Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 03/09/1992 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 9, 1992 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Antley at 7:00 P.M. , March 9, 1992 , in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Antley, Chair Linda Martinez, Vice Chair Gwen Dahle Christopher Grant Edward Heineman, Jr. Kent Morrill Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Greenstreet Albert Haylor PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Anne Watanabe, Planner Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 24 , 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept the minutes of the February 24, 1992 meeting as presented. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Chair Antley asked for someone to represent the Planning Commission at the City Council meeting on March 17, 1992 when the Downtown Plan will be discussed. Commissioner Ward volunteered. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Commissioner Martinez NOMINATED Tracy Antley for Chair. Commissioner Dahle SECONDED the nomination. The nomination was approved. Chair Antley NOMINATED Linda Martinez as Vice Chair. Commissioner Dahle SECONDED the nomination. The nomination was approved. Kent Planning Commission March 9, 1992 CRITICAL AREAS - ZCA-91-3 AND CPA-91-1 Bill Carey, 11236 SE 244th, Kent, submitted a memo which provided information regarding the proposed revisions to the 1989 Federal Manual and the reasons for these changes. In 1989 the four federal agencies responsible for identifying and delineating wetlands agreed to use one approach and adopted a single manual. The 1989 manual was developed by a committee composed of technical staff from the four agencies without the benefit of public input. This same committee has recommended proposed revisions based on field experience gained from use of the 1989 manual during the last two years. In addition, general misunderstanding of the 1989 manual was addressed. Perhaps the issue that engendered the most concern involved the use of hydric soils for wetland identification and delineation. This led to the misconception that the 1989 manual was not based on three mandatory criteria, but solely on one--the hydric soil criteria. Some individuals believed that any area mapped as a hydric soil series was a wetland. Based on this misunderstanding, it was clear that a better defined set of field indicators were needed to prevent incorrect and erroneous identification of the three technical criteria. The goal in revising the 1989 manual is to improve accuracy for identifying and delineating wetlands. The major revisions do the following: 1. Clarify that, except in limited specific circumstances, demonstration of all three parameters (wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils) are required for delineating wetlands. 2 . Require inundation for 15 or more consecutive days, or saturation to the surface for 21 or more consecutive days during the growing season. Mr. Carey feels the revised manual will have a very serious impact on the proposed ordinance which incorporates the 1989 manual by reference. It will also have a serious impact on the wetland inventory developed by the City since the inventory and recent wetland surveys were based on the erroneous misconception that the 1989 manual was based not on three mandatory criteria, but solely on the hydric soil criteria. A conservative estimate of the amount of property in the city inventory erroneously classified as wetland would run around 30 to 40%. The City has established a goal of no net loss of wetlands. Therefore, it is important that land that 2 Kent Planning Commission March 9, 1992 does not meet the three criteria test not be included in the inventory. The Planning Commission should get some commitment from the Planning Department regarding their intent to comply with all applicable revisions to the 1989 manual. Mr. Carey and his neighbors have a drainage problem caused by the City's use of 21" culverts rather than 60" ones. In addition, the City's new fire station and training facilities have an inadequate retention system. Two natural retention ponds were filled. Since these facilities were built, the runoff from this site has increased approximately 500%. He feels these circumstances have resulted in his property being classified as potential wetlands in a recent field survey. He also wondered how the people who conducted the survey could determine that the property was inundated and saturated with water up to the surface for 7 days (one of the mandatory criteria) , when they were only there for about 15 minutes. The proposed ordinance establishes a requirement to record an easement for the protection of wetlands in perpetuity. He is strongly opposed to this requirement because the definition of a wetland can change depending on the current manual. There can also be changes caused by the physical natural environment. The state's Growth Management Act requires that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The proposed ordinance does not address this. The landowner should be compensated for his loss of the use of the land in the same way as lands taken for roads, etc. Mr. Carey recommended that the appeal process be simplified to allow any landowner who feels his land has been erroneously delineated a wetland to require a new survey without going through a long appeal process. Why should the landowner always be stuck with the burden of proof. Why should he be burdened with the expense of proving his property is not a wetland when the original survey was erroneous. Chair Antley asked Mr. Carey if any of his property has been designated as a wetland. Mr. Carey said it hasn't been designated, it is listed as a potential wetland. Chair Antley asked what Mr. Carey wanted changed in the appeal process. Mr. Carey said he wants the appeal process changed so that if it has been determined that property has erroneously been delineated as wetlands, the landowner can request a new survey from 3 Kent Planning Commission March 9, 1992 the City. Chair Antley wondered who establishes that the original survey was erroneous. Mr. Carey said if you look at the data sheets that were developed in the field, you probably would not find one instance where someone has determined that the property was inundated and saturated for 7 days. How could they when they do the survey in 15 minutes? Chair Antley asked if Mr. Carey wanted the City to redo the survey for anyone who contests designation of their property as a wetland. Mr. Carey thought they should if the data sheet shows it's obvious they didn't make the hydrology study. He felt the City would be reasonable if