Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 04/18/1989 KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE April 18, 1989 4:00 PM Committee Members Present Planning Staff Present Judy Woods, Chair Charlene Anderson Steve Dowell Ken Astrein Jon Johnson Lin Ball Jim Harris City Administration Fred Satterstrom Dan Stroh Ed Chow, City Administrator Jim Hansen Other City Staff Others Present Sandra Driscoll John Marchione Gary Griswold Mary Jo Hendrickson Dick and Phyllis Mauritsen Jessica McDougall Paul Morford Leona Orr -Jim Torina ason Williams Gary Young EAST VALLEY ZONING IMPLEMENTATION Dick and Phyllis Mauritsen, 8812 S. 218 St. , stated that the reduced Gateway Commercial zone left them with a small piece of property that would be difficult to develop with M-1 zoning. They requested that the Gateway Commercial zone be extended to include the property up to the west side of the old bus company (north of 218th, east of East Valley Highway) . Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom noted that the Gateway Commercial zone as originally proposed was reduced in order to mitigate traffic impacts of commercial land use. Staff had no objections to extending Gateway Commercial zoning as requested by Mr. & Mrs. Mauritsen. Mary Jo Hendrickson, PO Box 1329, Kent referred to a letter written by Doug Klappenbach in which he requested flexibility in applying the Gateway Commercial zoning to property on East Valley Highway and 216th St. Should the proposed buyer back out of the deal, he requested that the zoning revert in its entirety to M-3 zoning rather than have part of the property M-3 and part Gateway Commercial zoning. Fred Satterstrom suggested that a flaw exists in the hearing process when zoning proposals can be presented to the Planning Committee. He stated that staff believes the present proposal allows reasonable depth for Gateway ,ommercial zoning to work while retaining industrial zoning in the rear. 'ITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE AINUTES OF MEETING OF APRIL 18, 1989 Senior Planner Dan Stroh stated that the Gateway Commercial zoning as originally proposed came back deep on the west side of East Valley Highway. Staff had tried not to split parcels. After traffic analysis problems became apparent, staff cut back on the Gateway Commercial zoning but retained commercial frontage on East Valley Highway. The parcels on the west side of East Valley Highway are deep; one must either split the parcels or go deep with the commercial zoning. Planning Director Harris stated the traffic mitigation situation is severe and was worked out by restricting commercial as much as possible. The new Gateway Commercial zoning provides new opportunities to property owners. Discussion occurred on the process by which Planning Commission recommendations are considered by the Planning Committee. Councilman Dowell suggested the possibility of having a "second reading" for issues such as the East Valley Zoning Implementation. City Attorney Driscoll affirmed that the zoning designation for the property referred to by Ms. Hendrickson could not remain open with regard to land negotiations between parties. Changes to the Planning Commission' s recommendation can impact the careful balance for traffic mitigation. Tim Torina, 1048 W. James St. #104, stated that the Planning Commission' s roposal had received input from many sources. He suggested that once the proposal for an issue such as this has been finalized, perhaps before forwarding their recommendation, the Planning Commission could hold open the hearing for a couple of meetings to accommodate final comments. Jason Williams, 915 118th Ave SE, Bellevue, stated that in order to be fair to the majority of people who have participated in the Planning Commission proceedings, it is time to move forward on this issue. Councilman Dowell clarified for Mr. Williams that a "second reading" would mean that a proposal such as the East Valley Zoning Implementation would be presented before the Council at one hearing and would not be voted on until the next hearing. This would allow time for further exposure and explanation of the issue. Councilman Dowell MOVED to recommend to the Council approval of the East Valley Zoning Implementation as presented by the Planning Commission with the amendment requested by Dick and Phyllis Mauritsen. Councilman Johnson SECONDED the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 1990 CDBG FUNDING LEVEL AND POLICY PLAN REVISIONS Senior Planner Lin Ball stated that since the Planning Committee recommended approval of the CDBG Policy Plan on March 21, there has been new information which has prompted staff to request an addition to the section on Streets, Walkways and Architectural Barriers. Staff requests adding "projects that improve storm drainage conditions in the strategy area where there exists a `hreat to the health or safety of the residents. " The Public Works 2 ITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETING OF APRIL 18, 1989 Department has stated there are major storm drainage problems in the strategy area and staff requests the option to consider funding CDBG projects related to storm drainage. There are several actions that the Council needs to take to accept the estimated $168, 141 for 1990: 1) Accept pass-through funds. This leaves City of Kent options open and maximizes the City's control of the funds. 