Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 05/18/1992 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 18, 1992 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Antley at 7:00 P.M. on May 18, 1992 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Antley, Chair Linda Martinez, Vice Chair Albert Haylor Edward Heineman, Jr. Kent Morrill Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS EXCUSED: Gwen Dahle PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: 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 APRIL 27. 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept the April 27, 1992 minutes as presented. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion carried. CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP ON DOWNTOWN ZONING James Harris told the Commissioners that the City Council will have a continued workshop on May 19, 1992 to discuss the proposed downtown zoning. Chair Antley asked as many Commissioners as possible to attend. CRITICAL AREAS - ZCA-91-3 AND CPA-91-1 Chair Antley proposed that they go through the draft City of Kent Wetlands Regulations and vote on each section. The Commissioners agreed. Kent Planning Commission May 18, 1992 Section 1. Short Title, Authority and Purpose Commissioner Ward MOVED to accept Section 1. Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Heineman questioned 1.D which states "The provisions of this ordinance shall be liberally construed to effectively carry out its purpose in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare" . He didn't feel that liberally is the appropriate word because it can be construed either strictly or permissively. Chair Antley pointed out that this is standard legal language. Commissioner Martinez suggested that they could leave out the word "liberally" . Commissioner Heineman withdrew his objection. The motion CARRIED unanimously. Section 2. Definitions Commissioner Heineman MOVED to accept Section 2 with the following amendments: 1. Add to Section 2 the following definition. "Growing season" means the average frost free period of the year in Kent as recorded in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Frost/Freeze Data from Climatology of the U. S. #20, supplement #1, or in equivalent U. S. government agency records. 2 . Add "during the growing season" to the end of the first sentence under the "wetlands" definition. It would then read: "Wetlands" means all those areas in the City of Kent that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions during the growing season" . 3. Under the definition of "existing and ongoing agriculture", change the sentence which reads "An operation ceases to be ongoing when the area on which it is conducted is converted to a nonagricultural use or has lain idle for more than five years. . . " from five years to eight years. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion and asked if Commissioner Heineman's definition was the standard definition of what a growing season is. Commissioner Heineman said the growing season is so defined in the Wetland Classification Manual of the 2 Kent Planning Commission May 18, 1992 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This particular Manual is referenced in Sections 2 and 5 of our draft ordinance. Commissioner Ward pointed out that it had been suggested previously that the number of years land should be able to lie fallow should be ten. He wondered why Commissioner Heineman had suggested eight. Commissioner Heineman said he felt ten was a bit long, but perhaps five was too short and that eight was a reasonable compromise. Chair Antley said that land will usually only lie fallow for a year or two if someone is really keeping land in production. Commissioner Heineman said there was a possibility that a piece of agricultural land could be tied up for an extended period of time in an estate and if that extended beyond five years, then the land is lost forever as agricultural land. Chair Antley felt that if farm land were tied up for that long, someone would probably be appointed to rent it out or do something with it. Commissioner Heineman said he has seen homes that have been allowed to rot in that particular situation. Commissioner Haylor said that he could understand the economics of not using a section of land for five or more years if the market isn't there. He felt that eight years is reasonable. Commissioner Martinez said that a normal rotation is three years and given the fact that we want our agricultural land to, in fact, be in agriculture and not idle, five years seems reasonable to her. Commissioner Morrill asked if other verbiage suggested by Messrs. Carpinito and Nelson under the definition of "existing and ongoing agriculture" was included in Commissioner Heineman's motion. Commissioner Heineman said it was not. Commissioner Morrill asked if Commissioner Heineman would accept the addition of "horticultural, viticultural, floricultural, dairy, apiary, vegetable, or animal products or of berries, grain, hay, straw, turf, and seed" to the definition of "existing and ongoing agriculture" as a friendly amendment. Chair Antley said she felt all these things are covered under the present wording which is "the production of crops or livestock". Commissioner Ward said that was his impression also. Commissioner Morrill withdrew the amendment. The motion with the three amendments was CARRIED 4-2 with Commissioners Martinez and Morrill voting against. Commissioner Morrill MOVED to amend the definition of "existing and ongoing agriculture" by adding the following wording after improved areas: "including, but not limited to barns, sheds, living quarters for labor, supervision and ownership, greenhouses, propagation buildings, processing facilities, retail facilities and 3 Kent Planning Commission May 18, 1992 parking related to the foregoing" . Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Martinez spoke against the motion because existing and ongoing agriculture is one thing, but retail facilities, parking, etc. have a definite potential for impacting wetlands. Without having to go through the permit process, she is very concerned that by the time someone got done building barns, putting retail and parking, you would no longer have a wetland nor would you have agriculture. Commissioner Heineman agreed with this and further pointed out that the proposed wording says "including, but not limited to" which makes it even more inclusive. He would prefer to limit it to ongoing agricultural activities and related land management practices. Chair Antley said she is also concerned about the retail, the parking and living quarters. Commissioner Ward felt that the amendment was not based upon the fact that it would be all inclusive. Commissioner Martinez pointed out that people are allowed to maintain their buildings. Only if you want to expand would you have to determine if the wetlands would be affected. The motion FAILED with Commissioners Antley, Haylor, Heineman and Martinez voting against. Commissioner Morrill MOVED to change the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands in Section 2 from the 1989 Manual to the 1987 Manual. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Martinez said she would be opposed to that because, with four exceptions, all of the jurisdictions in King County have adopted the 1989 Manual. Most of the biologists she has talked to feel that the 1989 Manual more fully represents the state of knowledge that we have in biology. Chair Antley also expressed her concern about Kent adopting something that is in keeping with the State of Washington, with King County and with the majority of jurisdictions in this area. Commissioner Morrill felt that even though the state is currently using the 1989 Manual, he doubts that they will accept it in 1993 . Secondly, one of the most important agricultural municipalities which abuts us is Auburn and they are using the 1987 Manual. The biologists he talked to feel that the 1987 Manual is best as far as the interpretation of existing wetlands. Commissioner Ward feels that the 1987 Manual is the most viable documentation for making this determination to date, whether we are going along with the majority or not. Chair Antley asked if anyone knew why Auburn adopted the 1987 Manual. Anne Watanabe of the Planning Department pointed out that Auburn is working very closely with the Corps of Engineers to develop a special area 4 Kent Planning Commission May 18, 1992 management plan which will cover all of Auburn's wetlands. All of Auburn's wetlands will be subject to a regional permit which the Corps will issue, so they are using the same delineation as the Corps. They are also adding standards that are well beyond what the Corps normally requires for buffers and replacement ratios. Fred Satterstrom said that the Growth Management Planning Council has proposed that all jurisdictions in King County use the 1989 Manual so there is consistency throughout the County. Commissioner Haylor said he is not totally happy with either Manual. The motion CARRIED with Commissioners Antley and Martinez voting against and Commissioner Heineman abstaining. Commissioner Morrill MOVED to delete the definition of "practicable alternative" . Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Ward asked why. Commissioner Morrill referred to a letter from Mr. John Nelson which states: "At the meeting of the Planning Commission of April 27 , 1992, it was suggested that the 'practicable alternatives analysis' provisions of the proposed Kent Wetlands Ordinance were questionable and unnecessary. I second that suggestion and propose that such provisions be eliminated from the ordinance. "First, the practicable alternatives analysis is a procedure currently required by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under certain circumstances, and would actually be broadened in the proposed ordinance and be a duplication of effort. "Second, the practicable alternatives analysis is a cumbersome, time consuming and expensive procedure involving a significant review and evaluation of each site ' in the general region' . It is akin to selecting all similar and available sites for the same project and evaluating, site planning and costing each one. In addition, under the Kent proposed ordinance, attempts must be made to rezone, price roads, traffic lights, sewer, water and other utilities, and combine more than one lot or site (if necessary to accumulate a particular size of site) for each available location ' in the general region' . Regardless of provisions, the proposed ordinance requires in depth, expensive and time consuming efforts for any applicant. "Third, the process is unnecessary to protect wetlands. The ordinance already insures that at a bare minimum there will be no net loss of wetlands if a permit is allowed. The practicable 5 Kent Planning Commission May 18, 1992 alternatives requirement preserves no more wetlands, but merely imposes a costly and time consuming procedure on the applicant." Chair Antley asked where in the ordinance the reference to "practicable alternatives" is, other than Section 2. Commissioner Morrill said he didn't know. Chair Antley said she couldn't possibly vote for its deletion without knowing where in the ordinance it is. Commissioner Morrill asked for staff's assistance and Ms. Watanabe said that practicable alternatives are talked about in Section 12 .C. 1 and have to do with avoiding wetland impacts. The motion was DEFEATED with Commissioners Antley, Haylor, Heineman and Martinez voting against. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to eliminate the words "during the growing season" which were added earlier to the definition of "wetlands" . Chair Antley SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Martinez felt that the Commission has been asked several times to remain flexible and if you put in "during the growing season" it hems people in even more. Commissioner Heineman said he felt it was a very key provision because one of the three determinants of a wetland is the presence of water at or near the surface. If you put that on a 12 month basis or on a temperature related basis, you could go anywhere in Kent during a wet January and probably have water on or within a few inches of the surface. This wording is very important in delineating the boundary of a wetland because if you allow a determination to be made in the middle of the winter you can get a false indication because it's not a typical condition of the area. The other two determinants of a wetland, the hydric soils and the hydrophytic plants, are also a little bit iffy. According to the 1989 Manual, hydric soil may exist long after the conditions that caused it are gone and only 27% of the hydrophytic plants which are found in wetlands are unique to wetlands. Commissioner Martinez asked what the 1987 Manual says since that's the one they will now be using. commissioner Heineman said he didn't know. Ms. Watanabe said both the 1987 and the 1989 Manuals are based on a definition of "growing season" that's tied to the soil temperature. Both Manuals define the growing season as being from March 1 through the end of October for this region. There were objections to the use of frost free days rather than soil temperature in the proposed 1991 Manual because frost free days are calibrated for your typical agriculture crops rather than wetland plants. The adoption of frost free days as part of the measure for growing season is a fairly significant amendment to both of the Manuals. Commissioner Heineman said he felt that without some modification to the 1987 and 1989 Manuals, 6 Kent Planning Commission May 18, 1992 we would be in a position where we could be considered to have a 12 month growing season. During a wet winter, we will have a very high water table and areas which would normally not be considered wetlands, would certainly fall under the wetland criteria for water level. Chair Antley said that you still have the other two criteria for determining a wetland. Commissioner Heineman said that's true, but both of the others are not loot hard and fast. Unless plants can be identified which are specific only to wetland areas, then they also grow other places and it's a false indication. Commissioner Ward felt that if they didn't put some kind of criteria for a growing season, then it's so broad that even drainage problems would be considered a wetland. He felt there should be a strong definition of what a true wetland is. Commissioner Martinez WITHDREW the motion. Section 3. General Provisions Commissioner Heineman MOVED to adopt Section 3 . Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously. Section 4. Lands to Which this Chapter Applies Commissioner Heineman MOVED to accept Section 4. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Haylor made a friendly amendment to change the reference to the use of the 1989 Federal Manual in Section 4 to the 1987 Manual. Commissioners Heineman and Ward accepted the friendly amendment. The motion CARRIED unanimously. Section 5. Wetlands Rating System Chair Antley asked staff what effect using the 1987 Manual would have on Section 5 - Wetlands Rating System. Ms. Watanabe said essentially there would be fewer wetlands overall, but the same classification system would still work. Commissioner Ward MOVED to accept Section 5. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously. Section 6. Wetland Permit Required; Regulated Activities Commissioner Heineman MOVED to adopt Section 6 with the following addition. "Owner occupied land parcels of which 10, 000 square feet or less consists of isolated Category 2 or 3 wetlands shall be partially exempted from the requirements of Section 6 except that no excavation, filling or draining shall be permitted within the boundaries of the wetland and of buffers as defined in Section it 7 Kent Planning Commission May 18, 1992 without compliance with all applicable provisions of this ordinance. For such parcels, buildings or additions with projected roof area of 120 square feet or less may be constructed to within a minimum of 25 feet from the wetland boundary. " Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Martinez said she didn't understand partially exempted. Commissioner Heineman said if you live on a property that has a wetland larger than 2, 500 square feet, you should not lose all right to use your own property. You should be able to cut down a crooked tree, clear out dead brush that may be a fire hazard, build a fence, etc. If you wanted to fill, drain or dredge that wetland, you would still have to go through all the applicable ordinances, but if you live there you should have the right to have normal and customary uses of your wetland. Chair Antley said she is concerned that this amendment be drafted as narrowly as possible and be as specific as possible so that it is very clear to owner occupiers what they can and cannot do. Commissioner Haylor said he feels an owner should have a right to be able to maintain his property without a permit as long as he does not change that property. Commissioner Martinez felt that everyone was talking as though a permit were impossible to get, which she didn't