Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 02/22/1993 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 22 , 1993 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7: 00 pm on February 22, 1993 in the Kent City Hall, Chambers West. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Gwen Dahle Albert Haylor Edward Heineman, Jr. Kent Morrill Kenneth Dozier Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER ABSENT: Christopher Grant PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Chris Holden, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF JANUARY 25 , 1993 MINUTES The MOTION was made to accept the January 25, 1993 minutes as presented. The motion was SECONDED. Motion CARRIED. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE #CPA-93-1 Fred Satterstrom, Kent Planning Department, explained the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment request. Mr. Satterstrom displayed view foils depicting 1) the Comprehensive Plan Map zoning for the area and 2) the actual zoning in the area. Mr. Satterstrom further explained that the requested amendment area is also in the single family zoning overlay. The widening of the street to accommodate increased traffic volumes affected the properties also. The City staff is recommending that the Comprehensive Plan Map be amended from single family to office and that the single-family designated overlay zone be eliminated for these properties. Mr. Rob Hamlin, Vice-President of the Masonic Hall Association and Mr. James Keck, applicant, supported the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request. 1 Planning Commission Minutes February 22 , 1993 MOTION made to close the public hearing. The motion was SECONDED and APPROVED. Commissioner Haylor MOVED to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map from single family to office and that the single-family designated overlay zoned be eliminated for these properties. MOTION was SECONDED AND APPROVED. Chairman Martinez informed Mr. Keck that this Comprehensive Plan Map amendment would be presented to the City Council on March 23 for their consideration. CRITICAL AREAS REGULATIONS #CPA-91-1 AND #ZCA-91-3 Chair Martinez briefly reviewed the background of the critical areas ordinance. Chair Martinez commented the sub-committee's proposal would be considered this evening. She requested a report from City staff. Fred Satterstrom, Planning Department, succinctly explained the need for a timely but well-considered ordinance. Tom Brubaker, Assistant City Attorney, stated the City is mandated under the Growth Management Act to have a wetland ordinance. Failure to comply with the Growth Management Act requirements could cause mandated serious penalties to occur if determined by the Growth Planning Hearings Board that the City has violated the Growth Management Act. The Act stated that on or before September 1, 1991, each City must designate and develop regulations that protect critical areas which includes wetlands. An extension was granted to March 1992 . The State can determine to withhold any one or more of the following state revenues: the motor vehicle fuel tax, the transportation improvement account, the urban arterial trust account, the rural arterial trust account, the sales and use tax, the liquor profit tax and the liquor excise tax. Theoretically, our violation of the Growth Management Act could subject the City to the loss of its revenue from any one or all of those taxes. The RCW on extension states, the Department of Ecology may extend the date by which the City' s is required to designate critical areas including wetlands or the date by which the City' s required to protect such wetlands, if the City demonstrates its proceeding in an orderly fashion and is making a good faith effort to meet these requirements. An extension may be up for to an additional 180 days. The length of the extension shall be based on the difficulty of the effort to conform with these requirements. 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1993 In terms of other authority, under the Shoreline Management Act, it regulates shorelines and associated wetlands and that Act has determined that all wetlands on the Green River Valley Floor have been designated associated wetlands. The King County Planning Policies that have been recently adopted encourage and in some instances, require wetland delineation and require consistency from local to county levels. Lastly, the City has received grant funding from the Department of Ecology Coastal Zoning Management funding source and there is an implied aspect of those contracts that the funds were granted so that we would adopted wetland regulations. Commissioner Heineman chaired the wetlands subcommittee. He briefly stated the draft shows all the changes and deletions made to the Planning Commission draft ordinance. Commissioner Heineman succinctly described some of the changes in the draft ordinance. Chair Martinez requested public comment. Bruce Harbham, Rainier Chapter of the Audobon Society, expressed concerns about the decline in wetlands and felt the original proposal should be kept. Gary Volchok, 1320 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, 98101, briefly talked about the loss of buildable acreage and revenue by adopting a strict wetland policy. Mr. Volchok commented he didn't agree entirely with either document. He remarked he would use his verbal aspects with the Council. Commissioner Haley asked Mr. Volchok if he knew about the Chamber's plans to submit a draft document to the Council. Commissioner Haley stated that the time to request changes or comments should have been at the time the original document was before the Commission prior to being recommended to the City Council. Mr. Volchok commented exception was taken to the final draft from the Commissioners and, thus, the Chambers did their own draft. Jack Nelson, 601 W. Gowe, recommended that on page 12, Section 6, Subsection A, that repair and maintenance definition be used in place of maintenance and upkeep. In addition, on the same page, it should be owner or occupant rather than owner occupier. Further, he suggested, on page 13 , section 7 , under Allowed Activities, Section B, Subsection 1, that the underlined language be stricken. Rita Bailey, 20607 101st Avenue SE, was in favor in retaining version A of Section 12 in the Critical Areas regulation. 