Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 08/22/1994KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 22, 1994 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kent Morrill at 7:05 p.m. on August 22, 1994 in the Kent City Hall, Chambers West. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Morrill, Chair Janette Nuss, Vice Chair Connie Epperly Gwen Dahle Edward Heineman, Jr. Kenneth Dozier Bob MacIsaac Russ Stringham Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Linda Phillips, Planner Matthews Jackson, Planner NanSea Potts, Recording Secretary OTHER CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ed White, Transportation Engineer APPROVAL OF AUGUST 8, 1994 MINUTES Commissioner Stringham announced a technical correction to the August 8, 1994 minutes. He said the last sentence of testimony from Michael Skehan should read, "...we would meet it only for today and it would not be adequate in the future", rather than "Kent would meet the concurrency required for public transportation today." Commissioner Stringham MOVED, Commissioner Nuss SECONDED, and the motion CARRIED to approve the August 8, 1994 minutes as corrected. ADDED AGENDA ITEMS None Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1994 COMMUNICATIONS Fred Satterstrom announced several communications were received relating to the Comprehensive Plan. He requested they be announced during the public hearing. NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None. (Other than the meeting of the Planning Commission on September 12, 1994.) PUBLIC HEARING ##CPA -94-1 Draft of the Kent Comprehensive Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement D( EIS) Chair Morrill stated a change would be made regarding additional testimony as announced at the last public hearing, which he stated he would not allow testimony from previous speakers. He said anyone wishing to testify on another topic may do so, still limiting each testimony to 10 minutes. Chair Morrill introduced Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner and asked him to explain the background of the comprehensive plan for the benefit of those who did not attend the previous public hearings. Mr. O'Neill explained tonight's public hearing is a continuation of the public hearing which began on July 25, 1994, continued to August 8, 1994, and continued to tonight. Mr. O'Neill outlined the process the Planning Commission proposes to follow to complete deliberations on the elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Testimony will be heard and received, and the public hearing closed. Deliberations will be held following a schedule of proposed discussion dates available for the public. After the deliberations have been completed, the public hearing will be reopened for comments. Staff will also prepare a document for the Commission's use in the deliberations summarizing all of the comments, and responses to those comments. All submitted exhibits and minutes of the public hearings will be included. Mr. O'Neill said there have been an additional 10 exhibits received since the last meeting, which brings the total number of exhibits to 18. Mr. O'Neill announced that the complete Draft Kent Comprehensive Plan was available for sale to the public, and a free Goals and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan with Proposed Land Use Map was also available. Chair Morrill asked Planning Manager, Fred Satterstrom to list the communications received regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Satterstrom stated 18 exhibits have been submitted to date. The communications were from: 2 Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1994 Chair Morrill asked Planning Manager, Fred Satterstrom to list the communications received regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Satterstrom stated 18 exhibits have been submitted to date. The communications were from: 1. Moss Construction (Nanci Mann) 10. Acheson/McLerran 2. Puget Power (Denny Lensgrav) 11. Marilyn Caretti 3. Charlie Kiefer 12. Washington State DOT (L. Frank) 4. Jim Fox 13. Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Stevens) 5. Hugh Lieper 14. Bob Nelson 6. Michael Skehan 15. Jim DiPeso 7. Robert Davidson 16. City of Auburn (Paul Krauss) 8. Dr. Ranniger 17. David Whalen 9. Wurster/Ramolete 18 Puget Power (David Osaki) Future exhibits will be copied and provided to the Commissioners. Chair Morrill said should the public hearing close tonight, there would be an additional seven days allowed to submit communications. Chair Morrill opened the public hearing for testimony, reminding the speakers that they will have no longer than ten minutes to testify. Steve Babbitt - (945 E Maple Street, Kent) Mr. Babbitt directed his comments toward the Non - Motorized Goals and Policies of the transportation element. Mr. Babbitt felt the motorized element dominates so that the non -motorized public is denied needed access. He said that the Non -Motorized Transportation Goals and Policies should be directed toward creating access. The issue will be how to create the access, and Mr. Babbitt outlined options to achieve the access, as well as discussing safety requirements for non -motorized transportation. Mr. Babbitt felt the Transportation Goals and Policies were poorly written. He said they could be consolidated, simplified, and edited, shortening the Goals and Policies by one third. Commissioner Stringham agreed with the redundancy of this element, and said it had already been discussed by the Commissioners. Chair Morrill suggested Mr. Babbitt rewrite the Goals and Policies as he feels they should be written. 