Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 04/04/1989 KENT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE April 4, 1989 4: 00 PM Committee Members Present Planning Staff Present Judy Woods, Chair Charlene Anderson Steve Dowell Lin Ball Jon Johnson Fred Satterstrom Dan Stroh City Administration Other City Staff Jim Harris, Acting City Administrator Carolyn Lake Others Present John Marchione Sharon Atkin Marvin Eckfeldt Dee Moschel Leona Orr 1989 WORK PROGRAM Fred Satterstrom, Acting Planning Director, stated that the 1989 Work Program which was included in the agenda packet was based on 1800 net hours per person for 10-1/2 FTE. In addition, the hours noted for each line item are not representative of a single individual ' s time but rather are the total hours projected to be worked on the line item by several individuals during the course of the year. The Permit Process area leads all others in hours spent; however, Long Range Planning is close behind and Community Development is third in projected number of hours. Mr. Satterstrom discussed the Permit Process section of the department and noted that the number of permits being processed are keeping pace with previous years but their complexity is increasing. Issues such as slopes, wetlands, and topography require additional staff time. The Permit Process section does a site inspection or follow-up on approximately one quarter of the 50 business licenses processed per month. Code Enforcement is a cumbersome process which takes many contacts before a problem is resolved. It is estimated that approximately ten percent of the time spent in the Permit Process section relates to Code Enforcement. A 1989 City Council Target Issue relates to code enforcement for the downtown area. The Permit Process section staff will be considering fee adjustments, especially in areas which require much staff time for little compensation, e.g. , zoning permits and lot line adjustments. Also proposed is an update of the Kent Zoning Code to clean up confusing or unworkable portions of the code, e.g. , sign and landscaping requirements. Lin Ball stated the focus of the Community Development section lies in four areas. 1) The City is funding six human service agencies this year and the Human Services Commission's 1990 funding application process is underway. '.ITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE AINUTES OF MEETING OF APRIL 4, 1989 Staff time is being required increasingly for the Human Services Roundtable which is considering regional issues affecting the City of Kent. Staff will be spending an increased amount of staff time for the Roundtable in areas of public education, working with neighboring cities and gathering information on South King County human services. 2) There are twelve Community Development Block Grant projects being funded this year. The Burlington Northern Depot study consultant has released a drawing and the first public meeting on this project was held. This summer there will be initiated a new Housing Repair project related to a painting program which will have a visual impact on the Strategy Area. Planning for the 1990 Community Development Block Grant program is underway. 3) The complexity of the proposed developments are requiring increasing staff time for the environmental review process. There are more projects in environmentally sensitive areas, and there are public health and welfare concerns for projects proposed to be developed close to the hazardous waste sites. 4) Staff time is spent also on the census enumerations for annexations and in the annual census estimate. During the latter half of the year work will begin on the 1990 "pre-census" requirements. In the Long Range Planning section, Dan Stroh identified several projects. Among these are updates to the overall Comprehensive Plan and Subarea Plans, area-wide zoning amendments, special studies (e.g. , Horseshoe Bend, Historic ?reservation) , support of task forces (e.g. , lagoon, housing) , intergovernmental coordination (Soos Creek Plan) and the City's Geographic Information System which will make possible increased efficiency and improved decision-making. In 1989 housing is the issue which supersedes all others. Councilman Dowell stated the 1989 Planning budget was approximately $900, 000. He questioned whether the hours in the work program could be translated into dollars. Acting City Administrator Harris stated the Planning Department budget is salary driven but added it is difficult to relate dollars to hours. Discussion occurred. Councilman Dowell questioned where "pure planning" is done and questioned the staff time related to the work on the lagoon. Mr. Harris responded that the work on the lagoon project is pure planning as is strategy planning for the CDBG program. Councilman Johnson stated that the City Council had indicated it desired to look at expansion of the commercial area on East Hill. Fred Satterstrom responded that it was difficult to consider commercial areas only without considering impacts to residential and other areas. Working on the overall Comprehensive Plan update per the Council 's Target Issue might be one way of considering the East Hill area as well. Mr. Satterstrom added that work on the housing programs would be completed in late fall and at that time a scope of work for the Comprehensive Plan update could be done. Councilman Johnson MOVED and Councilman Dowell SECONDED the motion to adopt the Planning Department's 1989 Work Program with the scope of work for the Comprehensive Plan update coming back to the Committee later this year. 2 ^ITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE iINUTES OF MEETING OF APRIL 4, 1989 Motion carried unanimously. FUNDING BASE - HUMAN SERVICES Human Services Commission Chairman Marvin Eckfeldt read the motion relating to the funding base for human services. He distributed and reviewed a question and answer sheet providing additional information on the recommendation of the Commission. This item will be discussed at the City Council meeting of April 18. Commission Chairman Eckfeldt added that the process for review of applications for human services funding runs parallel with the City's budget process so there are timing problems to be overcome. It would be beneficial for the Commission to know at the time of application review what the funding base would be. Commission Vice Chairwoman Moschel stated that the City of Kent funding has been used to leverage funding from other governmental agencies. Commissioner Atkin stated this brings additional funds into the Kent area. Councilman Dowell questioned using a percentage calculation rather than a stated dollar amount. He recognizes the need for planning purposes to know the level of funding but he believes it would be clearer to commit to a specific dollar amount or per capita amount rather than a percentage. Discussion occurred. Councilman Johnson MOVED and Councilman Dowell SECONDED the motion to put this item on the City Council agenda for April 18 under Other Business. Motion passed unanimously. Chairwoman Woods clarified that the Planning Committee is approving the recommendation of the Human Services Commission with a 2-1 vote (Councilman Dowell does not support a percentage funding base) . Committee members approved this clarification. SOOS CREEK INTERLOCAL Carolyn Lake, Assistant City Attorney, distributed a memo describing the Law Department's concerns with the Interlocal Agreement. Councilman Dowell mentioned he also has some concerns. Dan Stroh distributed a memo outlining the differences between the recent county version of the Interlocal Agreement and the version the Kent City Council adopted earlier. Fred Satterstrom will gather such information to include in the Planning Committee agenda packet for April 18. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 5: 00 PM. 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 4, 1989 TO: Planning Committee and Planning Department FROM: Sandra Driscoll , City Attorney SUBJECT: SODS CREEK INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT The Soos Creek Interlocal Agreement has resurfaced on the Committee's agenda for consideration. This is a revised draft of the Interlocal Agreement, the original version of which had been reviewed by our office. In September of 1988, the concerns of the Legal Department regarding this Agreement were noted in memo to Jim Harris. The concerns that existed at that time remain valid with respect to this latest Agreement. Concerns exist in the areas of future City planning, annexation matters, transportation concerns and the continued viability of City housing density goals. The significance of the Agreement should not be underestimated. Virtually every developer will be reviewing this Agreement as it applies to actions occurring in the City of Kent as well as the Soos Creek Planning Area. The Agreement is clearly a mutual agreement with the City and County both carrying burdens and duties, along with certain rights which are keyed to SEPA timeframes and review mechanisms. Our detailed comments are as follows: 1. Page 2 "PURPOSE" discussion at paragraph D should also reference the County's Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Kent's Master Transportation Plan, and the Green River Valley Transportation Action Plan. Identifying these are important in that many of the City's disputes with King County are transportation impact related. The City has over 4 pending DNS appeals before the County's Zoning and Subdivision Examiner relating to BALD's failure/refusal to consider and mitigate impacts to City corridors and intersections caused by county approved plats. 2. Page 2 definitions of "IMPACT AREA" should include areas INSIDE as well as outside Kent which are likely to be impacted by new county development in the Soos Creek Planning Area, since this is allowed under SEPA guidelines. 3. Page 3 "REVIEW AND COMMENT OPPORTUNITY". This is the heart of the Agreement. It should include discussion that the Agreement does not act as a substitute for the County's AFFIRMATIVE DUTY to consider impacts to neighboring impacted jurisdictions under SEPA along with providing an opportunity to review and comment. In addition, SEPA requires CONSULTATION, which is not the same as "reviewing and commenting". This is an affirmative duty to actively seek advice and expertise from the City and to substantively consider City policies and comments in the county's decision. Accordingly, this definition should again reference that this section is not intended to substitute for the County's compliance with SEPA's consultation requirements. 4. Pages 4 and 5 discussion of King County's responsibilities regarding AGENCY NOTICE. REVIEW AND COMMENT OPPORTUNITY and STAFF CONSULTATION before a threshold determination should probably reference SEPA. SEPA is not referenced anywhere in the agreement and it should be cited somewhere so that its incorporation into this cooperative planning agreement is clearly identified. The following language is suggested to be added on Page 4 at the end of subparagraph A.I. as follows: "BALD shall consider and incorporate when possible Kent comments into any threshold determination, including mitigating, conditioning, and denying development proposals." 5. Page 4 DEVELOPMENT PERMITS should add PROPOSED PLATS at subparagraph 2.b, as these are the majority of county actions with which the City is having to contend. This language would make it clear to developers that all plats would be covered by this Agreement. 6. If the Soos Creek is intended to bind the City and supersede conflicting City Plans, the discussion at Page 4 and 5 regarding PLAN DEVELOPMENT should make this clear. As it now stands, the language used is not very clear. Given the status of comprehensive plans which are not binding decision documents (zoning code provisions and ordinances can conflict so long as general consistency is met) , the Agreement's "STATEMENT OF INTENT" may be misleading. If you jump to Page 7 "STATEMENT OF INTENT" as to Kent's responsibilities at subparagraph B.l.a. and b. , it is apparent that King County intends that the Soos Creek Plan will be used by the City within the common planning area to achieve "regional goals for: urban residential densities". On the face of this language alone where the City "agrees" to use its planning authorities, this language would call into Question City ordinances reducing densities in certain residential areas of the City. A developer may be able to point to the Soos Creek Plan densities which may conflict with our density reduction goals in the Agreement planning area and argue that the Soos Creek Plan would control . To remove this potential for conflict, qualifying language should be added to the effect that the City will "consider and evaluate the applicable regional goals and to the extent possible incorporate such goals where consistent with the City's Plans." NOTE: This concern is heightened by the inclusion of the new language in this revised version. New paragraphs are added, appearing on Page 6 (IV.D.3.) and on Page 7 (V.B.I.a) . The language of these paragraphs would bind the City to the County's density goals, which would be given preference over City density goals. This preference would not be confined to the Soos Creek area, which is the intended subject of the agreement, but would be "City-wide", according to language of the paragraph. 7. Page 8 discussion of "MUNICIPAL SERVICE AND POTENTIAL ANNEXATION AREAS" is very far reaching affecting existing and ongoing growth studies and the City's policy toward annexations. It would be prudent for the Planning Commission and Council to review these provisions before accepting the Agreement. Under the criteria at Page 8, only areas designated "URBAN" could be annexed without restrictions. "RURAL LANDS" could not be annexed. Additionally, agricultural and environmentally sensitive areas could only be annexed upon certain conditions, according to this agreement.