feel is the case. Commissioner Heineman felt that getting a permit could be a very expensive process. Commissioner Martinez suggested that they could possibly direct the drawing up of a simple permit process for owner occupied lands containing wetlands of 10, 000 square feet or less. Commissioner Heineman felt that would probably solve the problem, but wondered if it would actually happen. Chair Antley said she would hate to see any more burden put on the Planning Department than already exists. This would be a whole other permitting process and would require staff to process. She stated again that there should be some exceptions for owner occupiers, but the motion before them isn't specific enough. The motion FAILED with Commissioners Antley, Haylor and Martinez voting against. Commissioner Haylor MOVED that Section 6 be approved with the amendment that in Section A. the wording be changed to read "No regulated activity other than maintenance and upkeep of their property by owner occupiers of 10, 000 square feet or less of isolated Class 2 or Class 3 wetlands shall be undertaken. . . " . Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Mr. Satterstrom pointed out that there is some language in the next section that deals with allowed activities that relate to normal maintenance, repair and operation of existing structures, facilities or improved areas. Chair Antley said she assumed that 8 Kent Planning Commission May 18, 1992 was a very general exception and that the current motion was a very specific amendment addressed specifically to small owner occupiers. Commissioner Haylor said he proposed this so that people could maintain their property without having to get a permit to remove a stump, fix a fence, etc. , but feels that everyone should have to get a permit to change a wetland in any way, shape or form. The motion CARRIED with with Commissioner Martinez voting against. Section 7. Allowed Activities Commissioner Heineman moved to accept Section 7 with the amendment that Section 7.A.4. "Existing and ongoing agricultural activities" be changed to add "and related land management activities now in common practice". Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Chair Antley asked Commissioner Heineman what that meant. He said it means whatever people are doing now that relates to their farming activity which is common practice. A retail store certainly would not be, but possibly storage of hay or something along that line. Things that normally are done in farming operations other than directly and primarily related to growing a crop. Chair Antley said she assumed that "activities" covered this. Commissioner Heineman said he thought so too, but apparently Messrs. Carpinito and Nelson didn't think it covered much of anything. Commissioner Heineman felt that perhaps this phrase might allow a little more leeway in their agricultural operations. Ms. Watanabe noted that this was the phrase discussed previously under definitions and it was intended that the definition correspond to this as an allowed activity. Chair Antley said she was concerned about expanding this definition; it seems perfectly adequate to her. The motion was DEFEATED with Commissioners Antley, Haylor and Martinez voting against. Commissioner Haylor MOVED to approve Section 7 . Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Martinez noted that Section 7.B requires a permit for normal maintenance, repair, operation, etc. In the previous section, this was allowed for owner occupied land. She wondered if they needed to add "with such exemptions as noted in Section 6.A" to Section 7.B after the words " . . .has been given to the Director" . Commissioners Haylor and Heineman accepted this as a friendly amendment. 9 Kent Planning Commission May 18, 1992 The motion CARRIED unanimously. Section 8. Emergency Activities; Temporary Emergency Permit Chair Antley MOVED to adopt Section 8 with the addition of a new Section 8.0 which would read: "Emergency repairs to utilities that require immediate attention and which would endanger the public if a temporary emergency permit were required shall be allowed for a period not exceeding 72 hours". Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously. Section 9. Prohibited Activities Commissioner Heineman MOVED to accept Section 9 . Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously. Section 10. General Permit Requirements and Procedures Commissioner Ward MOVED to accept Section 10 . Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED unanimously. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to continue the public hearing until June 22 . Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Ward MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED and the meeting was adjourned at 9: 35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, J es P. Harrls, Secretary JPH/ljh:51892 .MIN 10 xx y� l CITY OF MITH CS 220 S. Fourth Avenue. Kent, WA 98032 ... 0' Telephone (206) 839-3390 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DESIGNATION OF URBAN GROWTH AREA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Kent Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider the Washington State Growth Management Act as it relates to Kent's potential Urban Growth Area. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the Planning Commission will hold its public hearing on Monday, June 8, 1992 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. All interested persons are requested to be present. For further information, contact the Kent Planning Department at 859-3390. The regularly scheduled work session will follow the public hearing. Dated: May 22 , 1992 Ja es P. Ha kris, Planning Director For publication on Friday, May 29, 1992