoning and land use regulations with focus on ways to obtain more mixed use within the City, parking, and design guidelines. 2. Updates to street design standards to allow more opportunities for on-street parking, to include traffic calming devices, and to encourage more pedestrian elements. 3 . Update subdivision code to require streets to connect with other streets in adjacent subdivisions and encourage alleys. The second phase of the plan addresses four special projects which do not fit into the comprehensive planning process and are staff and cost intensive: 1. City endorsement of projects which demonstrate Kent' s visions such as providing incentives in the updated regulations, and sponsoring design competitions for strategic sites. 2 . The Power of Paint Program, a method by which the City could try out modifications to existing street design prior to committing to any reconstruction. 3 . A downtown formal parks program. There are currently three downtown formal parks projects being considered: a downtown centerpiece fountain project, a formal display garden in conjunction with performing arts center development, and a connecting walkway between Kherson Park and Meeker Street. 4. A water-oriented park at the west end of James Street. Councilmember Johnson is concerned about street design standards to allow more opportunity for on-street parking. Mr. Johnson is concerned primarily about residential neighborhoods where streets are not wide enough for two cars to pass one another if vehicles are parked on both sides of the street. In addition, he is concerned about the use of traffic circles because they can impede emergency vehicle access. Chair Orr expressed a concern about marked crosswalks with raised paving and questioned what is meant by raised paving. She is also concerned about connecting the roads between subdivisions. This opens streets up for additional traffic which may be a concern to many residents. Paul Morford stated his son is building houses in the downtown area of Kent known as North Park. The City requires 32 foot wide streets. He feels the street, Second Avenue North, is wider than it needs to be. His son elected to put parking in front even though there are alleys and the lots are 40 feet wide. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1992 PAGE 3 Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Chair Orr SECONDED a motion to approve the Visioning Program Implementation Plan and recommended that it go before the Council on November 3 . Motion carried. REVISIONS TO URBAN GROWTH AREAS - (K. O'NEILLI Planner Kevin O'Neill presented a revised interim urban growth area map and distributed a map of the previous interim urban growth area boundary for comparison purposes. At the September 15 Planning Committee meeting, based on comments received from adjacent cities specifically Sea Tac, staff was directed to revise the map so that the boundary does not overlap the boundaries of any other incorporated city. He pointed out that the map has been amended to exclude areas within Tukwila, Sea Tac and Des Moines to the west of the city limits. The map has also been revised to exclude the Renton watershed area which is located to the south of SE 192nd Street, as well as exclude area to the north of SE 196th Street which the Soos Creek Plan identifies as part of Renton' s urban growth area. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Chair Orr SECONDED a motion to approve the revised interim urban growth boundary map and asked that a resolution be prepared for the Council. Motion carried. This item will be forwarded to the Council on November 3 . PERMIT PROCESS REPORT (J. HARRIS) Chair Leona Orr announced that although this item is listed as an action item, no action will be taken today due to the absence of the third Committee member. Paul Morford stated he chaired the Chamber of Commerce committee which started out with tenant improvements and was chair of the Mayor's task force which included the whole permit process. The committee looked through all the permits and had good representation from the City (city administrator, city councilmember, city attorney, an architect) . The committee feels this process must start with an organization with the product being to get the permit out. Mr. Morford used an analogy of a car going down an assembly line. Staff wants to get permits out in a timely manner but they also want to get them out safe. A car going down a Detroit assembly line certainly needs to come out safe but it also needs to come out in a timely manner. Based on this analogy and discussions with department heads and staff, the committee feels a small organization with a cross-trained staff is needed. Raul Ramos stated in 1989 when the Council was discussing the development of the Centennial Center, they expressed the strong desire to have a permit center where people can go to receive centralized services and an organization of people with similar expertise who would work on similar permits. There have been some CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1992 PAGE 4 accomplishments by Planning, Public Works and Code Enforcement staff but there has not yet been the formation of a one-stop permit center the way Mr. Ramos believes the Council envisioned many years ago. The committee opted for a new organization, the Office of Development Permits and Inspections, which would be more exclusive and which would streamline staff who would function specifically to work and process and improve the whole series of permits. The Office of Development Permits and Inspections will be the building block upon which, over time and through Council review, similar permit review functions and personnel can be added. The personnel is intended to come from existing permit review functions. It is not the committee's intention to create a super agency like BALD. Mr. Ramos' first preference is for the Council to adopt the committee's recommendation to form the new Office of Development Permits and Inspections. This department will physically be located within the Code Enforcement section, and over time staff will be added from other departments such as Planning. They will work together to allow people to go to one counter. Planning, Code Enforcement and Public Works staff has come up with a proposal which Mr. Ramos feels is worth looking at. They have proposed a six month review