3 Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1994 Mr. Babbitt said he was very displeased by the lack of coverage the local paper has given to the public hearings. Chair Morrill agreed. Hugh Lieper - (1819 S Central, Suite 116, Kent) Mr. Lieper commented on the Environmental Impact Statement. He offered ideas to tie trains and cars together, to satisfy the City's needs for not just the next 20 years, but the next 100 years. Commissioner Nuss said as a member of the Transit Advisory Board, they are trying to tie trains and cars together but it is not simple. Tamela Ramolete - (10805 SE 248th, Kent) Mrs. Ramolete requested a change in zoning to mixed use for her property which is across the street from the property recently purchased by the City of Kent. With schools, condominiums and apartments nearby, she felt her neighborhood should not be zoned single family. Commissioner Stringham asked Mrs. Ramolete if a proposed use has been for the City property. She said it was to be either a teen center or a ball field. Commissioner Stringham said he heard the teen center had been rejected by the City Council Mrs. Ramolete said that changing the zoning would compliment the neighborhood. Commissioner Nuss asked what type of zoning she felt would be most useful for her area. Mrs. Ramolete said mixed use, or other zoning that would allow small businesses, to accommodate users of ball fields, condominiums, and the nearby school. Commissioner Stringham asked Chair Morrill if a zoning designation of Community Commercial exists for areas such as this, allowing small retail businesses to exist in a community. Commissioner Dahle asked if the land in question is next to the church. Mrs. Ramolete said the church was a ways up and across the street, near the school. Mike Skehan - (11421 SE 257th Unit G101, Kent) Mr. Skehan listed actions taken by the Transit Advisory Board for the Comprehensive Plan which were not entered in the official record of August 8, 1994. At the Advisory Board meeting of July 28, additional recommendations were adopted. The board would like to see the following transit recommendations: 1) East Hill Action 3, to provide service to downtown Renton and on to Bellevue. 2) East Hill Action 4, to provide frequent all -day service to Green River Community College. 3) West Hill Action 2, to promote a common transfer stop for Highland Community College between Kent, Burien, and Normandy Park. 19 Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1994 The Transit Board also wants two goals to be included in the comprehensive plan. They are regarding establishment of mode -split goals and transit priority measures. Mr. Skehan said we should not use automobiles as the only standard of measuring concurrency in the Transportation Element. He said another way to measure could be accessibility, rather than measuring volume of vehicles. Commissioner Nuss asked if a vote was actually taken at the Transit Advisory Board meeting regarding the two proposed goals and perhaps that is why they were not included in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Nuss said she was not in favor of passage of one of the goals mentioned by Mr. Skehan. Commissioner Stringham asked Mr. Skehan to clarify his statement regarding the current mode split, and what is the actual goal. Mr. Skehan said the current mode split, as a proportion of all trips is about 6%, meaning 6% of all trips are done by transit. Therefore, a 50% increase would be about 9%, and a 100% will be about 12%. Commissioner Stringham also asked Mr. Skehan to clarify his statement regarding using automobile traffic as the indicator for concurrency. Commissioner Stringham asked if vehicle miles travelled would be a better indicator if it triggered development of alternative transportation, rather than triggering development of new roads. Mr. Skehan responded that both are needed. improvements required by concurrency are technological volume increases. He said he would be disappointed if the only additional roads, intersection expansions, or An analysis of 22 transit zones was given to Mr. Satterstrom for the record, (CPA 94-1 Exhibit #19), which Mr. Skehan explained. Mr. Skehan agreed when Commissioner Stringham's restated his comment regarding volume to capacity being a good indicator of how well it is doing in the other modes. Meaning if the volume to capacity is increasing faster than an established parameter, you haven't done well in the other modes and it would be time to step those up. Ekhard Preikschat - (9048 NE 41st Street, Bellevue) Representing his parents, Fritz and Martha Preikschat, not present, and James Crozier, in attendance, who own two tax lots located near the SE corner of 108th Avenue and SE 264th Street. Mr. Preikschat stated that both King County and the proposed land use map designates these two lots differently, and requested they 5 Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1994 be zoned the same as they will someday be developed as one contiguous piece of property. He also commented on the future zoning of the Ramstead annexation. Commissioner Stringham asked if Mr. Preikschat was referring to the proposed zoning in the Comprehensive Plan being different, or if the existing King County zoning for this area was different. Mr. Preikschat said the map was not detailed enough to tell if the 4 acres would be zoned the same, but if the topographical boundary was used like King County, the property would be split, and they would need to apply for a rezone. Commissioner Ward