Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 08/24/1992 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 24, 1992 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Antley at 7: 00 P.M. on August 24, 1992 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Tracy Antley, Chair Linda Martinez, Vice Chair Gwen Dahle Christopher Grant Albert Haylor Edward Heineman Kent Morrill Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Greg Greenstreet PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager Kevin O'Neill, Planner Anne Watanabe, Planner Leslie Herbst, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF JUNE 22 , 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept the June 22, 1992 minutes as presented. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. FAREWELL TO TRACY ANTLEY Commissioner Martinez thanked Chair Antley for her outstanding leadership through her two terms as Chair of the Planning Commission. Chair Antley said that staff has given new meaning to the term "public servant" and it has been an honor and a pleasure to work with them. She urged her fellow Commissioners to remember what it means to be part of the public trust and wished them much success as Planning Commissioners. CRITICAL AREAS - ZCA-91-3 AND CPA-91-1 Chair Antley referred to the Draft Wetlands Ordinance dated July 1992 which includes all the changes the Commission has made Kent Planning Commission August 24, 1992 over the last few months. She recommended that they go through the ordinance a section at a time. Section 1. Short Title, Authority and Purpose Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept Section 1 as written for forwarding to the City Council. Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 2. Definitions Commissioner Ward MOVED to accept Section 2 as written. Commissioner Grant SECONDED the motion. Commissioner Martinez made a friendly amendment to delete the new definition of "growing season". She felt that it complicates things because it gives Kent a unique and different definition of growing season than any other body within the state. Commissioners Ward and Grant accepted the friendly amendment. Anne Watanabe of the Planning Department pointed out that the words "during the growing season" were also added to the definition of "wetlands" . Chair Antley said that means they would also have to delete that language from the definition of "wetlands" to make the ordinance consistent. Commissioner Haylor felt the definitions should remain as they are, otherwise it would snowball and they would end up tearing apart the whole document which they had already worked on. Commissioners Ward and Grant did not accept the addition to the friendly amendment so the friendly amendment failed. Commissioner Heineman said he was instrumental in having this definition added in the beginning because he felt the definition of wetland was not suitable for our particular area. He thinks if the Commission believes they are correct, they should not change their view merely to be in conformity with other jurisdictions. He made a friendly amendment to retain the definition of growing season and add "Growing season, for the purposes of these regulations, may be considered to be the period from March 1 through October 31 of any calendar year" . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the friendly amendment. Commissioners Ward and Grant accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Watanabe said that language would conform very closely with the way the growing season is actually interpreted right now, so it would avoid some of the confusion that might otherwise arise. Commissioner Martinez asked how the field person would interpret it if we have two definitions of growing season. Ms. Watanabe said that in light of the fact that the current draft is referencing the 1987 Manual, she doesn't think they are setting up a total inconsistency. 2 Kent Planning Commission August 24, 1992 The motion with the friendly amendment CARRIED. Section 3. General Provisions Commissioner Heineman MOVED to accept Section 3 . Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 4. Lands to Which this Chapter Applies Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 4 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section S. Wetlands Rating System Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 5 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 6. Wetland Permit Required; Regulated Activities Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 6 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 7. Allowed Activities Commissioner Morrill MOVED to accept Section 7 . Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section S. Emergency Activities; Temporary Emergency Permit Commissioner Ward MOVED to accept Section 8. Commissioner Martinez SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 9. Prohibited Activities Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 9 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 10. General Permit Requirements and Procedures Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 10 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 11. Wetland Buffers Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 11 . Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. 3 Kent Planning Commission August 24, 1992 Section 12. Avoiding Wetland Impacts Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept Section 12 . Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 13. Limited Density Transfer Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 13 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 14. Sensitive Area Tracts Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 14 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 15. Notice on Title Commissioner Martinez MOVED to accept Section 15 . Commissioner Heineman SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED with Commissioner Haylor voting against. Section 16. Compensating for Wetland Impacts Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 16 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 17. Reasonable Use - Exceptions to Standards Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 17 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 18. Non-conforming Wetland Activities Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 18 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 19. Commencement of Regulated Activities or Development Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 19 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 20. Time Limits for Permit Validity Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 20 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. 4 Kent Planning Commission August 24, 1992 Section 21. Revisions to Permits Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 21 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 22. Rescission or Suspension of Permits Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 22 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 23. Enforcement Commissioner Morrill MOVED to accept Section 23 . Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 24. