Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 04/27/1992 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 27, 1992 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Antley at 7: 00 P.M. on April 27, 1992 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Antley, Chair Linda Martinez, Vice Chair Albert Haylor Edward Heineman Kent Morrill Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Gwen Dahle Christopher Grant Greg Greenstreet PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager Anne Watanabe, Planner Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MARCH 9 , 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept the March 9 , 1992 minutes as presented. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. MAY PUBLIC HEARING It was decided that due to the Memorial Day holiday, the May public hearing would be held on the third Monday of the month (May 18) . PETITION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE KING COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER Commissioner Martinez MOVED to send the following communication from the Planning Commission to the City Council: "WHEREAS the Planning commission is concerned with the land use within the entire City, and WHEREAS the Planning Commission has participated in the revisions of the Comprehensive and Zoning Plans for the downtown area and has shown great interest in the vitality of the downtown area as the 'Heart of the City' , Kent Planning Commission April 27, 1992 We wish to voice our caution regarding the placement of the King County Justice Center in an area that will eliminate two sources of City revenue (Northwest Aluminum and Howard Manufacturing) , while necessitating the need for additional and/or expanded sewer, water and transportation systems. We encourage the City Council to move cautiously and require the County to plan for mitigating these and other impacts and for the Council to require commitment of funding for these mitigations before any agreement is reached either in principal or in binding agreement. We further recommend that any action, planning or hearing on land use for the facility be referred to the Planning Commission for hearings and other recommendations. " Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Haylor pointed out that looking at this type of issue is the exact role of the Planning Commission and it would allow the people of Kent to voice their opinions. After further discussion the motion carried with Chair Antley voting against. CRITICAL AREAS - ZCA-91-3 AND CPA-91-1 Commissioner Morrill MOVED to reopen the public hearing on critical areas. Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Mike Carpinito, 1148 N. Central Avenue, Kent said that no farmer will be immune from the disastrous effects that overly restrictive regulations will bring about. Simple practices such cleaning drainage ditches, digging new ditches, rotating fields and building new farm related improvements are common agricultural related occurrences which will now be very difficult to achieve. Under the proposed ordinance, if a farmer wanted to farm property that has been a pasture, he would have to hire at least one wetland biologist and possibly two to do a study that would cost upwards of several thousand dollars to prove that the land he wanted to farm was not a wetland. Under the 1987 manual, the above problems would not be a problem. Under the 1989 manual, the usage of the same property would be practically and economically impossible. Farmers today are faced with a number of environmental concerns such as clean air acts, clean water acts and very tight pesticide and herbicide regulations. He hopes that the City of Kent will use a sensible approach to preserving wetlands in accordance with the 1987 Federal Manual so as not to add another level of government bureaucracy which is the last thing the agricultural community can afford. 2 Kent Planning Commission April 27, 1992 Jack Nelson, 601 W. Gowe, Kent, is an attorney representing both Mr. Carpinito and himself. In regard to letters previously submitted to the Planning Commission, he stated that if the Commission adopts their recommendation that the 1987 methodology be required for determination of wetlands, their request that land be allowed to lie fallow for ten years be reduced to five years to be consistent with the Corps of Engineers ' requirements. Mark Stiefel, 22312 113th Avenue SE, Kent, is a consulting engineer who has been requested by Mr. Carpinito to assist him in evaluating how the proposed draft wetland ordinance regulations would affect his farming operations. He feels that it would be in the best interest of the City and those owning property in the City to adopt the 1987 Manual until such time that there may be a new manual that is universally accepted by all federal agencies. With respect to technical issues regarding what can be done on a piece of agricultural property to address water quality issues, whether buffers are required around a particular wetland, whether there are opportunities to disturb wetlands as part of ongoing agricultural activities is still somewhat unclear to him in the draft regulation and he feels clarification would be appropriate. If a permit is required for doing certain types of agricultural