asked Mr. Preikschat what the current zoning was. Mr. Preikschat said through King County it was zoned RM 3600 and SR 7200, and the present Comprehensive Plan designation is Multiple and Residential. Commissioner Epperly asked what he would like to see it zoned. Mr. Preikschat said it should be RM 2400. Marilyn Caretti - (4604 Somerset Court, Kent) Mrs. Caretti said she and a group from her area are totally opposed to additional multifamily housing on the West Hill. She quoted a flyer from the Kent Water Department that stated there is a water shortage and everyone should conserve. Her concern was what impact multifamily zoning would have on Kent's water supply. Mrs. Carew outlined several examples regarding over-crowdedness, and other adverse situations due to population growth in her area, which justifies her previous written request to change multifamily zoning to Mixed Use, leaving commercial zoning alone, and add to Kent's tax base instead of promoting ways to drain off facilities and the tax base. Commissioner Dahle asked which school district she was in. Mrs. Caretti said she thought it was the Federal Way School District, but regardless if more schools are needed, the county will raise taxes. She restated that no more apartments are wanted on West Hill. Dan Swallow - (701 5th Avenue, Seattle) - As a representative of the City of Seattle, Mr. Swallow submitted a letter to the Planning Commission. (CPA 94-1 Exhibit #21) Robert Whalen - (10520 SE 277th Street, Kent) As co-chair of the Transit Advisory Board, Mr. Whalen commented on local control of local transit service. He said the reason why Kent has omitted definitive standards for transit is because Kent does not have control over the transit. The King County Transit Committee is considering a proposal that would adopt center -based transit, which would allow control of a one-third share of the transit revenues from Metro by each jurisdiction. More latitude would be allowed for transit alternatives, as utilizing smaller 3 Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1994 vehicles which would be more suited to transit needs, and revamping schedules and fares. Suburban cities are in the process of endorsing the center -based transit concept and has encouraged the Kent Transit Advisory Board to promote the concept. Mr. Whalen said the Comprehensive Plan does not reflect this alternative. Commissioner Stringham asked Mr. Whalen to clarify his comment regarding the one-third of the revenues from Metro. He asked if that amount was in regard to one-third of the total pie, or if it was one-third of the money that would have been generated in the City of Kent. Mr. Whalen said the way it was stated was flatly one-third of the Metro transit revenue would be allocated. He said the cities would be eligible for that portion which was generated from their population and jobs, resulting in about a third of what is spent in the Kent area, focusing on transit in the community, not necessarily what is generated from Park and Ride to Park and Ride. Commissioner MacIsaac asked Mr Whalen if he thought Kent would see more local control. Mr. Whalen affirmed his comment, and stated that Metro prefers to use one size bus, as opposed to the suburban style vans. The City could have a private company manage transit needs and possibly save money. Commissioner Dahle asked about providing more transit to East Hill Mr. Whalen discussed a need for restructuring routings, to fully utilize the buses, rather than operating the buses sometimes over half empty. Commissioner Dahle asked if there was an all day bus. Mr. Whalen responded there was, Route 169 which runs every half hour from the Kent Park and Ride to the Renton Park and Ride. Also, Route 168 from Covington, to Timberlane, also running every half hour during commuting time and hourly during the rest of the day. Commissioner Dahle said she lives on East Hill and she never sees the buses. Mr. Whalen said they only run on the arterials, bypassing many areas they should be covering. Generally these buses are almost empty, not utilizing the resources. Commissioner Dozier stated quite often Metro run the routes so fast, they need to wait at the bus stops to keep from getting ahead of schedule. 7 Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1994 Mr. Whalen said Kent has a time transfer, where routes 168, 169 and 166 wait for the 150 bus from Auburn to downtown Seattle. Commissioner Stringham commended Mr. Whalen and Mr. Skehan for the extraordinary amount of work they have given to Kent's transportation issues, thanking them for their efforts in Metro even considering center -based transit, giving Kent the opportunity to manage transit. Commissioner Ward asked Mr. Whalen if he felt the smaller buses would be more economical to operate, and provide better service in Kent. Mr. Whalen said several changes would be necessary in the next couple of years. In conjunction with the proposed commuter rail service, allocation of resources would be needed Commissioner Ward asked if this action would be recreating another Metro. Mr. Whalen said no, that Metro was given a total monopoly in transit service, and they have focused that service to getting people out of the suburban cities, into downtown Seattle. Originally, the majority of Metro's resources were used for 20 percent of the total trips. Since then, the suburbs have grown and Metro has not adequately accommodated the need. Bob Nelson - (24048 156th Ave S.E., Kent) Mr. Nelson said Kent's Comprehensive Plan did not specifically identify the critical areas, primarily the