he could prove the survey wasn't based on the three mandatory criteria. Joyce Barnier, 22103 76th Avenue S. , is surrounded by industry. That was done by the City. The natural habitat for ducks and cattails is gone. Neither the City nor industry is punished for doing this, but now she will be punished by being designated as wetlands. She asked the Commissioners to consider exemptions to the ordinance because it cannot be a cut and dry thing. Commissioner Martinez asked what specific exceptions Ms. Barnier would like them to write into the ordinance. Ms. Barnier felt people who are already surrounded by industry should be exempt from the wetlands. Commissioner Ward asked if Ms. Barnier was saying she has a drain off problem created by someone other than herself rather than a wetland. Ms. Barnier agreed. Richard Hill, 1111 3rd Avenue, Seattle is an attorney representing the Carpinito family who have a number of parcels throughout the area which are currently devoted to agricultural activities. One of the greatest frustrations of property owners in trying to comply with governmental regulations is caused by different government agencies having inconsistent requirements. The federal agencies are currently using the 1987 manual. The proposed ordinance uses the 1989 manual. They would like to see the City adopt a consistency provision whereby they will be using the same ground rules as the federal agencies. The ordinance has an exemption for existing and ongoing agricultural activities. The problem is that the exemption does not address the realities of agricultural activities. You need to have flexibility in terms of where you locate drainage ditches. The way the ordinance is drafted, if you want to move a drainage ditch, you have to go through the entire permitting process. When you farm, you rotate plots into and out of cultivation. The ordinance does have a five year limit for that, but there will be 4 Kent Planning Commission March 9, 1992 situations where property will not be cultivated for a period of five years. Also, property could be acquired for purposes of agricultural activities which has lain uncultivated for over five years. It is hard enough to conduct agricultural activities in an urbanizing environment without adding an entire new layer of regulation. The Carpinito family would like to work with staff to give them a better understanding of the realities of agriculture. Chair Antley asked if King County is following the same manual that Kent is proposing to follow. Mr. Hill said they are. Chair Antley asked if that is also the case with the State of Washington. Mr. Hill said the State is proposing the use of the 1989 manual, but it's a matter of great controversy. Chair Antley felt what Kent is proposing to do is fall into line with both the County and the State. Mr. Hill pointed out that would make them inconsistent with the only other agency with jurisdiction over wetlands which is the federal government. Mike Carpinito, 1148 N. Central Avenue, Kent, is concerned about being restricted to certain years of cultivation. When he rotates a crop into pasture, he might want to keep it in pasture for more than five years. Right now he has no plans to use his property for anything other than agriculture, but does not want to be restricted to simply agriculture. All his property is zoned for higher and better uses. It is very important to him that the City use the 1987 manual in order to be consistent with the federal government. Mr. Carpinito offered to sit down with the Planning Department and go over some of his concerns. The proposed ordinance is quite restrictive as far as enhancing a farm for full farm use with buildings and possible housing. Anne Watanabe of the Planning Department said the intention of the proposed ordinance is to favor existing and ongoing agricultural activities. Chair Antley asked her to meet with Mr. Carpinito and present additional information and language having to do with the agricultural exemptions at the next meeting. Commissioners Ward and Morrill felt that other people who engage in agriculture in the valley should be included in the meeting between staff and Mr. Carpinito. Chair Antley pointed out that there has been a lot of public notice about the public hearings and the Planning Department has made sure that all affected people have known about the meetings. 5 Kent Planning Commission March 9, 1992 Commissioner Martinez asked if he was assuming that all of his land is wetlands. Mr. Carpinito said most of his land is not wetlands according to the 1987 manual, but may be if the 1989 manual is used. Howard Hagar, 4403 SW 100th Street, Seattle is a property owner in the City of Kent. He feels the biggest problem our community faces is the uncertainty of not knowing what is going to happen in the future. The City should determine what it wants to preserve, establish a way to do that, notify the property owners of their intent and give them a chance to agree or disagree. Once that inventory is determined and the ordinance is established, stick with it so people have some predictability of what they can do with the property in the future. He agrees with Ms. Barnier that there should be exceptions if you would potentially remove the value of a person's investment. Also, it should be determined if the property became a wetland as a result of surrounding development. Created wetlands should be looked at very carefully. Gary Volchok, 1600 Park Place, Seattle, feels that the City should use the 1987 manual because it's what the Corps of Engineers is using and they have the absolute power to either grant or not grant you a fill permit. Also, depending on the classification, the Corps of Engineers will allow you to fill up to .99 acres without mitigation. Ms. Watanabe agreed that the Corps of Engineers does have authority to grant or deny permits for placement of fill in wetlands. For wetlands less than an acre, they have provided a nationwide permit that allows placement of fill without mitigation. That is restricted to placement of fill; the requirements of things like buffers and setting up specific replacement ratios are not part of the federal program although they are looked at on a case by case basis. Chair Antley asked if the proposed ordinance then would basically create some certainty about all of those other issues. Ms. Watanabe said we cannot displace what the federal government already has authority to do. They do consult with local governments, but there is no guarantee they would defer to us in any way. Commissioner Martinez asked how most municipalities deal with the issue of wetlands created by neighboring activities. Ms. Watanabe said that ideally the fact that it' s isolated, surrounded by development, should get built into the rating that wetland receives. You should be looking at its long term viability given that it's surrounded on three or four sides by development and you may have an appropriate case for saying that off-site mitigation is appropriate in this case. Chair Antley asked if the off-site 6 Kent Planning Commission March 9, 1992 mitigation was built into this ordinance. Ms. Watanabe said yes, the City will require replacement of those functions and values and acreage. She would like people to remember that if they have a wetland on their property it will make it more difficult, but not impossible, to develop. Commissioner Martinez asked why the ordinance didn't provide a provision for very small homeowners. Ms. Watanabe said there was a very preliminary draft last June which provided an exemption for 2,500 square feet up to 10, 000. The Mayor's Citizen Advisory Committee reviewed that draft and recommended that the exemption be removed because it was inconsistent with the goal of no net loss. Commissioner Martinez asked if we have completed a final inventory of wetlands that will be used if the ordinance is put in place. Ms. Watanabe said the first inventory is complete, but it is an information source. We will not regulate on the basis of that inventory. A wetland will only be determined when someone makes an application to do something with their land. Only after the permit process, when it has been decided which portion of the site will be developed and which portion will be set aside, would the deed in perpetuity click into place. Commissioner Martinez asked if it was correct that the policy of no net loss would not be based on the inventory we have today, but rather on a case by case basis as we go through the permitting process. Ms. Watanabe said that was correct. Commissioner Heineman asked if the wetland map was available for general distribution. Ms. Watanabe said we have a base map in the office, but it has not been reproduced in mass for the general public. That should be done very soon and people will be able to purchase a copy. Chair Antley asked about the exemption language concerning utilities that Mr. McDaniel of Puget Power proposed in his letter to the Planning Commission. Ms. Watanabe said she thought that normal maintenance and repair would be permitted with prior notification. Relocation of facilities and installation or construction would be another matter. It comes down to a policy decision on whether we want to favor the rate payers who need to rely on those services over the individual who would like to develop his land free of these constraints. Staff has tried to provide an ordinance that doesn't show favoritism to the public or private sector. 7 Kent Planning Commission March 9, 1992 Mr. Carey felt that being included on the informational map would cast a cloud on those properties which will affect the value of the land and will affect the owner's ability to sell that property. He feels the property owners should be notified so they have an opportunity to take action to protect themselves. Mr. Volchok pointed out that although the King County Assessor's Office offers property tax relief to landowners with wetlands, they will not have to increase assessments on uplands to make up for lost revenue. They will simply raise the millage. Brent Carson, 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 902, Seattle, feels that development will essentially be impossible if there's any effect on wetlands because you have to prove that the impact you're proposing is both unavoidable and necessary. One of the things you have to establish is that the basic project purpose cannot reasonably be accomplished using an alternative site in the general region. No one can meet this test. Satia Goff, 9522 1st Avenue NE, Seattle, feels that some provision should be made to remove the notification on title if the wetland disappears by natural causes. The Commission asked staff to attempt to come up with something for removing the notice on the title. Ms. Barnier thinks we should think twice before putting this on the title. Ms. Watanabe stated again that the notice would not be put on the title based on the inventory. It would come at the end of the permit process after a site specific delineation. Jim Leonard, 10626 SE 236th Place, Kent, is thankful we have the Planning Department that we do and thought Ms. Watanabe should be thanked for all the work she has done. When she started this project, the 1989 manual was in place. President Bush changed it back to the 1987 manual and in 1993 or 1994 it will change again. Mr. Leonard has seen the Balkan countries and Poland completely ignore critical areas issues. Roughly 60% of land in those countries is not arable; 70% of the water is non-potable and cannot be treated to be potable. We have to slow some processes down and deal with some sticky issues. Commissioner Heineman asked what will happen if the ordinance is passed and a new manual replaces the 1989 one. Ms. Watanabe said the ordinance would almost certainly be amended. The new manual can be reviewed on its merits and, if appropriate, it can be incorporated into the ordinance. 8 Kent Planning Commission March 9, 1992 Mr. Hagar stated that a landowner might have a lot of other expenses before he was even ready to apply for a building permit. He feels he should be able to go to the City and get a delineation ahead of time. Ms. Watanabe said that in the case of a subdivision such as Mr. Hagar is talking about, the City would look at the wetland when they make the determination of whether the lot is developable or not. Mr. Hagar also feels that a lot of people won't even realize they have a wetland for years, until such time as they apply for a permit. The citizens of Kent should know about and understand something that significantly affects their property values. Another thing he is concerned about is being in a buffer zone for someone else's wetland. There should be some sort of notification process because a lot of people might be very aware of what's on their own property, but not what's on their neighbor's property. Mr. Hagar suggested that staff deal with the question of who is affected and how to let them know. There should be some sort of appeal process and a way to insure that if the situation changes due to natural causes, the previous decision can be altered. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to adjourn. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. The motion carried with Commissioner Grant voting against. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ames P. Harri Secretary s, JPH/ljh: 3992 .min 9