activities, the question remains whether practicable alternative analysis is required to assist the City in making that determination. If so, it isn't specifically called out in the ordinance exactly what's required as part of the practicable alternatives analysis. Would a landowner in Kent be required to compare the viability of conducting agricultural practices in a wetland here compared to other areas? Mr. Carpinito is specifically interested in how he can maintain having a marketable operation here from an economic point of view. Mr. Stiefel recommended that some additional clarification and analysis be done to provide specific information on how the City would evaluate those types of proposals or whether the exemptions provided herein preclude that type of analysis in the future. Regardless of what the City of Kent does, any project that would impact greater than one or two acres of wetland would require this analysis to occur. The question is whether or not the City wants to duplicate a process that' s already occurring at the federal level. Lauri Johnson, P. O. Box 161, Renton, is in favor of the proposed wetland regulations. She feels that the City has an obligation to protect these resources. What one person does on his property does affect the rest of us and sometimes these activities need to be regulated. To remedy the effects of insensitive development in and near wetlands is expensive, both economically and in terms of the functions that are lost and can never be fully mitigated. If the City has a goal to maintain the quality of life, we need to balance 3 Kent Planning Commission April 27, 1992 protection of the environment with the economic growth and the proposed regulations do this. They represent some compromises that insure that not all property owners will be affected, but that significant wetlands will be protected. In response to a question from Commissioner Haylor, Ms. Johnson stated that she feels the 1989 manual does a better job of protecting the wetlands and if that's what the purpose of the regulations is, then that's what needs to be emphasized. As a representative of the Mayor' s Environmental Task Force, she asked that their memo dated March 23 and the accompanying informational material be entered in the record of public testimony. Craig Moran, 21842 SE 269th Street, Maple Valley, is the Conservation Chair for the Rainier Audubon Society. The functions and values of wetlands are vastly important to wildlife as habitat. Habitat destruction is the number one cause of loss. Those who are advocating the use of a revised 1991 Federal Manual have created two myths. First is that by the use of the 1989 federal manual, non-wetlands would suddenly become wetlands. The other myth was that private landowners and developers found it impossible to get permits to fill wetlands and the process took forever. The reality is that in 1990, 95% of all individual permits were approved, 92% were within 60 days and 85, 000 permits were authorized. The use of the 1991 Manual is greatly advocated by the developmental community. He wonders why. Is it because the Manual's revisions are difficult to interpret, cumbersome to apply and technically flawed? Maybe it' s because recent testing of the 1991 Manual in Washington demonstrated that it was impossible to make any firm wetlands delineation in the field without a large group of experts. Or maybe because of the 23 sites sampled, only 3 would still be considered wetlands. Still yet, it' s possible that due to the time delays, the Army Corps of Engineers would be directed to approve applications automatically after 6 months. Nationally we lost 290, 000 acres of wetlands last year under current laws and regulations. The Washington Department of Ecology estimates a wetland loss of 700-2, 000 acres a year. The Puget Sound region has lost 70% of its tidally influenced emergent wetlands. However, the majority of the Puget Sound region's unaltered wetlands are fresh water wetlands. These are usually located in and around urban areas, causing them to be the most threatened. The City of Kent does have options. Instead of urban sprawl, the City could utilize and revitalize the downtown area. Create a 4 Kent Planning Commission April 27, 1992 workable, aesthetic and reasonable land use policy. There are also vertical options for buildings. When private landowners complain that they never had a wetland on their property before a development was built, give them the vehicle for just compensation. Commissioner Martinez asked about Mr. Moran's statistics on the number of permits granted. Mr. Moran responded that if you use statistics for wetlands that are used nationally, you will get one number. Statistics for wetlands used in Washington state, you will get another. If you combine the two, you would average and get an additional number. He used the national point of view for his statistics. Gary Volchok, 411 W. Prospect, Seattle, said the statistics he gave previously regarding the number of permits issued were per the Corps of Engineers in Seattle and in the last five years, there have been less than four or five permits granted for the filling of more than one acre in the State of Washington. As far as the City of Kent, in the last five years he believes there has only been one permit