eastern aquifer recharge areas in the vicinity of Soos Creek and Covington. Mr. Nelson said King County is involved in identifying these areas by use of an overlay map, and Kent should also designate these areas. He said the proposed single family, 8 units per acre zoning for the eastern area would not suffice the GMA as far as required interim zoning to protect the critical aquifer recharge areas. Mr Nelson noted that some areas were listed in the plan, but there should not be inconsistencies. Commissioner MacIsaac asked how the two areas indicated on the map were designated as aquifer areas. Mr. Nelson said the map appeared to be from the 1979 Soos Creek Plan. Mr. Nelson gave the proper procedures, as referenced by Snohomish and King County's actions to identify the critical areas and asked to include them in the Comprehensive Plan. Kirsten Heiken - (24910 21st Ave S, Kent) Ms. Heiken lives in Salt Air Hills, an area 1 block from Des Moines on the west side of Pacific Highway. She said her area has not been aware of Kent's recent planning activities. Ms. Heiken expressed her concern for the influx of adult entertainment and nightlife in the commercial zoned areas of highway 99. She asked that only businesses that would enhance the values of the area be allowed. Ms. Heiken delivered a letter from another concerned homeowner in her area. (CPA94-1 Exhibit 22 from Bridget Peterson) Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1994 Commissioner Stringham asked if she lives in the precinct that is a peninsula that goes over to Des Moines. Ms. Heiken said it was, positioned between 240th and 252nd street, and 20th avenue on the west, and Pacific Highway South on the east. Joel Ross - (1662 Dahlia Lane, Tumwater) Mr. Ross said he appeared before the Planning Commission in October of 1993 during the Chestnut Ridge annexation meetings. Mr Ross submitted a letter for the record affirming the goals and policies as specified in the Comprehensive Plan, and supports the type of careful development of Chestnut Ridge. However, Mr. Ross said that the proposed zoning, 1 unit per acre, does not allow for any return on the land's value, due to the high costs of developing the area. Because of the terrain and to preserve the beauty of Chestnut Ridge, Mr. Ross requested reconsideration of the zoning designation to SF -3. He also requested that any land use designation be subject to a mandatory public hearing with controlled review of any development. Commissioner Nuss asked Mr. Ross if he was still interested in the development of townhomes as he was last October. Mr. Ross said he was not, citing a Tumwater consultant who has used creative housing alternatives and developments which utilized other unique planning concepts. Pat Sumption - (10510 11th Avenue N.E., Seattle) Mrs. Sumption, a mother of two grown children who presently own starter homes on West Hill, expressed her concern regarding the availability of affordable housing in the Kent area. She feared detrimental effects to the area resulting from the continued building of multifamily units on West Hill. As president of Friends of the Green River, Mrs. Sumption stated depleted water supply, river issues, and conservation as some of the major areas of concern, which should be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan to plan ahead for the proposed intended growth. Mrs. Sumption said the green belts or open space in the DEIS and the Comprehensive Plan do not agree, giving many reasons for protecting and/or creating additional green belt areas. Commissioner Nuss asked how Mrs. Sumption's children felt regarding the zoning of their property. Mrs. Sumption said they have only commented on the affordability issue, and the specific zoning has not been discussed, and any future comments will be forwarded to the Commission. Dave Hoffman - (25334 45th Ave S, Kent) Mr. Hoffman said he was against any further multifamily development on West Hill, and that bicycle technology is a viable transportation alternative for the city of Kent. E Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1994 Commissioner Dozier asked if Mr. Hoffman rode his bicycle to work when it is raining hard. Mr. Hoffman said he did. Commissioner Dozier also asked if Mr. Hoffman felt bicycles could be used for transportation for people over 40 or 50 years old, or below 10 or 12 years old. Mr. Hoffman said they could be, if it were safe enough. Commissioner Heineman asked Mr. Hoffman what experiences he had with interacting with motorized traffic in getting to and from work, and what specifically needs to be done to improve safety in commuting by bicycle. Mr. Hoffman said the most of his interactions have been extremely positive, saying motorists are courteous, knowledgeable, and skilled. He said compared to other countries, this area of the United States is one of the best areas to ride a bike. Mr. Hoffman said curb lanes would be the best way to bicycle, because sidewalks and bicycle trails are shared by pedestrians and roller skaters are sources of conflict. He suggested a curb lane between motor traffic and pedestrian traffic as the best solution. Commissioner Dahle asked if Mr. Hoffman knew how many people in the Kent area actually use bicycles for commuting to and from work. Mr. Hoffman said he did not know for sure, but during his commuting time of 20 minutes to Boeing, he sees 4 or 5 regular bicycle commuters. Commissioner Stringham said according to the 1990 Census, a total of 68 people city-wide said they regularly commuted to and from work by bicycle. Commissioner Nuss asked what