3 Planning Commission Minutes February 22 , 1993 Sharon Rodman, 14138 SE 238th, commented she is a professional biologist and served for a short time on the Commission's subcommittee regarding the critical areas. Ms. Rodman read into the record a commentary regarding the need for firm critical areas regulations. Michael Williams, Professional Planetacologist, commented on the need for natural wetlands. Mr. Williams mentioned that with the loss of natural wetlands, the taxpayers will be needing to pay more and more for clean water. He felt that developers were heavily against the original document and, furthermore, were not interested in creating a viable wetland ordinance. Mr. Williams stated that he attended some of the subcommittee' s meetings; however, when it became clear that some of the members of the committee did not feel that scientific input was desired, he resigned in protest and submitted a letter with Sharon Rodman. Mr. Williams mentioned that he had tried to present a Department of Ecology document that was recently published relating to buffers and replacement ratios for wetlands and some of the committee members were very unreceptive to it. In addition there was quite a bit of hostility in the committee towards the scientific community. Steve Babbitt, 945 E. Maple Street, commented that EPA agreed that the use of the 1987 manual should be used. He commented he would like to know how many acres are available in Kent and in what development class. However, he felt property owners should be given some monetary value for wetlands. Mr. Babbitt felt the original Commission document should be kept. Paula Gilmore, 1102 E. Hemlock, urges the Commission to consider the importance of protecting the wetlands for water quality and wildlife habitat. Ms. Gilmore supports the first version of the Commission' s ordinance. Joe Miles, 24639 156th Avenue SE, was on the Mayor's Task Force that examined the Kent lagoon and the subcommittee for the current critical area draft. He felt the revised ordinance protects the wetlands, provides flexibility to developers and provides exemptions for the small residential homeowner. Mr. Miles commented it does provide that any filling of a wetland will require mitigation. He commented Version A which allows up to 10, 000 square feet to be filled and replaced is feasible. However, he expressed concerns about Version B. He urged that Version A of the revised ordinance be adopted. Steve Burpee, 1048 James, representing Kent Chamber of Commerce, commented the Chamber represents all types of businesses including developers. Mr. Burpee stated a healthy environment helps deliver 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 22 , 1993 a quality of life for everyone. However, jobs mean a quality of life. Mr. Burpee felt what was needed is a balance; something, that recognizes all factors involved. This wetland issue has been worked on for many years. The Chamber has felt they have continually put forth their concerns and brought forth what they felt would be a compromise or balanced approach. He commented they felt they were constantly ignored and not listened to. When it became clear that most of their concerns were not going to be addressed, they came up with their own version. Mr. Burpee continued saying that when they disagree they reserve the right to present their concerns on issues prior to the final adoption of the regulations. Further, the Planning Commission's step is only one step in the process of writing and developing new regulations. Commissioner Dahle asked why the Chambers did not present their report to the Planning Commission rather than the City Council. Mr. Burpee felt the Chambers concerns and recommendations weren't going to be considered and they wanted their concerns to be heard. The report was finished prior to the Commission voting on the recommended draft to City Council. He commented it was not brought to the Commission because the Chambers felt their concerns were not addressed during the process. Commissioner Haylor pointed out the rules were made to be followed. He commented the original draft wasn't completely to his liking; however, he attempted to change it at the Commission level. He felt that Mr. Burpee has shown that if he doesn't like something he can go around the Commission. Commission Haylor resented that the Chamber ' s proposed changes weren 't presented to the Commission first. Mr. Burpee asserted that Commissioner Haylor was entitled to his opinion and the Chambers can have theirs. It was his understanding that when a project is sent to the City Council, additional comments could be made. Mr. Burpee supported the draft B. A. J. Fisher, 26029 119th Drive SE, has resided for 25 years in Kent. He commented that he has seen the development over the years. Further, since the valley has been rapidly constructed, it now floods every time it rains. Mr. Fisher contended that there must be controls over development. He recommends that the original draft be sent to the Council. Ted Knapp, 612 Bellevue Way NE #201, Bellevue, chaired the subcommittee and was also involved with preparing the original draft as well as the Chamber ' s draft. Mr. Knapp felt that on all issues except for Section 12 , a consensus was reached. Mr. Knapp 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1993 felt draft B is very workable. Mr. Knapp submitted a position paper to the Commission supporting the draft ordinance and the language in draft B for Section 12 . Further, the area figure shown in Section 12 which is 20, 000 square feet should be changed to one acre. He suggested that the area shown in Section 12 B 2 d be changed from 2, 000 square feet to 10, 000 square feet. This would allow the filling of up to one acre of wetland without doing an alternative analysis but would require full mitigation pursuant to the other provisions of the ordinance. The second change affects the mitigation bank if a mitigation bank were to be established. In addition, in that section, it should be for all zones not just residential. Mr. Knapp stated the changes were Section 12 B 2 E for 2, 000 to 10, 000 square feet and Section 12 B 2 C and Section 12 B 2 D is changed to from 20, 000 square feet to one acre. Joyce Farnier, 22815 68th Avenue S. , strongly commented on the effect of development on her land. John Kiefer, 11048 SE 274th, felt the flooding problem was created by developers, the City of Kent and everyone who lives here. He commented there are