Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 08/18/1992 CITY OF i CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE August 18 , 1992 dd9l�IIC�9P1� Committee Members Present Guests Jim Bennett Don McDaniel Jon Johnson Barbara Simpson Leona Orr, Chair Mike Spence Paul Seely Planning Staff James P. Harris Margaret Porter Fred Satterstrom City Attorney' s Office Tom Brubaker I GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE F. SATTERSTROM Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom stated that the Wetlands ordinance, which is a requirement of the Growth Management Act, was scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting in July but there was lack of a quorum. It is scheduled again for a public hearing on August 24 , 1992 and hopefully will be coming to the full council shortly thereafter. A second agenda item on the Planning Commission's agenda next Monday is Growth Management Planning Goals which will help serve as the framework for Kent' s revised Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Satterstrom noted that the concept of an urban center is included within the context of the planning goals. It is anticipated that the Wetlands Ordinance, Growth Management Planning Goals, and Urban Growth Areas will be on the full council ' s agenda on September 1, 1992 . Mr. Satterstrom stated other cities are calling to inquire about the ability of the City of Kent and other jurisdictions to meet the State mandated deadlines for the Growth Management Act. Mr. Satterstrom commented that the City of Kent plans on keeping the deadlines but realizes the layers of tasks that have been added to this comprehensive planning process could add time as well as effort in order to meet the July 1, 1993 deadline. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 18 , 1992 Planning Director Harris stated Federal Way and Kirkland have told the State they will be doing their comprehensive plan one year late. Des Moines stated they will have trouble with the timelines too. URBAN GROWTH AREAS (F. SATTERSTROM) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom stated that the Planning Committee delayed voting on four alternative interim urban growth area boundaries at its August 4 , 1992 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended Alternative 4 , which would extend the urban growth area to include the Covington area. The Planning staff recommended Alternative 3 , which conforms to the 20 year annexation plan the City Council adopted three or four years ago and is more serviceable. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a motion to adopt Alternative 3 for boundaries of the urban growth area. Councilmember Johnson stated he was in favor of Alternative 3 versus Alternative 4 because he did not think the City should go out as far as Covington and it did not seem practical or serviceable. Councilmembers Orr and Bennett agreed. Motion carried. This item will be placed on the September 1, 1992 City Council agenda. RATIFICATION OF COUNTY WIDE PLANNING POLICIES (F. SATTERSTROM) Prior to the King County Council adoption on July 6 of the recommended County Wide Planning Policies (known as Growth Management Planning Council) , the Planning Committee discussed this item two or three times. Now we are in the ratification process. This ratification process requires at least 30 percent of the jurisdictions within the county comprising of at least 70 percent of the county's population to ratify the policies. Ratification can be done either of two ways: 1) Ratification by Resolution or Motion of a city. 2) Ratification by no action of a city. If a city does not disapprove it within 90 days, it is considered ratified. Mr. Satterstrom explained that on August 18, 1992 the City Council will only be setting a date for a public hearing for September 1 as an action item to begin the ratification process. The County recognizes that cities as well as the public may have amendments to the County Wide Planning Policies that were adopted on July 6, 2 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1992 1992 . During Phase II of the County Wide Planning Policies, there may be suggestions for amendments to the policies. When the GMPC reconvenes no later than December of 1992 , they will evaluate the public comments and other relevant information and prepare amendments. Then any such recommended amendments shall be subject to adoption by the County and then go through a ratification process. Chair Orr opened the meeting for public comments and mentioned she had received a letter from the Board of Realtors. Mike Spence from the Association of Realtors stated the primary reason for this organization getting involved in this issue is because of the huge effects that this could have on housing affordability. With this in mind, they reviewed the County Wide Planning Policies and would like to see a supplemental environmental impact statement prepared as well as a fiscal analysis done. Paul Seeley from the Boeing Company agreed with Mike Spence. He encouraged the Council to ratify the policies, but is pleased to be able to make suggestions. He is concerned and has some problems with being able to meet the criteria as described in activity centers, urban centers, urban growth boundaries, etc. Some of these things do not seem to fit in the ratification process. For example, he said the density requirements for manufacturing require about 15, 000 employees per acre. With this as the criteria, the Boeing Company would have to leave the State of Washington for all of its sites. They would like to be able to keep our options open. Don McDaniel from Puget Power said they would like to keep their options open. Barbara Simpson from the Kent Chamber of Commerce said to take our time in the process to make amendments. Chair Orr asked if the full council has to vote on ratification on September 1 or could they take the comments and considerations back to Planning Committee, develop our recommendations as far as any changes or amendments we would like to see, and then bring this item back to the full council for their approval in 30 days? Mr. Satterstrom responded that the County' s ordinance specifies ratification within 90 days of adoption by King County (October 6) . It was pointed out that October 6 is a meeting night for the City of Kent full council. Chair Orr suggested this item come back to the Committee on September 15 and to the full council on October 6. Mr. Satterstrom will call the County to find out an answer to this question. Another suggestion is for this to go to the Planning Committee on September 15 and on to the full council the same night. Chair Orr suggested the council give an indication on 3 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 18 , 1992 September 1 as to whether they plan on ratifying the policies and providing suggestions and recommendations later. Mr. Satterstrom added the policies designate a specified process wherein a city can nominate itself as an urban center and forward that designation by October 1st to the County to be considered by the GMPC by December 1992 . This process for designation is set forth in the County Wide Planning Policies which the City of Kent is being asked to ratify. Mr. Satterstrom explained that another item coming to the full council on September 1 is Growth Management Planning Goals, wherein the Planning Commission will have considered the proposal by the Planning Department as to whether or not the City of Kent wants to designate itself as an urban center. This needs to be acted on in time to get this information to the GMPC by October 1st. It was discussed that perhaps action could be deferred to September 15 if additional time is needed. Mr. Harris reminded the Planning Committee that those cities that designate themselves as urban centers are going to get the highway funds, transit funds, and other kinds of funds. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a motion to put the County Wide Planning Policies on the consent calendar August 18 to set a public hearing date for September 1 for the ratification. Motion carried. This item will be placed on the September 1 City Council agenda for a public hearing. i SHORT PLAT PROCEDURES (J. HARRIS) Mr. Harris passed out a draft document called "Short Plat Process" consisting of current procedures and two proposed changes. Mr. Harris stated in Proposed Change No. 2 questions might occur as to why would the public would not be invited to come to a short plat meeting. He stated the reason was because short plats are administrative by State law. Another question is whether the public would have the right to appeal; appeal procedures would need to be written. Tom Brubaker from the Law Department had some ideas for the Committee to think about on these two different possibilities. He said the short plat procedure as written in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) is to cut red tape and be a fast remedy for property owners who want to short plat. One extreme is not having nearby property owners who notified. Another is a more elaborate 4 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 18 , 1992 notification process, which can defeat the main purpose of a fast remedy. Therefore, he suggests a balance between the two. One suggestion Mr. Brubaker made is to provide a very tight limitations period within which an affected citizen could present an appeal and enforce it strictly. Chair Orr asked for this item to be brought back to the Committee at the next meeting on September 1 as an information item. Chair Orr asked for council members ' comments and suggested that the Wards be sent a copy of Harris ' proposal. ADDED ITEMS: REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER (J. Harris) i Mr. Harris stated that he recently met with other staff members and Wendy Keller, representing the County, whose in charge of this project. On August 24, the County Council will begin to act on parts of the Regional Justice Center. Another item being worked is by the Department of Ecology on a remedial cleanup proposal of contaminates at a level III on one or both of the justice center sites. In addition, the County Council will soon be approving the team of architects to design the justice center building. It is estimated that in October the Planning Department may receive a set of plans. At that time, the Planning Department becomes the responsible agency for issuing a permit or a license. The Department will be reviewing the county' s environmental impact statement and statements or comments from anyone else to be used as input to determine if additional mitigation will need to take place. Mr. Harris encourages the Human Services Commission to write to the City Council and the County about any of their concerns. It is possible that this issue could come to the voters in November. Mr. Harris notified the Committee that Katherine Scott will be giving an update of the regional justice center at the City Council meeting on August 18 . PERMIT PROCESS REPORT Chair Orr requested that the Permit Process Report be brought to the Committee for discussion at the September 1 or 15 meeting with staff impacts in the Planning Department and the public. Mr. Harris suggested to define the overall permit process (the big picture) in the Planning Department and look at what changes can occur. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5: 30 p.m. PC0818 .min 5 CITY OF )V\L,!? CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE August 18 , 1992 d&�R9gC�5t1� Committee Members Present Guests Jim Bennett Don McDaniel Jon Johnson Barbara Simpson Leona Orr, Chair Mike Spence Paul Seely Planning Staff James P. Harris Margaret Porter Fred Satterstrom City Attorney's Office Tom Brubaker i GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE (F. SATTERSTROM) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom stated that the Wetlands Ordinance, which is a requirement of the Growth Management Act, was scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting in July but there was lack of a quorum. It is scheduled again for a public hearing on August 24 , 1992 and hopefully will be coming to the full council shortly thereafter. A second agenda item on the Planning Commission' s agenda next Monday is Growth Management Planning Goals which will help serve as the framework for Kent 's revised Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Satterstrom noted that the concept of an urban center is included within the context of the planning goals. It is anticipated that the Wetlands Ordinance, Growth Management Planning Goals, and Urban Growth Areas will be on the full council ' s agenda on September 1, 1992 . Mr. Satterstrom stated other cities are calling to inquire about the ability of the City of Kent and other jurisdictions to meet the State mandated deadlines for the Growth Management Act. Mr. Satterstrom commented that the City of Kent plans on keeping the deadlines but realizes the layers of tasks that have been added to this comprehensive planning process could add time as well as effort in order to meet the July 1, 1993 deadline. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1992 Planning Director Harris stated Federal Way and Kirkland have told the State they will be doing their comprehensive plan one year late. Des Moines stated they will have trouble with the timelines too. URBAN GROWTH AREAS (F. SATTERSTROM) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom stated that the Planning Committee delayed voting on four alternative interim urban growth area boundaries at its August 4 , 1992 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended Alternative 4 , which would extend the urban growth area to include the Covington area. The Planning staff recommended Alternative 3 , which conforms to the 20 year annexation plan the City Council adopted three or four years ago and is more serviceable. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a motion to adopt Alternative 3 for boundaries of the urban growth area. Councilmember Johnson stated he was in favor of Alternative 3 versus Alternative 4 because he did not think the City should go out as far as Covington and it did not seem practical or serviceable. Councilmembers Orr and Bennett agreed. Motion carried. This item will be placed on the September 1, 1992 City Council agenda. RATIFICATION OF COUNTY WIDE PLANNING POLICIES (F. SATTERSTROM) Prior to the King County Council adoption on July 6 of the recommended County Wide Planning Policies (known as Growth Management Planning Council) , the Planning Committee discussed this item two or three times. Now we are in the ratification process. This ratification process requires at least 30 percent of the jurisdictions within the county comprising of at least 70 percent of the county' s population to ratify the policies. Ratification can be done either of two ways: 1) Ratification by Resolution or Motion of a city. 2) Ratification by no action of a city. If a city does not disapprove it within 90 days, it is considered ratified. Mr. Satterstrom explained that on August 18 , 1992 the City Council will only be setting a date for a public hearing for September 1 as an action item to begin the ratification process. The County recognizes that cities as well as the public may have amendments to the County Wide Planning Policies that were adopted on July 6, 2 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 18 , 1992 1992 . During Phase II of the County Wide Planning Policies, there may be suggestions for amendments to the policies. When the GMPC reconvenes no later than December of 1992 , they will evaluate the public comments and other relevant information and prepare amendments. Then any such recommended amendments shall be subject to adoption by the County and then go through a ratification process. Chair Orr opened the meeting for public comments and mentioned she had received a letter from the Board of Realtors. Mike Spence from the Association of Realtors stated the primary reason for this organization getting involved in this issue is because of the huge effects that this could have on housing affordability. With this in mind, they reviewed the County Wide Planning Policies and would like to see a supplemental environmental impact statement prepared as well as a fiscal analysis done. Paul Seeley from the Boeing Company agreed with Mike Spence. He encouraged the Council to ratify the policies, but is pleased to be able to make suggestions. He is concerned and has some problems with being able to meet the criteria as described in activity centers, urban centers, urban growth boundaries, etc. Some of these things do not seem to fit in the ratification process. For example, he said the density requirements for manufacturing require about 15, 000 employees per acre. With this as the criteria, the Boeing Company would have to leave the State of Washington for all of its sites. They would like to be able to keep our options open. Don McDaniel from Puget Power said they would like to keep their options open. Barbara Simpson from