Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 06/22/1992 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 22, 1992 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Antley at 7:00 P.M. on June 22 , 1992 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Antley, Chair Linda Martinez, Vice Chair Gwen Dahle Albert Haylor Edward Heineman Kent Morrill Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Christopher Grant Greg Greenstreet PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager Anne Watanabe, Planner Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MAY 18 , 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept the May 18, 1992 minutes as presented. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. APPROVAL OF JUNE 8 , 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Morrill MOVED to accept the June 8, 1992 minutes as presented. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. CRITICAL AREAS - ZCA-91-3 AND CPA-91-1 Chair Antley had asked staff to give the Commission an analysis of what they had done so far. Before going through her memo in response to this request, Anne Watanabe told the Commissioners that Eric Metz from the consulting firm of Wilsey & Ham Pacific was at the meeting to answer any questions they might have. Mr. Metz is a wetlands scientist and assisted staff in the initial draft of the wetlands ordinance. Kent Planning Commission June 22, 1992 Ms. Watanabe said that her memo attempted to reiterate what the Commissioners voted on as amendments and tried to analyze what the impacts might be. The major changes were: 1. The addition of "during the growing season" to the definition of "wetlands" . This now presents us with a rather unique definition of wetlands and staff does not have a good context for interpreting that new definition. 2. The definition of "existing and ongoing agriculture" was amended to include land lying idle for up to eight years. This would be inconsistent with current federal rules regarding farmed wetlands. Commissioner Heineman asked how the current federal regulations on abandonment affect the land and how they would be in conflict with our eight year term. Eric Metz, P. O. Box 97304, Bellevue said that under the federal guidelines, land is considered to be abandoned after five consecutive years with no cropping, management or maintenance activity related to agricultural production. 3 . Use of the 1987 Manual rather than the 1989 Manual. This is going to be consistent with what the Corps of Engineers requires, but puts us into a position of being inconsistent with most other local jurisdictions and with draft countywide policies. Commissioner Martinez asked for clarification as to which manual Auburn is using. Ms. Watanabe said they are currently using the 1987 Manual. They're working on a special area management plan policy which calls for the use of the 1989 Manual. That would leave only Kent, Pacific, Algona and Carnation using the 1987 Manual. 4 . Allow maintenance and upkeep activities by owner-occupiers of 10, 000 square feet or less of isolated Class 2 or 3 wetlands. The major concern is that it might be beneficial to have some additional clarification as to what the exact intent of that exemption might be. Commissioner Heineman agreed that the amendment was somewhat vague. He asked if Ms. Watanabe had any suggestions how the intent could be made more precise. She said that it is important to understand what the intention is behind the amendment and if we can get a clear sense of what that is, it will help us to craft pretty specifically to meet that intention. Commissioner Heineman said that the most important 2 Kent Planning Commission June 22, 1992 thing is that the wetland not be destroyed. If it is forbidden to drain, fill, dredge, ditch or similar activities, then that wetland is not going to be destroyed. Beyond that, it is a matter of how much alteration to the botany of the area is permissible. For instance, building or rebuilding a fence line would slightly damage some of the plant material, but not very much and the next year you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, whereas if you were to run an access road for automobiles through there, that would leave a scar that would be there a long time. Ms. Watanabe also felt that they must cover the issue of who is an owner-occupier. Chair Antley agreed that the definition was not very precise and probably could be used to cover someone who has a building. Commissioner Haylor felt that even if a person owns the property, but doesn't live on it, he still should have a right to maintain the status quo. He felt whoever administers the ordinance should be able to judge whether the wetlands are being damaged by the owner or the occupant. People need a little leeway. Ms. Watanabe pointed out that there is a definition for repair or maintenance. 5. Emergency repairs to utilities would be allowed without the necessity of getting a permit or the Director's permission ahead of time. Staff feels that maybe that exemption should be broadened to include all bona fide emergency situations. There may be life threatening or dangerous situations that don't involve utilities. Staff would also like to see the addition of language that kicks people back into the regulatory framework after the 72 hours is up so that the emergency does not continue on forever. Commissioner Martinez asked what kinds of emergencies could occur that would not involve utilities. Ms. Watanabe gave an example of someone's house being on fire and the quickest access being through a wetland. The way the ordinance is drafted with the current proposed amendment, utilities refers to utility lines and water mains rather than damage to privately owned property. Chair Antley said she had asked Ms. Watanabe to put this memo together to tell them what they had done so far and whether there were going to be any inconsistencies. She asked the Commissioners if they wanted to go back and revisit any of the issues which had been amended. The Commissioners felt they should continue going through the ordinance, beginning with Section 11, and correct any inconsistencies when they were finished. 