Mr. Hoffman would like to see in regards to bus lanes and bicyclists so they do not collide with each other. Mr. Hoffman said he has not yet seen the density to warrant a change, as bus drivers are courteous and safe drivers. He stated body language by the bicyclist is detected by the bus drivers, and it isn't an issue unless the bus is blocking the curb lane. Commissioner Nuss said as she is looking through the growth in the future, she wants to be sure to be sensitive to the needs of the bicycles and transit, to serve the public without detriment to their safety. Chairman Morrill thanked everyone for coming to the meeting and the opportunity to hear their concerns. He said the public meetings have lasted for three consecutive meetings and ample public testimony had been received. Chair Morrill closed the public hearing on the Kent Comprehensive Plan. 10 Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1994 Chair Morrill introduced Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager, asking him to provide a proposal on how the Commission will continue deliberations on the Comprehensive Plan and the EIS, and finally reopen the hearing for additional public input. Commissioner Nuss MOVED that the hearing on the Kent Comprehensive Plan be closed. Commissioner Ward SECONDED and the motion CARRIED. Mr. Satterstrom presented the staff's recommendation for the proposed deliberations schedule. He said the next two meetings of the Planning Commission, on September 12 and September 26 respectively, are designated for the land use element. October 10th and 24th would be used to evaluate the remaining elements of the Comprehensive Plan. On November 14th, the public hearing would be reopened, allowing the public the opportunity to respond to the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Mr. Satterstrom acknowledged the efforts of staff in inventorying the correspondence and the challenge of responding to the issues and preparing a report by the required date of September 12th. Commissioner Nuss asked how the public would be aware of the refining of the issues prior to the reopening of the public hearing. She also asked if the public could attend the next four meetings. Chair Morrill said all of the meetings are public meetings. Mr. Satterstrom said like other City meetings, the public could observe, but would not be allowed to speak. The present staff recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan deliberations would need to be revised and available prior to November 14th, containing the Planning Commission's recommendations for the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Morrill asked if there was any way we could aggressively pursue media coverage in the local paper, listing the meeting schedule, perhaps meeting with the editors of the Valley Daily News. Chair Morrill suggested Arthur Martin as someone who could assist in obtaining local coverage. Mr. Satterstrom said the proposed dates would be mailed to all parties of record, sending notification of any changes to the schedule. He said in addition to the news coverage, the Planning Commission meetings have been taped and would soon be available for scheduled local 11 Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1994 cable broadcasting. Involvement through the utility billing newsletter is another option for acquiring community participation. Commissioner Nuss said she liked the utility billing newsletter idea, saying others on the West Hill have also commented to her on the usefulness of the newsletter. Commissioner Stringham suggested letters of concern from the public to the Editor of the Valley Daily News asking why there has been so little coverage concerning the Planning Commission meetings, and stating when the next meeting is scheduled. Commissioner MacIsaac asked Mr. Satterstrom when the remaining elements of the Comprehensive Plan would be ready, especially the Capital Facilities portion. Mr. Satterstrom said the Capital Facilities element is not completed, and therefore scheduled for October 24, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner MacIsaac stressed the importance of the element as many decisions would need to be based on the funding to support those decisions. Mr. Satterstrom agreed the Capital Facilities element is a very important, stating it was the Planning Department's intention to have all of the elements of the Draft Comprehensive Plan available at the same time. He said due to unforeseen difficulties, the element has been delayed. Mr. Satterstrom said he hoped it would be completed by October 24, but the Planning Commission has the legal option of recommending the plan forward, minus the Capital Facilities element, and acting on it at a later date. Although it would not be what staff intended, he said the Growth Management Act states that the elements can be recommended one element at a time, if need be. Commissioner Nuss asked if there would be anything wrong with waiting until the element was completed. She said she was reluctant to go forward planning for growth for the next 20 years without an understanding of the sources of the money. Mr. Satterstrom said the Capital Facilities element was not necessary at this time to move forward with the land use element. He felt preliminary decisions could be made at this time. He said back -tracking may be necessary for the elements that the City requires to be concurrent with development, should they be out of pace with capital facilities Mr. Satterstrom said perhaps the Public Works Director could testify to the adequacies of the City's resources. 