Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 08/04/1992 CITY OF �ABIT CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 4, 1992 4: 00 PM COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT OTHER CITY STAFF Leona Orr, Chair Tom Brubaker Judy Woods Ed Chow Roger Lubovich PLANNING STAFF GUESTS Sharon Clamp Ron Weigett Jim Harris Margaret Porter Fred Satterstrom GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE - (F. SATTERSTROM) No update was available. URBAN GROWTH AREA (F. SATTERSTROM) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom stated that the Planning Committee considered four alternative interim urban growth area boundaries at its June 16, 1992 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended Alternative 4, which would extend the urban growth area to include the Covington area. Planning Committee members expressed support for Alternative 3 but asked for further information on Alternative 4, particularly on the impacts of providing the Covington area with City services. Mr. Satterstrom reviewed a staff report which showed land area, population, and employment projections for each alternative compared to current City statistics. He explained further that the Fire, Police, Public Works, and Parks Departments were asked to assess what the impact would be to City service should the city limits eventually be extended to the Covington area. The Fire Department' s service area includes all of the area within Alternative 4. This alternative would annex all of Fire District 37 's fire stations and would include more than 60 percent of the District's overall area. Under state law, this means that the City would have to provide fire protection service to the entire district. The Police Department estimates that including the Covington area into the City's service area would require approximately five CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 4, 1992 PAGE 2 additional officers, 1 correction officer, 1/2 detective and traffic officer, and 1 additional car. The Public Works Department stated that water and sewer utilities located outside the city limits are self-supporting through user fees. The Department estimates that it costs $200 to $300 per acre to provide street improvements and maintenance (including drainage) . The area of Alternative 4 is approximately three square miles larger than the area of Alternative 3, representing an additional cost of $384, 000 to $576, 000. The Parks Department stated the advantages to Alternative 4 would be a larger area within which the City would receive tax dollars and potential impact fees, better coordination of services, and the City's assumption of some already developed parks and facilities. The Parks Department stated disadvantages include the need to hire more maintenance and recreation staff and the need for a new maintenance facility due to the larger service area. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the updated Soos Creek Community Plan adopted by the King County Council in 1991 designates the Covington area as an Urban Activity Center and designates the preliminary urban growth area for Kent not to extend east of Big Soos Creek. Chair Orr supports Alternative 3, and Judy Woods stated that she knows for a fact that Jon Johnson supports Alternative 3 . The Committee will conduct a formal vote on this item at its August 18 meeting and it will be placed on the Council agenda for September 1. Council President Woods expressed concern about the complexity of the issues involved in the countywide planning goals and the decision whether to become an urban center and ratification of the countywide planning policies. She is concerned about the degree of understanding of these issues by some members of the Council. Planning Manager Satterstrom noted that Council action on these two issues will take place separately and agreed to Ms. Wood's request of an executive summary for all Council members clearly stating the issues and how action on these issues will take place. This topic will also be discussed at the Planning Committee's August 18 meeting as an information item. SHORT PLAT PROCEDURES (J. HARRIS) City Attorney Roger Lubovich explained that State statute calls for an administrative process for approval of short plats. If a parcel of land meets certain criteria, the owner has the right to subdivide that parcel. He explained that Kent has an CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES AUGUST 4, 1992 PAGE 3 administrative committee made up of various City officials who review the application to see if it meets certain criteria, and then either approves, approves with conditions, or denies the application. If denied, it can be appealed to the Council. Questions which have come up with respect to the current process are: 1. Is the committee process internal or open to the public? 2. Who has the right to appeal; only the applicant or another member of the public such as a neighbor? 3 . Should the current process be modified or streamlined? To what extent should the public be allowed to participate? Who has the right to appeal and to which body should it be appealed to? Mr. Lubovich stated that Seattle has a very short administrative process and has specific public notice guidelines. A notice is posted on the property and public written comment is allowed. The Seattle Planning Director makes the decision which can be appealed to the Hearing Examiner. King County has a very long, elaborate and cumbersome process. After looking at Seattle and King County's processes, a preliminary proposal which provides for public notice to be posted on the property, an internal review, notices to be sent to property owners within 100 to 200 feet of the affected property, and allowing the public 15 days to provide written comment might be in order. The Planning Director could make the determination and appeals could be heard by the Hearing Examiner after which it could be appealed to court. The group of aggrieved parties that can appeal needs to be identified. Staff will work on an ordinance for Planning Committee review. ADDED ITEMS Chair Orr requested that the Planning Committee start receiving updates on the Regional Justice Center as appropriate. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:40 p.m. PC0804.92