issued on less than one acre. He also stated that the 1991 federal manual is dead and probably won't resurface again until who knows when. Commissioner Martinez asked if it was possible that so few applications are granted in this state because it is a very delicate state which is extraordinary for its beauty and scenic value. Mr. Volchok said no. The main reason the permits are being pulled is because when someone has to do an alternatives analysis and it costs $100, 000, they can't afford it. Commissioner Ward asked if Mr. Volchok was saying that we're not truly losing wetlands; that we're crying wolf over a problem that doesn't really exist. Mr. Volchok said the problem exists as the definition of wetlands exists. He is saying that at present and over the past five years, wetlands have not been developed because you could not get permits to develop. The majority of wetlands we're talking about in Kent are Class 3 pasturelands. You'd be hard pressed to find a Class 1 wetland in Kent. Commissioner Haylor MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. Anne Watanabe of the Planning Department briefly went through her memo which answered questions previously asked by the Commissioners. 5 Kent Planning Commission April 27, 1992 1. FEDERAL MANUAL FOR DELINEATING JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS: USE OF 1987 VS. 1989, AND FUTURE VERSIONS OF THE MANUAL. The 1989 Manual was the only manual that the four federal agencies which had expertise and jurisdiction over wetlands had agreed to. It was the end product of a lot of deliberations. Nearly every other jurisdiction in this state that has wetlands ordinances is using the 1989 Manual at this time. In its draft proposed regional policies regarding critical areas, King County states that the 1989 Federal Manual shall be used and referenced in local jurisdictions ' wetlands ordinances within King County. Commissioner Ward asked what the most frequent class of wetlands is in Kent. Ms. Watanabe answered that most of the wetlands are Class 2 because they are over an acre. Commissioner Ward asked if there are any Class 1 wetlands. Ms. Watanabe said there may be one or two Class 1 wetlands, based on our inventory information. 2. CREATION OF SENSITIVE AREA TRACTS AND DEEDS IN PERPETUITY. The draft ordinance requires the creation of a separate legal tract and a notice on the title so the next person will know what they are buying. The issue here is how do we address the fact that wetlands may change over time. Presumably this would be triggered by someone buying the property and wanting to do something with the sensitive area tract. At that point we would go through the process again to see if the area should be redelineated. 3. SHOULD THE CITY ALLOW BUFFERS TO BE REDUCED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF AN APPROVED BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN? There are two criteria that both have to be met before reduction of the buffer width is allowed. The adjacent land must be extensively vegetated and have less than 15 percent slope and the developer must submit a buffer enhancement plan that will protect the wetland from the adjacent uses. The best professional judgment requires that you look at all factors and take them all into consideration in order to protect the wetland from the adjacent use. 4. WHAT SHOULD THE CITY DO ABOUT WETLANDS "CREATED" BY NEIGHBORING ACTIVITIES? The best information we have is some historical information that dates back to the 1800 's which shows that nearly all of the valley was wetland. It is unlikely that a wetland will be created by a new development due to stormwater controls that have been implemented. The fundamental question is regardless of how it got there, should or should it not be protected for its functions and 6 Kent Planning Commission April 27, 1992 values? If you really believe that someone has created a wetland on your property and the developability of that land has been affected, is it the government's role to say we won't regulate that because we think it's unfair or does it become a private matter between the property owners. 5. SHOULD THE CITY EXEMPT OR PROVIDE OTHER RELIEF FOR ACTIVITIES OF SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS, ESPECIALLY HOMEOWNERS? At this point there are no exemptions in the ordinance based on size. It becomes a question of where and for whom to draw the line. 6. HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL TIME WILL THESE REGULATIONS ADD TO THE PERMIT PROCESS? The Planning Department feels we are better off having a comprehensive wetlands ordinance that spells out things ahead of time. This predictability will speed things up. 7. WHAT ARE THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON THE CITY OF NOT ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT OF WETLANDS, IN LOSS OF TAX REVENUE? That is something that no one knows. As part of it's growth management activities, the City had to inventory vacant lands and come up with estimates for capacity for future development. In industrial zones, the total square footage of available vacant land, taking into account the percentage of wetlands on these lands as well as the presence of rights-of-way, is 13, 088, 194. For commercial zones we have a total of 3 , 332 , 193 square feet. 8. THE "ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS" REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE IS TOO BURDENSOME. There is an alternatives analysis in this ordinance. It is not exactly like the corps of Engineers' alternatives analysis, however, it is similar and the intent is to do a screening process to insure that the development that does go forward and impacts the wetlands is necessary. We're trying to inject as much flexibility as possible in the ordinance so that regardless of class, except for the unique and fragile wetlands, all could be made subject to development under the right conditions. 