11K Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1994 Commissioner Nuss said the Transportation and Parks elements have specific financial needs, and she does not feel comfortable proceeding without the capital facilities element. Mr. Satterstrom said the land use deliberations could have issues that overlap into other elements, such as roadways. He said he felt due to the volume of issues, deliberations on the land use would span at least two meetings. Commissioner Dahle asked pertaining to zoning issues, whether the commissioners could see the zones which are being challenged. She asked if the commissioners were suppose to see them on their own. Commissioner Dahle asked if pictures were available. Mr. Satterstrom said no tours were presently planned as staff was still receiving and inventorying correspondence relating to the Comprehensive Plan. He said a workshop tour could be arranged if needed, but to conduct a tour now would extend the schedule. Mr. Satterstrom said to plan a tour of these sites would be very involved, as the public would need to be also included. Commissioner Ward asked whether money was available in the budget to purchase a paid advertisement in the newspaper, which would include a statement why the City needed to place the ad. Mr. Satterstrom said the City would probably have to pay for an article as previously submitted news releases on the public hearing and open house were not published. Although the City has had coverage in the past, and with the variety of issues concerning the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Satterstrom said we will have to spend the money to keep the public informed. Commissioner Dozier stated that the Planning Commission acts only in an advisory capacity and asked if the public realized the City Council meetings were another means of hearing issues relating to zoning. Mr. Satterstrom said this is true, and the City Council is the final word on zoning as well as the Comprehensive Plan. He said he felt the City Council is probably looking to the Planning Commission to do the work. Mr. Satterstrom said the City Council is not obligated by law to hold the public hearings, but would possibly hold public meetings regarding the comprehensive plan. Commissioner Dozier said through personal experience with King County, he was able to appear before the King County Council, and achieved his desired changes. 13 Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1994 Mr. Satterstrom said King County does not have a planning commission, and perhaps that is the reason Commissioner Dozier was heard by the council. In response to Commissioner MacIsaac, Mr. Satterstrom said there would be a staff presentation explaining the logic behind the Comprehensive Plan and map. He said the Proposed Land Use Map had not been presented to the Planning Commission in prior sessions, therefore the methodology would be explained. Commissioner Dahle commented that at a State of Washington training session she learned the role of the Planning Commission, as well as learning the City of Kent needed 17 % more multifamily units, which nobody seems to want in their neighborhood. Commissioner Nuss disagreed, saying people have requested multifamily zoning at some of the hearings. Commissioner Stringham clarified Commissioner Dahle's statement saying in the housing split, the City needs to accommodate 17% low income, which Kent more than qualifies. Chair Morrill said that Mr. Satterstrom has given his recommendation for further consideration of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Chair Morrill asked if anyone thought of another approach After lengthy discussion on whether to continue deliberations on the Comprehensive Plan without the capital facilities element, the Planning Commission elected to proceed with the land use element over the next two Planning Commission meetings. Commissioner MacIsaac MOVED that the Planning Commission proceed with meetings on the land use element on September 12 and September 26, 1994. At the close of the meeting on September 26, the commission will decide to continue the meetings to October 10 without the capital facilities element, with an update on the capital facilities schedule. It was jointly SECONDED and the motion CARRIED. Mr. Satterstrom recognized the Planning Commission's wanting to keep a close watch on capital facilities as they relate to the comprehensive plan, but he reminded the commission that the land use plan was a twenty year vision. He said the capital facilities is a 6 year plan, as is the transportation plan. Mr. Satterstrom said it was not the responsibility of the planning commission to plan capital facilities financing for the next twenty years, only that the development which occurs be concurrent with levels of service. 14 Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 1994 Several commissioners discussed the extreme importance of carefully planning the next six years before proceeding with the 20 year plan, and which other elements were staged in 6 year increments. Commissioner MacIsaac asked if the Public Works department could be included during the land use deliberations and for future meetings. Mr. Satterstrom said the Public Works department will be notified, now that the meetings will become interactive the other departments. Commissioner Ward MOVED that the meeting be closed. Commissioner Nuss SECONDED, and motion CARRIED to close the meeting. Chairman Morrill closed the meeting at 9:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, jJes P Harris rding Secretary 15