Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 06/24/1991 (3) KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 24, 1991 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Faust at 7: 00 P.M. , June 24, 1991, in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Faust, Chair Linda Martinez, Vice Chair Gwen Dahle Christopher Grant Albert Haylor PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS EXCUSED: Edward Heineman, Jr. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Greenstreet Raymond Ward PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Carol Proud, Senior Planner Anne Watanabe, Planner Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary KENT CITY STAFF: Helen Wickstrom, Parks Department Alice Neiffer, Parks Department APPROVAL OF MAY 20 , 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the minutes of the May 20, 1991 meeting be approved as presented. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Fred Satterstrom explained that Foster Industrial Park Lot 18, SMP-91-1, was being deleted from the agenda because it was not advertised in sufficient time. It will be heard at the public hearing on July 22 , 1991. SOUTH GREEN RIVER TRAIL CORRIDOR - SMV-91-1 Anne Watanabe presented a staff report recommending approval of the Parks Department's application for a shoreline variance permit. The proposed project is the South Green River Trail Corridor, a Kent Planning Commission June 24, 1991 multi-use recreational trail that will eventually connect Kent with Auburn, Tukwila and unincorporated King County. The pavement of the trail, which will be placed on top of the existing flood control dike, as well as the creation of the pedestrian bridge that will cross the Green River, both require placement of impervious surface within the setback areas and, therefore, must have a variance approved by the Planning Commission. Four years ago the Planning Commission approved the variance for the northern portion of the trail that begins in Tukwila and ends at Russell Road, so parts of the trail are already completed. The width of the trail will vary between 8 and 12 feet. The property encompasses a broad range of zoning districts. The current shoreline designations are Urban, which allows for a broad range of uses, and Conservancy, which only allows for parks and recreational uses. The are several State tests for granting a variance waterward of the ordinary high water mark: 1. Strict application of performance standards will preclude a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program. The Planning Department feels that denial of the variance would preclude a multi-use trail and a pedestrian bridge that would be usable by a diversity of people. 2 . Is the hardship specifically related to the property and the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size or natural features and the application of the Master Program and not from deed restrictions or the applicant' s own actions? The property is the top of the flood control dikes which, obviously, cannot be moved. The bridge necessitates going into the shoreline area if it is to accomplish its purpose, which is access to the other side of the river. The applicant is trying to minimize the impact on the shoreline natural environment and on private property by restricting themselves to publicly owned areas on top of the dike which can be reached from public access points. 3 . The design of the project must be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. No areas have been identified where this project was incompatible with other permitted activities in the area. The 2 Kent Planning Commission June 24 , 1991 project has gone through the environmental review process for water quality, preservation of native vegetation, erosion control and air pollution. 4 . The requested variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area and is the minimum necessary to afford relief. We don't believe this is a grant of special privilege since we have a public entity involved which is trying to provide greater public access. We do believe this is the minimum necessary to afford relief. 5. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. It is believed that the public's interests in preserving the shoreline environment have been met through the conditions imposed under SEPA. 6. Consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. This trail has been reviewed as a portion of the entire riverside trail that will eventually run from Tukwila to Auburn. It is also felt that this proposal complies with all the provisions of the Kent Shoreline Master Program. It has been reviewed by the Fire, Police and City Administration Departments and no significant impacts were identified. As a result of its review of this proposal, the Planning Department makes the following findings: 1. The regulations of the Kent Shoreline Master Program establish a setback line prohibiting the creation of impervious surfaces within 75 feet of the centerline of the dike or 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark, whichever is greater, in residential zones. The Program also establishes a setback line in industrial zones of 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark. 2 . The proposal submitted by the applicant requires the creation of impervious surface along the length of the trail, and as necessary to support the pedestrian bridge. 3 Kent Planning Commission June 24, 1991 3 . State law and the Kent Shoreline Master Program provide for variances from specific requirements of the Program when certain circumstances exist. 4. The denial of this permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58 .020. 5. The strict application of the setbacks would preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program. 6. The hardship in this case is specifically related to the property. 7. The hardship results from the application of the Master Program and not from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. 8. The design of the project is compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment. 9 . The requested variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and is the minimum necessary to afford relief. 10. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 11. The public rights of navigation and use of the shoreline will not be adversely affected. 12 . Cumulative effects of similar requests in the area have been considered and addressed. 13 . The variance granted will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Master Program. 14. Public welfare and interest will be preserved. This proposal will also be heard by the Hearing Examiner, who will decide whether the project, in its entirety, meets all the policies and requirements of state law and our local program. Helen Wickstrom of the Parks Department referenced numerous planning documents that have been prepared over the years with the same theme--preserve public access to the Green River and develop a continuous trail along the Green River from Elliott Bay in 4 Kent Planning Commission June 24, 1991 Seattle to the Green River Gorge in Auburn. Ms. Wickstrom showed slides depicting various areas along the proposed trail and showing where improvements would be made. Fred Beck, Vice President of Hough, Beck and Baird, 1000 Lenore Street, Seattle, WA, who was the landscape architect, consultant and project designer, addressed the following issues: Trail widths are based on availability of dike width and "The Guide for Development of New Bicycle Facilities", which is a standard accepted on a nationwide basis. - There was a study done in May of 1987 evaluating the effect of the Burke Gilman Trail on property values and crime. It has become an amenity and an economic asset to all the property owners adjacent to and within walking distance of the trail. According to the Seattle Police Department, the trail has had little effect on vandalism or crime. Less than 3% of the residents along the Burke Gilman Trail thought it was a problem and two-thirds thought it had increased their quality of life. Asphalt is a paved surface that is well recognized as a standard for trail systems. There are several products available to control weeds under the asphalt pavement which are non-transferrable through the soil and will not cause any pollution to the river environment. Commissioner Dahle asked if there would be horse trails along the dike. Mr. Beck stated that there would not because in order to accommodate horses and still provide for the safety of other users, the trail would have to be much wider. Commissioner Dahle expressed concern about the effect on private property and asked how many access roads would be made through private property. Ms. Wickstrom pointed out all the public access points and felt that these would be sufficient without providing access through private property. Ms. Watanabe added that public access points will be provided with new development, but existing development will not be asked to provide access to the trail. Commissioner Martinez asked what percentage of the trail would require the variance and was told that it all would. Commissioner Grant asked if there would be restroom facilities. Ms. Wickstrom said there were not funds for new restrooms, but 5 Kent Planning Commission June 24, 1991 there are restrooms at the Riverbend Golf Course, Russell Road Park, Van Doren's Landing and Briscoe Park. Money is being requested in next year's budget for additional restroom facilities. Commissioner Martinez asked if the Parks Department was prepared to deal with the increased amount of litter. Ms. Wickstrom said there would be litter control receptacles every so many yards along the trail. Mr. Beck did not know if there had been any major problems with litter along the Burke Gilman Trail, but since the trail had been cited as a major element in the quality of life of people living along it, he assumed it was not a problem. Chair Faust asked if the study was broken down by how close people lived to the trail. Mr. Beck said it was and all respondents were equally positive. Ms. Watanabe stated that the Planning Department feels the proposal has met the criteria in both our local and state master programs and given that the SEPA conditions are implemented, the Planning Department feels this is a sound proposal and recommends approval. Marlene Emerson of 8726 S. 258th P1. , #633 , Kent, stated that she had two opinions about the project. She felt the River Pointe area and the Riverbend Golf Course were wonderful, but that the area where the River View condos are is so private and natural that it would be a shame to pave it. Ms. Emerson felt that the trail would cause adverse effects to adjacent properties. There would be less privacy, more noise and more litter. She felt that the bridges and underpasses should be constructed, but that the paving should wait until growth in the area is greater. Commissioner Dahle asked if there would be any fencing along private land. Ms. Wickstrom said that none is planned. Steve Babbitt of 945 E. Maple Street, Kent, uses a bicycle as his form of transportation and is very much in favor of granting this variance, principally to separate bicyclists from increasing traffic. He feels that the public benefit would be much greater than the loss to private individuals. Mr. Babbitt also stated that in response to the litter questions, the only litter he sees along the Interurban Trail is where people park their cars. Cathy Christian of 8521 S. 259th, 16B, Kent, bought her condominium because it backed up to the Green River. She expressed concern about whether trees would be cut down. Ms. Wickstrom answered that this project does not include removal or addition of any trees. Ms. Christian also was concerned about the fact that at one access point, there are only two public parking spaces. She felt that 6 Kent Planning Commission June 24, 1991 people would then park in the condominium parking lot. In response to another question, Ms. Wickstrom and Mr. Beck assured Ms. Christian that the paving equipment would not have to cross private property to get to the dike. Heinz Gehlhaar, President of Holly Glen Condominium Association at 1824 Maple Lane, said he has several emotions about the trail. If you take the big picture, it's wonderful. Looking at it from an individual standpoint, he feels his privacy will be lost. He asked what would be done to control access to the trail by motorcycles and if pedestrian and bicycle traffic would be separated. Ms. Wickstrom said a separation was not planned, but pedestrians and bicycles coexist very well on the portion of the trail that is already completed. There are speed limits posted for bicycles. If it becomes a problem, it is something that could be looked at by the Parks Department. Mr. Gehlhaar expressed doubt that the speed limit would be obeyed. Eileen Behr, who is married to Mr. Gehlhaar, was concerned about the possibility of someone falling into the river because there are no walls or fences. She also felt that if crushed brick or some material other than asphalt were used on the trail, it would discourage skateboarders. Mary Sturman, Holly Glen Condominiums, felt it was quite enjoyable to have the public use the trail. She expressed concern about maintenance of the trail. The grass behind her condominium does not get cut now unless she calls the Parks Department and asks them to do it. Ms. Wickstrom pointed out that the portion of the trail that is already completed is maintained. Areas which are now undeveloped will also be routinely maintained once the trail is completed. Ms. Sturman pointed out that there is an area which is blocked by a fence. Ms. Wickstrom said the Parks Department is currently trying to obtain easements from the rest of the property owners including the mobile home park that has the fence across the property. Ms. Sturman asked if there would be motorcycle or bicycle police officers to patrol the area. Ms. Watanabe said that the Police Department had reviewed the proposal and made no comments, which usually means they don't foresee any problems. Mary Williamson of 8511 S. 259th Street, Kent, said she is very disturbed about the levy being blacktopped. The public already uses her property for access to the river and she feels more thought should be given to public parking and access areas. 7 Kent Planning Commission June 24, 1991 Alice Murillo of 4504 NE 24th Street, Renton, owns property along the Green River and' is not happy about having a trail there. She feels it would be an invasion of privacy. Skip Fresn of 40 Lake Bellevue, Bellevue, WA, applauded the City for developing this plan. He feels that this would be a desirable amenity for employees in industrial parks along the trail. Nadine Fletcher of 8533 S. 259th Street, Kent, pointed out that there used to be access to the dike beside her property. When apartments were built, they put their entryway where the dike access was. Now people use her driveway to gain access to the river. Ms. Wickstrom agreed that the apartment owners put a fence and landscaping in the right-of-way and the Parks Department is looking at opening it up and putting up a sign indicating that it is public access. Chair Faust asked if notice has been served on the property owner that what he has done is illegal and that the gate should be removed? Carol Proud of the Planning Department said the owner has been informally notified about the problem. When the time comes, Code Enforcement will get involved. Fred Satterstrom reminded the Commissioners that their specific focus was on the variance from the impervious surface setback regulation. A lot of the questions raised would be relevant to the Parks Department's request for a Shoreline Master Permit which will be heard by the Hearing Examiner. Commissioner Martinez MOVED that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Haylor MOVED that SMV-91-1, South Green River Trail Corridor, be granted. Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Chair Faust made a friendly amendment to Commissioner Haylor's motion that in high residential areas where there are residences close to the dike that the trail be kept to a maximum 8 feet of pavement. Commissioner Martinez seconded the amendment and Commissioner Haylor accepted it. Mr. Beck said that a width of 12 feet is highly recommended for multi-use trails. Ms. Wickstrom pointed out that Signature Pointe Apartments were required to pay the City of Kent about $100, 000 to pave a 10 foot area behind the apartments. To make the trail only 8 feet, would be a conflict. In places where the dike is narrow, the trail would be only 8 feet. Chair Faust withdrew her amendment and Commissioner Martinez withdrew her second. Chair Faust made a friendly amendment that east of Central, the asphalt portion be limited, to the extent possible, to 8 feet. 8 Kent Planning Commission June 24, 1991 Commissioner Martinez seconded the amendment and Commissioner Haylor accepted it. The amendment did not pass. Commissioner Martinez made a friendly amendment to recommend that public access to the trail be such that only pedestrian access be permitted unless there is parking for at least six cars. Commissioner Haylor seconded the amendment. Ms. Proud wondered where the six parking stalls would come from. The Shoreline Master Program requires of new development, one parking stall for every 175 linear feet. Chair Faust felt that requiring six parking stalls was not a lot for a big development, but is a tremendous concession for a smaller developer. The amendment did not pass. Commissioner Grant asked if gravel or some surface other than asphalt should be considered. The commissioners felt that asphalt was safer for everyone using the trail. Commissioner Grant made a friendly amendment that the security of the area include the understanding of the Kent Police Department for some form of enforcement of traffic on the trail. Commissioner Dahle seconded the amendment and Commissioner Haylor accepted it. Chair Faust pointed out that the proposal had already been submitted to the Police Department and they had voiced no objections to it. Also a study of the Burke Gilman Trail had already been referenced, which indicated crime had not increased. Commissioner Martinez said that in two cases of which she was aware where loitering had been reported to the Police Department, the problem was taken care of. The amendment did not pass. The motion to grant the variance was carried. The people in the audience were told that they would be sent notice of the Hearing Examiner meeting and copies of the staff report. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Jame . Harris, Secretary 9