Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 07/25/1994KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 25, 1994 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Kent Morrill at 7:02 p.m. on July 25, 1994 in the Kent City Hall, Chambers West. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Morrill, Chair Janette Nuss, Vice Chair Gwen Dahle Connie Epperly Edward Heineman, Jr. Kenneth Dozier Bob MacIsaac Russ Stringham Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: None PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner Linda Phillips, Planner Matthews Jackson, Planner Betzy Czark, Planner NanSea Potts, Recording Secretary Lois Ricketts, Administrative Secretary OTHER CITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Helen Wickstrom, Parks Administration Superintendent Laurie Evezich, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF JUNE 27, 1994 MINUTES Chairman, Kent Morrill MOVED, Commissioner Stringham SECONDED and the MOTION CARRIED to approve the minutes of the June 27, 1994 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 APPROVAL OF JULY 12, 1994 MINUTES Chair, Kent Morrill MOVED, Commissioner Epperly SECONDED and the MOTION CARRIED to approve the minutes of the July 12, 1994 meeting. ADDED AGENDA ITEMS Chair, Kent Morrill awarded Commissioner Epperly an overdue "Certificate of Appointment" as being a member of the Planning Commission. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Nuss reminded the commissioners to get any of their questions and area of concerns to Roger Lubovich, City Attorney, by August 1 for review before the August 8, 1994 meeting. UPCOMING MEETINGS Jim Harris reported a workshop is scheduled for August 8, 1994 with Roger Lubovich, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Commissioner Stringham asked if a public hearing is to follow the workshop. Mr. Harris said that should tonight's meeting be continued, August 8 would be the next logical time for a public hearing. The public hearing was opened. PUBLIC HEARING #CPA -94-1 Draft of the Kent Co mi)rehensive Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement Df EIS) Due to the volume of material, Chair Morrill set ground rules for a slow review of the information. The rules set forth were: 1) Each testimony will be limited to 10 minutes 2) After all testimony has been heard, each element of the Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed by Staff, in one meeting or a series of meetings. When the issues have been heard, the hearing will be opened up again for public input, allowing two opportunities for testifying. A recommendation will then be made by the commissioners and submitted to the City Council. F1 Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 PRESENTATIONS BY STAFF Jim Harris, Planning Director, reviewed the history of this project prior to this hearing. In 1990, the State of Washington passed legislation called the Growth Management Act (GMA) mandating cities and counties throughout the State outline elements regarding their future expansion. Mr Harris commented on the City of Kent's efforts in preparation for the Draft Comprehensive Plan, which included in 1992, a video and community forums, followed by a visual preference survey. The Planning Commission's proposed Planning Goals and Interim Growth Boundary were adopted by the City Council. In 1993, Land Use alternatives were discussed at open houses. This year, another video was prepared identifying the final three land use alternatives as well as holding 12 workshops dealing with all aspects of the proposed plan. Kevin O'Neill, Senior Planner outlined the differences between the Draft Comprehensive Plan versus the existing comprehensive plan. Generally, the three major differences are: 1) For the first time, a single plan includes elements pertaining to land use, transportation, capital facilities, humans services, etc. Nine elements are included in the Plan, including four elements not required by the GMA. Nearly all of the elements are complete; however staff will continue to make revisions while the initial review is in process, particularly regarding the capital facilities and transportation elements. 2) The GMA mandates implementation of this plan after adoption by the City Council. Implementation will be done through amendments to development regulations such as zoning and subdivision codes, and financing of capital facilities projects. 3) Revisions of the Comprehensive Plan for King County and other counties and adjacent communities are being done at the same time as Kent's plan is being revised, and under the same general State mandates. Local communities in accordance to a 1991 revision to the GMA are also subject to countywide planning policies, Kent's plan is being reviewed by adjacent cities, King County and State agencies, some of whom may have comments in the plan for the Commissioners' consideration. Mr. O'Neill explained that the GMA ties all of the comprehensive plan elements to the land use element. Three Land Use alternatives were prepared for review. These were evaluated by the public in a video and questionnaire which was done in April of this year. The three alternatives were analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and were summarized as follows: 1) Existing Plan - "No Action Alternative" This has been in place since 1977, with minor revisions. This was ranked the lowest by the public in the questionnaire results. 