2) Allocate 15% of the pass-through funds for public (human) services funding. This maintains flexibility in decision-making. 3) Allocate 6% of the pass-through funds for planning and administration. Again, this allows flexibility in decision-making. 4) Adopt local program policies. Ms. Ball clarified for Councilman Dowell that the CDBG Program Year is now a calendar year. In addition, the remaining 79% of the CDBG funds (after subtracting public (human) services and planning and administration) will be ,ised for capital projects and housing repair. Staff will bring forward to _he Council on September 1 the recommendations for funding. Councilman Dowell MOVED and Councilman Johnson SECONDED the motion to approve the 1990 CDBG Local Program Policies as amended and to accept pass-through funds with 15% allocation to public (human) services and 6% to planning and administration. Motion carried unanimously. SOOS CREEK INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Dan Stroh stated that in February, the King County Council adopted a version of the Soos Creek Interlocal Agreement which is different from the version Kent adopted previously. The staff memo sent with the agenda packet summarizes the changes. The major elements added include Section IV.D. 3 which states "King County will not support annexations proposed by Kent that would prevent the achievement of the King County Comprehensive Plan's policy prescribing an average density of 7-8 dwelling units per acre . . . " In addition, Section V.B. l.a states "Kent, agrees to use its plans, policies, zoning and other regulatory controls to encourage citywide . . . achievement of the King County Comprehensive Plan's policy prescribing an average residential density of 7-8 dwelling units per acre. " Mr. Stroh stated it appears Auburn and Renton will pass the Interlocal Agreement with the language intact. Kent's average density appears to be around 6.4 units per acre without subtracting land with development constraints, e.g. , steep slopes (which the -ounty is subtracting in their calculations) . Using the methodology of the 3 ITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE AINUTES OF MEETING OF APRIL 18, 1989 county, Kent would probably meet the 7-8 unit per acre density. Councilman Dowell stated the density issue was not the only concern he had about the agreement. Planning Director Harris acknowledged that the Legal Department had problems with the agreement as well, especially regarding SEPA, traffic, and annexation agreements. City Attorney Driscoll distributed a memo from her office dated April 17 , 1989. The memo outlines the Legal Department's concerns with the changes from the earlier version of the agreement. Ms. Driscoll stated that in addition her office has the same concerns as before about the earlier version of the agreement, especially related to transportation. She acknowledged that from a planning point of view it is important to consider that the City is trying to move toward regional cooperation. However, the changes in the agreement subordinate the City's land use plans to King County's plans. In addition, it would be important to have a statement that the agreement in no way supersedes SEPA. Jim Harris provided a background of the interlocal agreement. It was originally intended to get the county to recognize the incorporated cities and to get the county into a regional profile. At the present time in the Duget Sound area, land use and transportation don't mesh. In addition, it s difficult to work with the county staff because one part of the county operates separately from another. Assistant City Administrator Hansen affirmed that the original document was meant to be a planning document done in the spirit of cooperation to enhance planning. Over time the document has become more specific. He is concerned that the planning process will be completed before the City and County have an interlocal agreement to enhance that process. Mr. Hansen responded to Councilman Dowell that upon annexation of an area, the City would need to show a city-wide average density of 7-8 units per acre, not 7-8 units for the annexation area only. Chairwoman Woods asked that staff work cooperatively with other cities and provide a united front to the county related to this agreement. She suggested the agreement would be more acceptable if the words "wherever possible" were added. She would like staff to meet with Councilmen Dowell and Johnson and City Attorney Driscoll to address their concerns. Jim Hansen added that Barbara Heavey from King County would be present at tonight's City Council meeting to express a possible conflict between adoption of the proposed annexation priorities on tonight' s agenda and the proposed Soos Creek Interlocal Agreement related to annexing agricultural areas. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 5: 00 PM. There will be no meeting on '(ay 2 , 1989 . 4 rv�b �/Z21r10� llk ��� s� ICc� SFv3i l 4�o 5-38 q15 �r cymAz �/ K,�l7l� w4 ��� a3 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DATE: April 17, 1989 TO: Planning Department and Planning Committee FROM: Legal Department SUBJECT: SODS CREEK AGREEMENT This department's review of pre-existing Soos Creek interlocal agreement and the newly revised Soos Creek interlocal agreement raised a number of concerns. These concerns can be divided into two categories: 1) the language newly proposed within the Soos Creek interlocal agreement, and 2) concerns that existed with the old agreement which remain valid. The concerns with the new version of the agreement will be addressed first. I . NEW LANGUAGE A. Subordination of City Goals The biggest concern with the newly revised agreement is the effect that the agreement may have to subordinate City goals and policies to those of the County. The old agreement required the City to use its authorities to "achieve regional goals" . A definition of what defined "regional goals" was not included in the old agreement. Even in that form, the language was found objectionable by the Legal Department, as it calls into question City ordinances to the extent that they conflict with any other "regional goals" . That concern is now heightened by the new language inserted into the agreement. The new language specifically ties the City to County Comprehensive Plan policies. By specific reference to the King County Comprehensive Plan, the language indicates that the general "regional goals" not defined by the old agreement are now defined to be the goals as contained in the King County Comprehensive Plan. The issue is not whether the King County Comprehensive Plan is an admirable one, but rather, does the City wish to subordinate its own plans and policies for those of King County. The Comprehensive Plan Housing Update, Resolution 1123, Goal No. 4 of the 1989 of the Council goals (density review) and the Planning Department's 1989 Housing Density Program are all examples of City policies and programs that are impacted, and in this department's opinion, superseded by County density goals. (See comment No. 6, April 13 memo to Planning Committee.) B. City-wide Effects The new language reiterates that the City is bound to give preference to County goals on a "city-wide" basis -- not just the Soos Creek area. (See page 7 of the new agreement.) II. ORIGINAL SODS CREEK AGREEMENT A. Absence of SEPA Reference The agreement lacks reference to SEPA policies. Care should be taken to ensure full understanding that the obligations under this agreement are in addition to, and not intended to supersede, those obligations imposed by SEPA for agency review and consultation. Specific reference to SEPA goals and policies should be included. (See comments No. 2, 3, and 4 of April 4 memo.) B. Annexation Concerns The agreement addresses specific annexation policies including prohibitions which Prevent the City from annexing rural lands. The agreement also mandates that agricultural and environmentally sensitive areas could be annexed, but only if certain conditions are satisfied. (See comment No. 8 of April 14. ) C. Absence of Transportation Terms The agreement seeks to be a comprehensive agreement, yet it lacks any reference to transportation goals or interlocal coordination. The exclusion may be significant by its absence. Most of the City's DNS appeals on in-county development relate to traffic concerns, and BALD's failure to consider and mitigate impacts to City transportation corridors by in-county development. Lack of reference to transportation studies weakens the City's ability to reference those plans when arguing for mitigation of developer impacts, and may allow developers a document to cite to in support of their position in City appeals. (See comments No. 1 and 5.) 4979L-3L April 4, 1989 Approval of checks issued for payroll: FINANCE Date Check Numbers Amount 3/20/89 116784-117422 686,913.21 REPORTS Council Presidept.. White reported that the Council 's budge came in $4, 5616 under budget for last year. ,F White indicated tha the next meeting of the National League of Ci ' s is on May 12 and 13 in Washington and as a er of the Committee on Transportation and mmu 'cation, requested approval of an out of stat trip to 'ettend the meeting. JOHNSON SO MOVED nd Dowell seconded. The motion carried. e Public Work 'Committee. Johnson reported that the next meeti g of the Public Works Committee will be next Tuesday, April 11 at 4: 00 p.m. Planninq Committee. Johnson introduced Linda Martinez of the Planning Commission. Martinez explained that the Commission has several new members, and that they would like to meet with the Council. White agreed to work with Martinez to arrange such a meeting. 'iYMMnMMI,wI/qa.9pl.Iwi.�WnNf4sW x«tMw�,+.I-bS+n-1w..o-^-.ru..iw a..s. •...... n. • _ Parks Committee. Dowell noted that there will be a Parks Committee me ting on April 26 at 4 : 00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was aj rned at 9: 15 p.m. / Brenda Jac e Deputy City lerk 19 ti