period and they have adopted a lot of the recommendations of the committee. He feels the Council should link the adoption of staffs proposal with the committee's complete recommendation. If certain expectation are not met as a result of the six month experimentation as proposed by the three departments, then the Council should go back and adopt the committee's recommendation for a formal permit center. Mr. Ramos feels evaluation criteria needs to be added to the departments' proposal which a Council appointed committee would use to evaluate their performance. He feels this is fair to everyone who has worked on the issue and to those who have expressed concerns about the process. Ted Knapp stated that a number of years ago the Council sent Jim Hansen to the Bay Area to look at how other cities handle permit processing. Mr. Knapp accompanied Mr. Hansen on this trip and stated that several cities had one-stop permit centers which operated extremely efficiently. They saw applicants, without an appointment, get all their questions answered at one counter. Mr. Knapp is concerned that the department proposal is more status quo than is progress but is willing to try it. Planning Director James Harris explained that department heads from Planning, Public Works, and Fire were asked by the mayor to respond to the Mayor's Permit Process Advisory Committee report. Mr. Harris stated that in a memo from the three department heads to the Mayor, they state that their proposal, although different from the Mayor's committee, will accomplish most of what the committee proposes. The department heads do not feel that the present system is broken, and they have been working with Jim Hansen for 1-2 years CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1992 PAGE 5 to fine tune the system. They feel their proposal will create a faster turn-around time for a certain class of permits and will not be disruptive to staff. The committee's proposal will create a drastic change in a time when there is terrible disruption with the City having just gone through layoffs and not knowing what is over the horizon for future City finances. He added that any committee formed in the future should have department involvement. Norm Angelo requested that due to time, this item be carried over to the next meeting. Don Wickstrom commented that the department heads tried to incorporate many of the recommendations of the committee and have developed a checklist to save time for both staff and the public. Barb Simpson distributed a copy of a memo and survey sent to Chamber members on October 19, 1992 and summarized the few responses that have been received so far. Respondents indicated they have applied for 2-3 permits within the past 12 months and had to come back to the City 2-3 times for each application. Target dates were rarely met. She quoted a comment from Heath Tecna, "Tenant improvement permits take 3-4 weeks, this is too long for minor projects. Major and new construction projects take 45-60 days and this is generally hard to schedule around especially the uncertainty of when the permits will be issued. " She indicted there are also some very specific suggestions. She offered copies and indicated she could tabulate the results for the next meeting. ADDED ITEMS SEATAC ANNEXATION/DEANNEXATION PROPOSAL (T. BRUBAKER) Assistant City Attorney Brubaker distributed a draft resolution and map and stated that Metro wishes to expand a park and ride lot on the west hill. The lot, which is inside the Kent city limits, will expand into the City of Sea Tac (shown as "A" on the map) . As it now stands, two sets of building, construction, and grading permits will be required and there will be the question of who is the agency of authority. After the lot is constructed, if a thief or other criminal action occurs there will be jurisdictional problems. Therefore, it is proposed that Sea Tac deannex the portion shown as "A" and Kent annex it. In addition, property shown as "B" was once an island of unincorporated county left over after Sea Tac incorporated. The boundary review board required Sea Tac to take this property because they did not want an island left. It totally invades Kent on all sides, and it is proposed that Kent take this property back. Property shown as "C" , is a portion of Grandview Park within the city limits of Kent. The park is run by King County, however, within three years Sea Tac will take over ownership and maintenance of the park. It has been requested that CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1992 PAGE 6 Kent deannex this section to Sea Tac so that when Sea Tac owns the park, they will also have city jurisdiction over the entire park. In summary, the sections marked A and B on the map would be annexed into Kent, and the section marked C would be deannexed from Kent and annexed to Sea Tac. A draft resolution to accomplish the above has been prepared and a SEPA review has begun. The Public Works Committee has approved the proposal. Mr. Brubaker asked the Committee to approve the annexation/deannexation conditioned on a determination of nonsignificance being issued by the City of Kent Planning Department. A statutory mechanism exists which allows Kent to issue a DNS and pass a resolution. When the boundary review board approves the City of Sea Tac will hold a public hearing and, if Sea Tac passes a similar resolution, it all happens automatically. Planning Director Harris stated the Planning Department has not received a SEPA application for this proposal. The Committee decided to defer action on this issue to their November 3 meeting. PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORK PROGRAM (F. SATTERSTROM) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom announced that two days after presenting the Committee with the Planning Department's work program the Department learned that it is losing a planner who is involved in both current and long-range planning. The Department is beginning the process of requesting that the position be filled. Depending on the outcome of that request, the work program may need to be adjusted. This is a critical loss for the Department particularly because the Council has referred the wetlands ordinance back to the Planning Commission and the staff member who has been working on this project has resigned. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5: 30 p.m. PC1020.92