2) Mixed Use Alternative - Creates unsegregated zoning of retail, office and residential districts. It designates downtown as an "Urban Center", very high density, mixed use zoning, as well as areas along 104th, East Hill, Highway 99, West Meeker Street and Central. This alternative was ranked the highest by the public. c Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 3) Urban Center Alternative - Closest to the county -wide planning policies. This alternative is the similar to our existing Land Use plan except for focusing Kent's future housing and population growth areas downtown and adjacent to downtown. Portions of Industrial areas would become "Manufacturing Center", discouraging office or retail use, or any competing land use. This alternative was ranked second by the public. Based from their responses, the public felt a combination of elements from the Mixed Use and the Urban Center alternative would be the best option. Mr. O'Neill explained that the Proposed Land Use Plan Map was prepared with input from the Mayor's Office and responses from the forums. Proposed changes from the existing plan were explained, including how specific zoning densities are outlined on the map. The proposal for the area in unincorporated King County is basically what is now proposed in the Soos Creek Community Plan. Future zoning will be determined upon annexation into the City. Mr. O'Neill reiterated that the Draft Comprehensive Plan would provide a policy framework, which would be implemented through future subarea plans and amendments to the development regulations. Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager stated he was going to discuss the role of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in the hearings and the EIS process. He commented that tonight's hearing is a blend of two public hearings: a public hearing on the EIS, and a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan, as the documents are closely related. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the EIS evaluates the relative environmental impacts of a variety of alternatives so the decision making process will be more informed. Alternatives that involve the least adverse, unavoidable environmental impact are preferred, but in some cases, unmitigable issues arise. The EIS discloses adverse information so decisions can be made knowingly. Good information usually leads to informed and good decisions. Mr. Satterstrom said that the public is specifically asked to comment on the EIS in conjunction with the plan or by itself. Comments may address whether the DEIS is adequate or not, what items are missing, or issues that appear to be misstated. Mr Satterstrom stated that the EIS is a two part process. The document currently in review is the "Draft EIS" or a preliminary document which analyzes the present proposal. The public, along with thirty to forty agencies will review the EIS and will be allowed to make comments until August 17, 1994. Any and all comments can be made through public hearings or by letters submitted to the Planning Department. A thirty day comment period from publication is required by state law. 4 Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 The formal comment to be submitted to the Commission will be the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). It should be available with all of the responses and comments folded into the FEIS prior to a recommendation. By law, the FEIS must completed at least seven days prior to Council decision, however although not bound by law, we anticipate supplying the Commission with the FEIS before recommendation to the City Council. The audience was instructed by Mr. Satterstrom to specify during testimony whether their comments are pertaining to the EIS, as the comments will be logged. No formal action by the Planning Commission is performed regarding the EIS. The EIS is a disclosure document, not a policy document. The policy recommendations will be on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Satterstrom recognized the city-wide effort of everyone involved in the production of the Comprehensive Plan. Appreciation was extended to consultants, committees, and staff members. In addition to thanking Jim Harris, Planning Director, Planning staff members acknowledged were: Kevin O'Neill, Coordinator of the Comprehensive Plan for the past two years; Linda Phillips - Capital Facilities Element; Matt Jackson - Utilities Element and creation of the GIS colored maps; Armin Quilici - Urban Design Element; Betsy Czark - Human Services and Housing Elements; Charlene Anderson - Housing Element and Document Editing; NanSea Potts - Document Preparation and Production. Other City staff members recognized for their contributions to the Comprehensive Plan went to Ed White and Gary Gill (Public Works) - Transportation and Utilities Elements; May Miller (Finance) - Capital Facilities Plan; Helen Wickstrom (Parks) - Guided consultants on the Parks Element; Dea Drake (Finance) - Graphics and Document Printing. Also thanked were the Transit Advisory Board, the Bicycle Advisory Board, the Economic Development Committee, the Human Services Commission, and two Mayor appointed Growth Management committees. Mr. Satterstrom expressed the importance of the public review process. Despite the lack of newspaper coverage concerning tonight's hearing, attendees were commended for their participation. Mr. Satterstrom remarked that the size of this audience is probably not indicative of the interest by the community on the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Morrill thanked all of the staff who gave presentations, and on behalf of the Commissioners, thanked all City of Kent staff instrumental in the production of the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Morrill opened the hearing to the general public, once again asking for attendees to sign the roster to speak and/or to be on the mailing list concerning the Comprehensive Plan. He requested those testifying remain within the ten minute time frame, and asked that they state their name and address for the record. 5 Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 TESTIMONY Patricia James - (Enumclaw resident, property owner of 21251 94th Place South, Kent) Ms. James expressed her concern for extreme noise and vehicle pollution from SR 167 and 212th St. She opposes the Single Family Zoning designation and feels Multifamily zoning is more suitable. She gave several reasons supporting her request for reconsideration. Robert Whalen - (10520 SE 272nd St, Kent) Mr. Whalen was impressed by the document and asked for additional opportunities to respond. He commented on page 3-6 of the Comprehensive Plan (CP) assumes that transit has to be public. Mr. Whalen pointed out that there is an initiative at the state level to encourage a greater involvement of the private sector in transportation. He suggested the word "public" be removed, as well as broadening the types of transportation alternatives rather than focusing on specific types of transit. Secondly, Mr. Whalen was encouraged to see the Human Services section included, but mentioned on page 3-7(CP), accessible human services, that the City should encourage services readily served by transit. Also, the City should establish an accessibility factor for aid in judging the accessibility of a site. Mr. Whalen reference Professor Hodge and the City of Renton as sources of information concerning transit level of service. He used the poorly located DSHS as an example of a service highly dependent on transit service. Hugh Lieper - (1819 South Central, Suite 116, Kent) Mr. Lieper asked the question, "What are we going to do with the City within the next 100 years to make it last?" He stated that Parks functions extend into the Covington area. Mr Lieper stated that the proposed boundary in the Soos Creek area is too close, in consideration of Kent's ranking as 5th largest in the U.S. in terms of square footage of warehouse and manufacturing. Commissioner Stringham asked Mr. Lieper to clarify his opinion regarding the proposed boundary. Mr. Lieper felt the boundary should extend to at least one mile beyond Kent-Kangley and Highway 18. Mr. Lieper stated that the potential population of the city of Kent would be around 140,000 people. Commissioner Dahle commented to Mr. Lieper regarding her recent visit to a successful galleria in Texas. Lawrence Campbell - (10024 SE 24th #102, Kent) A practicing architect in Kent, Mr. Campbell asked if forums would be scheduled to condense the plan down to specific issues, in an attempt protect the interests of certain property owners He also asked if it would be possible to meet individually with the planning staff members and present discussions. Z Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Chair Morrill answered that the only discussions will be conducted at the public hearings, excluding further forums. The Commission will evaluate with staff after the meeting this evening on how to proceed on the next meeting in breaking the information into units and giving ample opportunity for input. Director Harris said all issues concerning Mr. Campbell's clients need to be addressed by the Planning Commission, but specific parcels need to be discussed by the individual property owners at the public hearings. Mr. Campbell went on record for certain individual parcels of ground, that discussions can be conducted at a later time. Mr. Campbell stated he supported the general plan, but in terms of representing certain individuals said some areas require special consideration concerning geography and topography. Properties mentioned by Mr. Campbell for further consideration were: 1) A group of properties N of 260th and E of 108th (East Hill) which is designated as Mixed Use. It is currently zoned for Office use. Mr. Campbell requested further clarification of the proposed zoning relative to this parcel. 2) Mr. Campbell asked to go on record as supporting Mrs. James' opinion regarding her property zoning and agreed it infeasible as zoned. Mr. Harris told Chairman Morrill that all of this information would be recorded and would addressed in the future. Mr. Campbell mentioned another situation regarding a group of parcels on South Central with potential infeasible zoning. Chairman Morrill stated again that all of the public hearing information will be reviewed by staff and bring forth recommendations, and the public will again have the opportunity to speak. Commissioner Nuss stated that the Growth Management Act specifies that we need to consider the critical or sensitive areas. The areas Mr. Campbell addressed will be revisited for further consideration. Commissioner Stringham asked Mr. Campbell to indicate Mrs. James' property on the Proposed Land Use Plan Map. Mr. Campbell explained the area in detail and the factors supporting multifamily zoning as opposed to residential zoning. Commissioner Stringham further asked Mr. Campbell's opinion regarding as far as using this property for Planned Unit Development or cluster housing. Mr. Campbell's response was "precisely. " Commissioner Ward asked which was preferred, PUD or cluster housing. Mr. Campbell said at one time there was a PUD ordinance in Kent, which is no longer in effect. Mr. Campbell stated he thinks Kent needs a new zone called "cluster housing." 7 Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Jim Harris said that the public should know that rather than testifying, they can write to the Planning Department explaining in detail their concerns. In turn, the Planning Department can bring the questions to the Planning Commission for review. Mr. Harris said the Planning Department cannot meet with everyone separately on each issue. Commissioner Dahle reminded the public is welcome to listen at workshops, even though they cannot speak as they are open meetings. Ronald Harmon - (20627 95th Ave South, Kent) Mr. Harmon agreed that the future annexation limits of Kent should extend to Highway 18. Mr. Harmon commended the Planning Commission for allowing the public to be involved in the planning process of the City. In reference to similar property of Mr. Campbell's concern, Mr. Harmon stated he felt that the Kent has too little single family housing. Pertaining proposed plan policies to LU 10. 