Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 06/08/1992 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 8, 1992 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Antley at 7:00 P.M. on June 8, 1992 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Antley Gwen Dahle Albert Haylor Edward Heineman, Jr. Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS EXCUSED: Linda Martinez PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Christopher Grant Greg Greenstreet Kent Morrill PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Planner Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary URBAN GROWTH AREA BOUNDARIES Kevin O'Neill said the intent of this is to try to get a decision, ultimately from City Council, on what our interim urban growth area is going to be for the City as we go through our comprehensive planning process. Designation of an urban growth area is required under the Growth Management Act. That designation is a countywide designation, therefore, the ultimate decision on where the countywide urban growth area is going to be will be made by the King County Council in conjunction with the cities of King County. Each municipality is currently going through the process of defining their own particular planning area boundary. This is being called an interim boundary because the final decision on the boundary won't really be made until the overall comprehensive plan is adopted and that decision is made by the King County Council. The reason for doing this in the short term is to give us an area within which we will be putting our plan together. The five alternatives are based on some existing plans of one kind or another. Alternative 1 is a very tight boundary which is not Kent Planning Commission June 8, 1992 much bigger than the present City limits. The area that is not presently in the City limits represents those areas for which the City currently has both water and sewer franchisees. There are sewer franchises throughout King County, but these are ones over which the City presently has control. Alternative IA is similar to Alternative 1 except that it also includes land in which the City presently has either water or sewer franchises, but not necessarily both. Alternative 2 is meant to line up and be consistent with our Priority Annexation Area. It is also very consistent with the present Planning Area boundary. Alternative 3 is meant to be consistent with the Planning Area boundary. The only difference is that it includes the Panther Lake area which is not presently part of the City's Planning Area. This area has been included in this alternative since it is presently served by the Kent Fire Department and is also part of the Kent School District. Alternative 4 includes all of the area in Alternative 3 , but extends the eastern boundary east of Big Soos Creek to Covington. This alternative is meant to be consistent with the urban/rural line proposed by the Growth Management Planning Council. The staff recommends Alternative 3 for several reasons. Using Soos Creek as the eastern boundary of the Planning Area is consistent with both the existing Planning Area and the Priority Annexation Area. Soos Creek would be the proposed eastern boundary of the urban growth area, which is consistent with the Growth Management Act provision for open space corridors and urban separators between cities and between urban and rural areas. Including the area between 208th and 192nd would involve a lot of coordination with the City of Renton which has identified this as part of their Planning Area. Staff feels it would be appropriate in our Planning Area as well because it is in the current existing School District and Fire District. It was also identified by the City Council as part of their Planning Area. Chair Antley asked what we do in the alternatives where the boundaries are extending into other cities. Mr. O'Neill said staff is recommending that on the western boundary, we stay within the present City limits as opposed to going into the incorporated area of Des Moines. We don't want to go into another city's incorporated area. There are areas where there would be some contention between Kent and SeaTac and possibly Tukwila. 2 Kent Planning Commission June 8, 1992 Mr. Harris pointed out that during the time when Renton was considering annexing Fairwood, they did a poll in the area between 208th and 192nd. The people south of 192nd said they felt closer to Kent than to Renton and would like to be associated with Kent. The people in Chestnut Ridge, which is around Springbrook Elementary School, are adamant about being in Kent rather than Renton. We would have to work closely with Renton to resolve these matters. Comparing Alternatives 3 and 4, Commissioner Heineman asked if we went with Alternative 3, what would be the likely disposition of the panhandle to the east in Alternative 4. Mr. O'Neill said that the Growth Management Act and the countywide planning policies envision anything that's urban ultimately being part of a City. The two options are annexation into an existing city or incorporation. Commissioner Ward said that since this is a plan for growth, he would be much more receptive to Alternative 4 which provides some area of possible expansion. Mr. O'Neill said that Alternatives 2 and 3 offer a fairly large area of expansion. Commissioner Haylor said he did not understand why staff was willing to leave Covington out of the plan. Since it is already a problem because of the traffic, we should have some kind of control over it. Mr. Harris said that after you leave Soos Creek, you're getting pretty far physically from the City of Kent. His feeling is that Covington will incorporate. Commissioner Haylor said that if Covington doesn't have the tax base or political will to incorporate, the traffic will still continue to move through Kent without any control whatsoever. Mr. Harris said the traffic isn't coming from Covington, it's coming from Four Corners. This is an awfully big area for a city that's 40, 000 today to eventually have infrastructure and control over possibly sewer and water. Commissioner Dahle said that we do have a major high school, a junior high school and another one being built on 164th that are in the Kent School District. Also most of that area does have sewers. She thinks it behooves us to protect our interests. Don Rust, 12719 SE 256th, has lived in the Timberlane area and the people there feel that they are part of Kent. Ten years ago when he lived there, it took 11 minutes to get to the valley floor and when he moved out 4 years ago, it took 35 minutes for the same trip. He thinks Kent has a strong interest in that area. Commissioner Haylor MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. 3 Kent Planning Commission June 8, 1992 Commissioner Haylor MOVED that the urban growth area Alternative 4 be accepted as the growth plan and presented to the City Council. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Haylor said the reason he is in favor of Alternative 4 is because there are still little pockets of unincorporated King County on our western boundary. Des Moines and SeaTac have become very aggressive and he feels we do need some leverage there. By staking our claim, that lets them know that we are looking at this area and we're planning on keeping it. He would also like to let them know in Covington that we are here with our services, because they do have a dramatic impact on our City. Commissioner Heineman said essentially Alternatives 3 and 4 are the same except for the part to the east and he would like to know if staff has any serious reservations about the adoption of Alternative 4 other that the fact that it is a considerable distance from where we are now. Fred Satterstrom said the notion of each city in the county describing its urban growth boundary is to try to indicate an area that in the next 20 years it can accommodate 20 years of growth, as well as conceivably service in terms of water, sewer, utility, police and fire protection, etc. We haven't done any studies at all on our ability to carry that out in terms of going out into the Covington area. He feels the county and the GMPC feel that the area would incorporate as opposed to being annexed. Chair Antley asked if including an area in our sphere of influence obligates us to annex the area. Mr. Satterstrom said it does not obligate us to serve it or to annex it, but it does show intent and the residents would probably expect to be annexed to whatever city put their urban growth area out there. Commissioner Haylor feels there is nothing wrong with letting the people in Covington know that we know they're out there. Chair Antley asked if the City of Kent provides any services to Covington right now. Mr. Satterstrom said we do provide fire protection to the western portion of it. Chair Antley spoke against the motion because she is really concerned about Kent over extending itself. We're in a phase right now where we don't have a lot of extra money. We have infrastructure a lot closer than Covington that needs work. We're not talking about an area that's going to bring much money into the City and it will be a drain on the City to extend services out there. Commissioner Haylor feels there is a lot out there and the tax base will grow quite a bit. He is not proposing that we should go any further than 132nd, but he sees nothing wrong with looking out there and preparing for what could happen. 4 Kent Planning Commission June 8, 1992 The motion CARRIED with Chair Antley opposed. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Heineman MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED and the meeting was adjourned at 8: 00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, awes . Harris Se ret ry JPH/ljh: 6892.min 5