3 Kent Planning Commission June 22, 1992 Section 11. Wetland Buffers Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept Section 11.A as written. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept Section 11.B as written. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept Section 11.0 as written. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept Section 11.D as written. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 11.E as written. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept Section 11.F as written. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Haylor made a friendly amendment to change Section 11.F. 1 to read "Activities and maintenance having minimal impacts on buffers and no adverse impacts on wetlands. These may include maintenance and low intensity, passive recreational activities such as pervious trails. . .and sports fishing. " Commissioners Martinez and Ward accepted the friendly amendment. Motion CARRIED. Section 12. Avoiding Wetland Impacts Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 12.A as written. Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Ward MOVED to accept Section 12.B as written. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept Section 12.0 as written. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Dahle asked if Ms. Watanabe was implying that it was all right for stormwater runoff from manmade properties to make a wetland. Ms. Watanabe said that the Guidelines for Wetlands and Stormwater Management do require that you pretreat stormwater before it goes into the wetland. Commissioner Heineman asked if that affected existing situations or only situations that are created subsequent to the passage of this ordinance. Ms. Watanabe said it is for new projects where someone wants to integrate stormwater detention in with the wetland. The motion CARRIED with Commissioners Dahle, Haylor and Martinez abstaining. 4 Kent Planning Commission June 22 , 1992 Section 13. Limited Density Transfer Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept Section 13 as written. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 14. Sensitive Area Tracts Commissioner Ward MOVED to accept Section 14 as written. Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED with Commissioner Dahle abstaining. Section 15. Notice on Title Commissioner Heineman MOVED to adopt Section 15 as written. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Martinez said she has some real concerns about this section. She made a friendly amendment to add the following: "The title holder will have the right to challenge this notice and to have it deleted if the wetland designation no longer applies" . Commissioners Heineman and Haylor accepted the friendly amendment. Motion CARRIED. Section 16. Compensating for Wetland Impacts Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 16.A as written. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Ward MOVED to accept Section 16.B as written. Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 16.0 as written. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Ward MOVED to accept Section 16.D as written. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Martinez said she didn't know where in Kent this restoration would take place. Fred Satterstrom cited the James Street Crossing apartments as an example. They had offsite mitigation and are in the process of creating some wetlands on the west side of the Green River just north of the City' s golf course. It is also possible that wetlands could be created on a site in an area that is unbuildable because of how it is constrained by the wetlands on the site. Finally, we have a grant from DOE to study the feasibility of creating a mitigation bank which would locate areas of the City that would be amenable to mitigation banking. Commissioner Heineman asked exactly how this is accomplished. Mr. Metz said you have to inundate an area either with surface water or ground water sufficient to produce wetland conditions 5 Kent Planning Commission June 22, 1992 which means normally you've got to have the soil saturated for at least 14 days during the growing season. That can either be done by excavating down so you intersect ground water or by diverting the surface water systems into the created wetland or by both. Commissioner Haylor asked if a developer could donate money to the mitigation bank for a future wetland on another site. Mr. Metz said that once the bank is established, the developer could provide an in lieu fee which would mitigate for the lost wetland based upon an acreage ratio that has already been determined. Commissioner Haylor asked who would determine the credit; some wetlands are worth a lot more than others. Mr. Metz said that ultimately the credits would be determined by the regulatory agencies based upon recommendations by local jurisdictions and whoever the experts are that are involved in developing the bank itself. There is general agreement on broad categories of wetlands among wetland people. When it comes down to how much credit should be granted, that becomes a subject of policy as much as value. The motion CARRIED. Commissioner Heineman MOVED to accept Section 16.E as written. Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 17. Reasonable Use - Exceptions to Standards Commissioner Ward MOVED to accept Section 17 as written. Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 18. Non-conforming Wetland Activities Commissioner Haylor asked if Section 18.A. 3 was referring to structures such as a barn. Ms. Watanabe said this is fairly standard and almost identical to what is in the Zoning Code regarding non-conforming structures. Commissioner Haylor said he has a problem with the fact that if a person has a barn and it burns down, he has to go through all the hoops again just to rebuild something he already had there. He doesn't think you should be able to expand on the building, but should be able to bring it back to the original condition. Commissioner Haylor MOVED to approve Section 18 with the exception that Section 18 .A.3 would read "damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, war, riot or other natural disaster. " Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Heineman pointed out that this would have the opposite effect of what was intended and made a friendly amendment to remove 6 Kent Planning Commission June 22 , 1992 Section 18.A. 3 entirely. Commissioners Haylor and Morrill accepted the friendly amendment. Commissioner Dahle asked what the cost of a wetland study would be if a property owner wanted to rebuild. Mr. Metz said if you had a five acre parcel on which 20% was wetlands, the cost of a delineation would be $4,000-5, 000. If the proponent wanted to fill a portion of the wetland it would probably cost about $7,000 for a conceptual mitigation plan and depending on what was involved in actually doing the work, the cost would vary widely. He is working on an industrial park in Everett where it probably will cost the proponent $200, 000-400, 000 to create a .7 acre wetland. On the other hand, to enhance a small wetland may only cost $5,000-10,000. It's widely variable and part of the role of the consultant is to help the landowner work up a scheme that fits within his budget and strikes the best compromise between what he wants and what it will take to comply with the regulations. It isn't always necessary to go the whole route as far as the mitigation process goes to obtain acceptable results. Commissioner Haylor asked if these structures would be made non- conforming by this ordinance. Mr. Satterstrom said yes, it would be this ordinance that would make them non-conforming. Commissioner Haylor feels the property owner should be given the option of rebuilding because he was there first. Commissioner Ward said the more he reads this, the more he gets concerned that all they would do by eliminating Section 18.A.3 would be to take away one of the criteria which the Director could use to make a determination as to whether this non-conforming barn could be rebuilt. Chair Antley said she was very concerned about eliminating this section. The Planning Commission creates non- conforming uses through zoning frequently and she would like to have some control over the rebuilding of structures in wetlands. She feels that this section is necessary because it deals with structures that are going to be made non-conforming and if the damage done is less than 50 percent of the fair market value, you can just rebuild it. It's only if the structure is more than 50 percent destroyed that you must get a permit. The motion was DEFEATED with Commissioners Antley, Heineman, Martinez and Ward voting against. Commissioner Ward MOVED to accept Section 18, but to delete "and where the cost of restoration exceeds fifty percent of the fair market value of the activity at the time of damage" from Section 18.A. 3 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion, but thought that the wording would require someone to get a permit and 7 Kent Planning Commission June 22 , 1992 he didn't think that was the intent of Commissioner Ward's motion. Commissioner Ward AMENDED his motion to approve Section 18 as written. Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED with Commissioners Dahle, Haylor and Morrill opposed. Section 19. Commencement of Regulated Activities or Development Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept Section 19 as written. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 20. Time Limits for Permit validity Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 20 as written. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 21. Revisions to Permits Commissioner Ward MOVED to accept Section 21 as written. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 22. Rescission or Suspension of Permits Commissioner Ward MOVED to accept Section 22 as written. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. In regard to Section 22.D, Commissioner Martinez said if she were a property owner who thought she had a permit and found out the permit was issued in error, she would be very irate. Mr. Satterstrom agreed, but said that his understanding of the law is that if someone works for the City and makes an error in issuing a permit, that does not make it a legal use. Ms. Watanabe said this provision was written by the City Attorney who she assumes intended for it to be consistent with similar provisions suggested for the Zoning Code. The motion CARRIED. Section 23. Enforcement Commissioner Ward MOVED to accept Section 23 as written. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 24. Appeals Commissioner Heineman MOVED to accept Section 24 as written. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. 8 Kent Planning Commission June 22, 1992 Section 25. Severability Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 25 as written. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 26. Effective Date (30 days) Commissioner Morrill MOVED to accept Section 26 as written. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Chair Antley asked staff to revise the draft ordinance based on what the Commissioners have done so they can approve a final version at the July 27 meeting. Commissioner Haylor MOVED to continue the public hearing to July 27, 1992. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Martinez MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED and the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ame P. Harris, gecretary JPH/ljh: 62292 .min 9