Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 05/07/1991 (3) CITY OF CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE May 7 , 1991 4:45 PM pRT1'�II(C°�A Committee Members Present Other City Staff Judy Woods Carol Morris Jon Johnson, Chair Christi Houser Planning Staff Other Guests Lauri Anderson Hugh Leiper Lin Ball Chris Leiper Jim Harris Margaret Porter Fred Satterstrom HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION UPDATE (L. Ball) Senior Planner Lin Ball updated the Committee on two Human Services items that will be coming to the next Planning Committee meeting. The first item is the extension of the Severe Weather Shelter Program through the end of 1991. This item originated from the Planning Committee when they asked the Planning Department staff and Human Services Commission to look into the extra cost of extending this program through 1991. The second item is an emergency request that came to the Commission from the Domestic Abuse Women's Network (DAWN) . DAWN is asking the City for money to match some other money that they have received from both the County and State to locate a confidential shelter in the City of Kent. Council President Judy Woods stated the money that DAWN is asking for from the City of Kent and the surrounding jurisdictions is the last amount needed to buy the house and to get the shelter up and running. Ms. Ball stated that DAWN has already received over $207, 000 from the County and State and they need an additional $56, 000. Judy Woods stated that DAWN has talked with the cities of Sea-Tac, Tukwila, and Federal Way about funding. Ms. Woods pointed out that the County, as a condition of its grant money, requires a funding commitment from the City in which the shelter will be located. 1 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 71 1991 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF 200-300 FOOT RADIUS (F. Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom discussed this item. Mr. Satterstrom spoke about the notification survey results from the surrounding cities of Auburn, Des Moines, Federal Way, Kent, Renton, Tukwila and King County. Basically, Kent is nearly identical with respect to posting the site, publishing notification in the newspaper, mailing a notice to surrounding property owners. Where Kent differs is on the notice board. This is the 4 x 4 notification board specifying the public hearing. This was approved by the Planning Committee as a requirement a year and half ago. Des Moines is the only other jurisdiction besides Kent that does a public notice board. Mr. Satterstrom discussed the Planning Department recommendations: 1. That the mailed notice be extended to a 300 foot radius to be consistent with the other cities and that it be extended to all of our zoning changes as well so that it is consistent between our Subdivision Code and our Zoning Code. 2 . That the Planning Director be granted the discretionary authority to increase the radius when the proposal is particularly significant in terms of size or scope. After discussion, Councilmember Christi Houser MOVED to accept the above recommendation by the Planning Department and Judy Woods SECONDED it. The MOTION carried. SOOS CREEK UPDATE (Lauri Anderson) Senior Planner Lauri Anderson pointed out the boundaries of King County's Soos Creek Planning Area. It starts at 116th, goes out to the big Soos Creek Area and a little beyond (including Covington) , goes down along the eastern border of Auburn, and then north along the eastern border of Renton. She stated that the Soos Creek Plan, which is a subarea plan for King County, was last updated in 1979. This old plan has not been changed since King County redid their Comprehensive Plan in 1985. For the last several years starting in 1988, the King County Soos Creek Planning team from has been working to revise the Plan. The Planning Department has participated on a technical committee. King County staff has worked with a Citizen's Advisory Committee; Carol Stoner has been one of the representatives. The Committee is nearing completion of its work. 2 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 7, 1991 Ms. Anderson said the reason to bring this forward to the Council is because there has been a major change in focus of that Soos Creek Plan which has some more serious impacts on the City of Kent, and also because the Citizen's Advisory Committee is under a tight time frame due to the fact this issue will go to the King County Council in the next couple of months. Ms. Anderson stated, therefore, the City may want to take a position on the Plan. Part of the changes were prompted by Kent's concern over the 277th corridor. When the King County team was originally doing this plan and as we have been working with them, they had targeted urban growth out on the east hill where they had already allowed so much urban growth with the understanding that the cross valley corridors were going in etc. When King County pulled out of the 277th corridor agreement, we went to them as staff and said "wait a minute, you can't target all this additional urban growth out there, beyond what is already planned, with no road" . At this point, King County actually changed project team leaders. Ms. Anderson presented just the highlights of this new first draft proposal to the Planning Committee. She briefly reviewed three documents: 1) the Plan 2) Zoning Map and 3) the Draft Environment Impact Statement (DEIS) . Ms. Anderson next briefly mentioned the highlights of the Comprehensive Plan. They are as follows: A) Growth phasing - to insure that development does not occur until services are in place B) Protecting rural areas and natural resources - large areas are set aside that are to be remain rural, C) Improving quality of development in urban areas - in their zoning there are some design standards, and D) Providing for diverse housing needs - there is single family and multifamily proposed in the plan. King County is very concerned about urban level densities, therefore, most of their single family densities are on small lots - 7, 200 square feet. The main thing Ms. Anderson talked about is the Phasing concept. This is the most controversial part of the Plan and impacts potential annexations to Kent. Ms. Anderson pointed out on a map that there are no Urban Phase I areas around Kent (except in the northeast part of the City) . The other Phase I areas are next to Renton and Auburn. In the Urban Phase I area, they are targeting the growth for the next ten years. They plan 3 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 7, 1991 to zone these areas Growth Reserve with a potential zoning if certain criteria are met. Urban Phase 2, which is the bulk of what is directly east of Kent, is the one is of most concern to us. This Urban Phase 2 area is not to be developed until services are available. King County's intent as far as the zoning goes on underdeveloped and undeveloped land is Urban Reserve 5 (UR-5) Zoning. This is one dwelling unit per five (5) acres. The Rural areas are expected to be one house per five (5) acres. These are expected to be long-term and unchanging. With these phasing policies, there are also annexation policies. The King County Annexation Policies suggest that the County will only support annexation to the cities when certain criteria are met. They expect the area to be contiguous to the City. They also want to have an intergovernmental agreement in place which spells out who's responsible for what at the time of annexation and what services will be provided. They also want the standards for mitigation and environmental protection in the City of Kent to meet those or exceed those that are already in the County. The other thing that King County expects Kent to provide is urban densities. They do not want to see areas that annex at one or two dwelling units per acre. They see the lands in Phase 1 as being immediately available for annexation. The sticky point comes in that King County does not see Phase 2 area as being immediately available for annexation. Ms. Anderson stated that this is an awkward situation when the County has allowed the development and the City of Kent can provide better services than the County. It was discussed that the City is already providing services such as sewer and water. Ms. Anderson also pointed out the area of the 277th corridor. The County has called out that area and given it its own policies in the Plan. They also have divided the corridor into a north corridor and southeast corridor. Their policy is that this area is targeted as Growth Reserve. This area must either annex, or when the route is established and has 2-3 years of funding, then they would allow urban level of service. Ms. Anderson explained that the 277th corridor is in an area that is targeted for Growth Reserve. In other words, there would be no urban level development permitted until such time as either those lands annexed to a City or the road alignment was settled on and there was funding for it. Then they would apply the urban level zoning. Ms. Anderson mentioned that Covington is viewed as an Urban Activity Center that will at some point incorporate. It would not be an annexation area for the City of Kent. 4 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 7, 1991 There are also Urban Separators or Open Space areas with low density on the Plan, which, because of sensitive lands, would be good separators between the cities of Renton, Kent, and Auburn. Ms. Anderson showed the proposed zoning on the map near the City limits as follows: RS 7200, RS-15000 - basically Single Family RM 1800 - multifamily RD 3600 - multifamily GR (Growth Reserve) - based on phasing GR (RS-5000-P) - grow reserve with single family potential Ms. Anderson mentioned that the Plan would accommodate growth as projected to 2000, but not to 2010. Ms. Anderson handed out the letters written to King County from Don Wickstrom and herself about the City's concerns. Here is a brief list of the concerns of the Planning Department and staff: 1. Annexation in Phase 2. 2 . UR-5 zoning. 3 . Additional multifamily development 4 . Low-density prohibition in annexation areas 5. Lack of traffic analysis Here are the concerns of Public Works Department: 1. Phase 1/Phase 2 line should be moved to 124th or 132nd 2. Annexation limitations 3 . Lack of traffic limitations HUGH LEIPER PROPOSAL (J. Harris) Planning Director Jim Harris briefly went over the memo and Internal Budget Committee's (IBC) response on the Hugh Leiper Proposal. At the April 17, 1991 meeting, the IBC discussed a Fiscal note in reference to Hugh Leiper's proposal. The fiscal note recommended that we not put money into this proposal because of the up front costs and the fact that the Law Department finds the joint venture aspects of the project are not legal. There was discussion from Hugh Leiper and the Committee members. A suggestion was made to Mr. Leiper to gather support from other businesses, the Centennial Building owner, and the Chamber of Commerce. Councilmember Christi Houser made a MOTION and Jon Johnson SECONDED it to accept the IBC's ideas on this proposal. The Motion carried. 5 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 71 1991 A POSSIBLE NAME CHANGE OF COMMITTEE (J. Johnson) Planning Committee Chair Jon Johnson asked Mr. Harris if he had any suggestions to what the name change should be. Mr. Harris responded by recommending the name, Planning and Community Development. Chair Johnson said he feels if the Planning Department changes their name then the Committee name should have the same name to be consistent. Mr. Harris commented that sometime this summer we will be proposing to the Council a name change. Mr. Johnson commented that perhaps the Committee name could be changed right now. He is going to discuss this with Judy Woods to get her feedback. ADDED ITEMS MODIFICATIONS TO RESOLUTION NO. 1275 - SEWER & WATER EXTENSIONS (J. Harris) This item came from Jim White of the Public Works Committee of a Resolution that Carol Morris delivered to Mr. Harris before the meeting. This Resolution is to modify Resolution No. 1275. Planner Director Harris explained that this modification says the City could go ahead and issue sewer and water extension permits in the area of the interim Soos Creek Growth Boundaries and in our area of the "sphere of interest of the City" . Due to the lack of time, Mr. Harris suggested this be discussed at the next meeting with a map that shows where these areas are located. The Public Works Committee did not vote on this issue at their meeting of May 7th. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. 6