the Kent Chamber of Commerce said to take our time in the process to make amendments. Chair Orr asked if the full council has to vote on ratification on September 1 or could they take the comments and considerations back to Planning Committee, develop our recommendations as far as any changes or amendments we would like to see, and then bring this item back to the full council for their approval in 30 days? Mr. Satterstrom responded that the County' s ordinance specifies ratification within 90 days of adoption by King County (October 6) . It was pointed out that October 6 is a meeting night for the City of Kent full council. Chair Orr suggested this item come back to the Committee on September 15 and to the full council on October 6 . Mr. Satterstrom will call the County to find out an answer to this question. Another suggestion is for this to go to the Planning Committee on September 15 and on to the full council the same night. Chair Orr suggested the council give an indication on 3 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1992 September 1 as to whether they plan on ratifying the policies and providing suggestions and recommendations later. Mr. Satterstrom added the policies designate a specified process wherein a city can nominate itself as an urban center and forward that designation by October 1st to the County to be considered by the GMPC by December 1992 . This process for designation is set forth in the County Wide Planning Policies which the City of Kent is being asked to ratify. Mr. Satterstrom explained that another item coming to the full council on September 1 is Growth Management Planning Goals, wherein the Planning Commission will have considered the proposal by the Planning Department as to whether or not the City of Kent wants to designate itself as an urban center. This needs to be acted on in time to get this information to the GMPC by October 1st. It was discussed that perhaps action could be deferred to September 15 if additional time is needed. Mr. Harris reminded the Planning Committee that those cities that designate themselves as urban centers are going to get the highway funds, transit funds, and other kinds of funds. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Bennett SECONDED a motion to put the County Wide Planning Policies on the consent calendar August 18 to set a public hearing date for September 1 for the ratification. Motion carried. This item will be placed on the September 1 City Council agenda for a public hearing. SHORT PLAT PROCEDURES (J. HARRIS) Mr. Harris passed out a draft document called "Short Plat Process" consisting of current procedures and two proposed changes. Mr. Harris stated in Proposed Change No. 2 questions might occur as to why would the public would not be invited to come to a short plat meeting. He stated the reason was because short plats are administrative by State law. Another question is whether the public would have the right to appeal ; appeal procedures would need to be written. Tom Brubaker from the Law Department had some ideas for the Committee to think about on these two different possibilities. He said the short plat procedure as written in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) is to cut red tape and be a fast remedy for property owners who want to short plat. one extreme is not having nearby property owners who notified. Another is a more elaborate 4 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 18, 1992 notification process, which can defeat the main purpose of a fast remedy. Therefore, he suggests a balance between the two. One suggestion Mr. Brubaker made is to provide a very tight limitations period within which an affected citizen could present an appeal and enforce it strictly. Chair Orr asked for this item to be brought back to the Committee at the next meeting on September 1 as an information item. Chair Orr asked for council members ' comments and suggested that the Wards be sent a copy of Harris ' proposal . ADDED ITEMS: REGIONAL JUSTICE CENTER (J. Harris) Mr. Harris stated that he recently met with other staff members and Wendy Keller, representing the County, whose in charge of this project. On August 24 , the County Council will begin to act on parts of the Regional Justice Center. Another item being worked is by the Department of Ecology on a remedial cleanup proposal of contaminates at a level III on one or both of the justice center sites. In addition, the County Council will soon be approving the team of architects to design the justice center building. It is estimated that in October the Planning Department may receive a set of plans. At that time, the Planning Department becomes the responsible agency for issuing a permit or a license. The Department will be reviewing the County' s environmental impact statement and statements or comments from anyone else to be used as input to determine if additional mitigation will need to take place. Mr. Harris encourages the Human Services Commission to write to the City Council and the County about any of their concerns. It is possible that this issue could come to the voters in November. Mr. Harris notified the Committee that Katherine Scott will be giving an update of the regional justice center at the City Council meeting on August 18 . PERMIT PROCESS REPORT Chair Orr requested that the Permit Process Report be brought to the Committee for discussion at the September 1 or 15 meeting with staff impacts in the Planning Department and the public. Mr. Harris suggested to define the overall permit process (the big picture) in the Planning Department and look at what changes can occur. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5 : 30 p.m. PC0818.min 5