1, 10.2, 10.3 (CP), Mr. Harmon reported King County's lack of proper management by allowing Cluster Housing, and developers have taken advantage of PUD by not creating parks. Commissioner Nuss asked what Mr. Harmon would like to see for future housing in Kent. Mr. Harmon said he would not like to see housing like the manufactured housing near Fred Meyer on 108th, next door to the Church. Mr. Harmon said he would like to see larger, managed units with appropriate parking. He would like to see less apartments, and more restrictions. The ratio of multifamily housing is now at 68 percent, per Commissioner Stringham, and Mr. Harmon agreed. Commissioner Dahle explained that the housing in question on 108th is low income housing, and just north is a senior housing project. Commissioner Stringham quoted policy LU 10.5 in reference to allowing manufactured housing on single family lots. Mr. Stringham reported that the Commission discussed modular home construction at great length and concurred that it was very difficult to identify modular home construction from on-site construction. Nanci Mann - Moss Construction (26322 79th Avenue South) "Horseshoe Acres" Ms. Mann paraphrased a letter submitted in behalf of thirteen property owners, who oppose the proposed Single Family zoning of the area. The properties are bordered by Burlington Northern Railroad on the east, and the Green River on the west and is south of 259th Street. Ms. Mann stated the 33 acre tract is currently in King County but is included in the City of Kent's Potential Annexation Area (PAA). Industrial and light manufacturing businesses are currently operating on these properties. Ms. Mann stated King County has already rezoned two of the parcels as ML and the rest are classified as potential ML. Ms. Mann stated the Single Family zoning D. Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 designation is infeasible and asked the Planning Commission to reevaluate their decision to allow the zoning to remain as King County's code. Planning Director Harris requested Ms. Mann to individually show the photographs which accompany her letter. They are: 1) The intersection of 261st and 79th (Salm Construction) 2) Salm Construction's Yard (2 parcels) showing warehouse space and industrial equipment. 3) East of Salm Construction (26117 79th Ave S.) Auto Parts and Transmission Shop. 4) Gene's Wood Shop - House and Cottage Industry of making dog, doll and bird houses, etc. 5) Industrial Repair Service - Always zoned ML (79th Avenue South) 6) Moss Construction - Construction yard, storage containers, abutting BN track. 7) Storage Yard and Auto Repair Shop - (26402 79th Avenue S) The largest property represented, owned by the Breda Family constituting nieteen acres with a mixed use of usages, including houses, storage, cottage industries. 8) Brede property. Commissioner Stringham asked Ms. Mann specifically to locate the properties on the map. He asked staff why this the Single Family designation was proposed considering the large volume of industrial base. Ms. Mann also stated the bike path on the Green River side would be less disruptive to business as opposed to Single Family zoning. Chairman Morrill advised Commissioner Stringham that staff would be taking notes on these issues and will be coming back with comments. Shelley Moffatt - (Business Address: 17601 SE 272nd - Covington) Ms. Moffatt said that the area commonly known as "Covington", (bordering SE 132nd on the west) has existed longer than Kent and has its own separate unique identity. Kent and King County were participants in a public forum which was held May 25, 1994. Ms. Moffatt said concerned residents of Covington were opposed to the multifamily housing ratio of Kent. With the expected growth of approximately 10,000 housing units, Ms. Moffatt said the residents felt the utility upgrades would be very expensive. Issues also stated were: Water and Sewer, Transportation, Units per acre (most people own acreage) down to 1 to 8 units per acre, and what part the Commissioners played in the generation of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Moffatt said she understood that the Planning Commission was involved in workshops, but it appears the Plan is being introduced to the Commission now. Chairman Morrill again said that all comments would be addressed at the next public hearing. 0 Planning Commission Minutes July 25, 1994 Commissioner Ward asked Ms. Moffatt specifically if her desire was to be annexed into the City of Kent, or not. She replied, "Not. " Martha Burke asked Chairman Morrill if there will be other opportunities to comment. Chair Morrill stated there will be another hearing as it could not be concluded this evening. Ms. Burke opted to wait. Chairman Morrill closed the public hearing. He explained the process for reviewing the testimony, and announced the next public hearing is to be held on August 8, 1994 at 7:00 p.m., at which time the staff answer the questions presented this evening. Chair Morrill urged staff to notify the valley newspaper, buying an article if need be to notify the general public of the next meeting. GOOD OF THE ORDER Commissioner Stringham MOVED that the public hearing be continued to August 8, 1994, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers West. It was SECONDED and MOTION CARRIED. It was MOVED and SECONDED and CARRIED to adjourn. The meeting closed at 8:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 4.�iVJ�bf�o.- ✓P�f J es P. Harris ecording Secretary 10