probably ways to correct this injustice. Mr. Kiefer supports the original Planning Commission's proposal. Laurie Johnston, PO Box 161, Renton, 98057 , commented she has been on various environmental task force committees and has followed this issue for a number of years. Ms. Johnston supports the original draft ordinance. IT WAS MOVED, SECOND AND CARRIED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Chair Martinez distributed a communication from Mark Stiefel. Further, the discussion will continue to 10: 00 pm and if a decision has not been reached, the meeting will be continued to March 8, 1993 as a special meeting to consider the critical areas draft ordinance only. Commissioner Heineman MOVED that the Subcommittee draft be accepted through the WHEREAS section, pages 1 and 2 . Commissioner Haylor asked for clarification on proceeding on how the ordinance is to be accepted or changed. Chair Martinez explained that the Commission voted on the critical area draft and sent it to City Council for their consideration. City Council remanded the draft back to the Commission with new information that should be considered. A subcommittee was formed. The subcommittee considered the new information and recommended changes to the critical area draft ordinance. The Commission then 6 Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1993 re-opened the public hearing to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the revised critical area ordinance. The public hearing has been closed and the Commission will now vote on the amended critical area ordinance and recommend the amended ordinance to the City Council. Mr. Brubaker commented that is correct. Further, the City Council specifically asked the Planning Commission to consider the Chamber of Commerce ' s input. Mr. Brubaker stated the Commission has the subcommittee's draft dated January 1993 to consider tonight. However, the Commission can reaffirm the original draft or accept the amended critical area ordinance or modify both. Mr. Brubaker stated the City Council remanded the ordinance back to the Commission to reconsider new information. No specific action has to be taken concerning an earlier vote since discussion was re- opened and now the Commission has closed the discussion and they can either reaffirm or modify the decision. The amendments to the ordinance, if any, would then go back to the City Council for determination. Mr. Brubaker clarified that the Commission can void or repeal the previous ordinance, the Commission can reaffirm the earlier decision or the Commission can accept modifications as shown on the draft document. Mr. Brubaker stated that the draft document is the original document showing the modifications or deletions as recommended to the Commission by the subcommittee. Chair Martinez commented the Commission can either adhere to the original document or the original document can be changed. A MOTION was made and SECONDED that the Commission vote again to accept what was originally recommended. MOTION WAS DEFEATED. MOTION made and SECONDED that the Commission go through section by section and consider the recommendations made in the Subcommittee Discussion Draft dated January 1993 to the original City of Kent Wetlands Regulations (Draft) . A friendly amendment was made that the Commission vote on the draft in its entirety. Mr. Brubaker commented the easiest way to consider this matter is to make a motion to vote to approve the modifications and then all the modifications would come under discussion and the Commission could approach modification item by item and make a final decision. That way the entire document would come under discussion or it could be discussed section by section and then after a determination is made, the motion could be defeated, friendly amendments could be made, or new amendments could be made. Commissioner Morrill repeated his motion: that the Commission go through the recommended amendments section by section and adopt 7 Planning Commission Minutes February 22, 1993 each section as it finishes each section. SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE TO ACCEPT THE WHEREAS SECTION, PAGES 1 AND 2 , SECONDED AND CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 1 as it appears. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 2 as it appears. Friendly amendment made to amend section to include priority habitats. Friendly amendment approved. MOTION with amendment CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 3 as it appears. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 4 as it appears. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 5 as it appears. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION WAS MADE AND SECONDED to amend Section 5 to include Section A. 1. A. , species identified in Kent as needing special protection. MOTION DEFEATED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 6 with note as it appears with the following exception: Section 6 .A. to stated owner OR occupant. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 7 as it appears. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 8 as it appears. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 9 as it appears. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section 10 as it appears. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED to accept Section it with the following amendment. Commissioner Martinez asked for a friendly amendment to include the following language: enhanced wetland buffers made be used to satisfy landscaping requirements where the City determines that the buffer, as enhanced by the applicant, will provide greater 8 Planning Commission Minutes February 22 , 1993 protection of wetlands. . . . , to the end of that section and then add, approved landscaping vegetation must meet wetland buffer vegetation requirements. COMMISSIONERS APPROVED AMENDMENT. Commissioner Dahle thought paths and trails had to be 50 feet from wetlands and shorelines. Mr. Harris commented the 50 foot requirement only applied to the Green River and not a wetland. Mr. Brubaker commented that if there were more than one ordinance applied to a section of land, the more restrictive ordinance would apply. MOTION CARRIED ACCEPTING SECTION 11 AS AMENDED. MOTION and SECONDED to continue the meeting to March 8 at 7:00 pm. MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, CoJameP. Harris, Secretary JPH/ch: a:pcmin2 .22 9