9. THE CITY SHOULD NOT REGULATE WETLANDS OR ACTIVITIES ON WETLANDS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T REGULATE. The Planning Department believes the Growth Management Act requires local governments to do more. If it didn't, there wouldn't have 7 Kent Planning Commission April 27, 1992 been any need to require them to regulate critical areas. The federal government doesn't regulate a lot of activities that can be very damaging to wetlands and the decision is whether we, as a City, want to go ahead and address those kinds of activities. 10. THE REGULATIONS SHOULD BE FLEXIBLE BUT RESULT IN GREATER PREDICTABILITY The Planning Department feels both of those factors are very important, but the question is how do you balance them one against the other. 11. SHOULD UTILITY RELATED ACTIVITIES BE EXEMPT FROM THE REGULATIONS? Here we could also address the agricultural issue as well. It comes down to whether we want to favor certain types of activities over other types of activities. If we do favor certain activities, how do we insure that we achieve the goals of this ordinance to the greatest extent practical. 12 . THE CITY SEEMS TO HAVE A "DOUBLE STANDARD" WITH REGARD TO ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS--THE CITY DOESN'T OBSERVE THE RULES THAT IT WANTS TO IMPOSE ON EVERYONE ELSE. We've tried in this ordinance not to distinguish between public and private sector activities. The Public Works Department has requested an exemption to carry out some of the duties they perform at the request of the public, but as the draft is written today, the City would have to adhere to all the requirements of the ordinance. Commissioner Heineman asked if Ms. Watanabe concurred with the statement made earlier that the 1991 Manual is effectively dead. Ms. Watanabe said it is her understanding that a revised manual is not dead, but has been delayed probably until after the presidential election. Chair Antley asked about the meeting with Mr. Carpinito to discuss agricultural issues. Ms. Watanabe felt that Mr. Carpinito had expressed most of his concerns in his letter to the Commission. one of his biggest concerns is the amount of time land can lie fallow and still be exempt as an existing and ongoing agricultural activity. Because of the nature of farming, it may sometimes be longer than five years. Another issue is how far to stretch the scope of activities that would be exempt as existing and ongoing agricultural activities. 8 Kent Planning Commission April 27, 1992 Would placing a building be an existing and ongoing agricultural activity because it' s related to other activities on the farm? The last item raised was Mr. Carpinito's strong feeling that the use of the 1987 Manual would result in far fewer wetlands on his land. He feels that the use of that manual would solve most of his problems. Another problem is how do we protect legitimate farming operations which are a very important part of this valley, without allowing it to become a conversion activity which may hasten the decline of farming. Commissioner Heineman asked if there was any solution to these problem. Ms. Watanabe said that if most of the agricultural lands fall out under use of the 1987 Manual, that is one way of addressing the issue. She felt a preferable way would be to tailor the existing and ongoing agricultural exemption a little more specifically to get at whatever activities the Commission feels would appropriately be exempted from the wetlands ordinance. She also pointed out that an exemption calls for no mitigation. Ms. Watanabe asked the Commissioners to bear in mind that this wetland ordinance is intended to be an interim ordinance. The Planning Department is presently working on the Comprehensive Plan which will address the requirements regarding critical areas. In order to comply with the Growth Management Act, we are attempting to come up with interim regulations to see us through until the Comprehensive Plan and the development regulations that go with that new Plan are put into effect. The Commissioners asked staff to try to categorize all the information received to date to aid them in their deliberations. Fred Satterstrom asked the Commissioners to call him or Ms. Watanabe and tell them what their specific concerns are as individuals. Commissioner Haylor MOVED to continue the public meeting on critical areas to May 18 , 1992 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. 9 Kent Planning Commission April 27, 1992 Commissioner Martinez MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 9 : 15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, J es Harris, Secretary 10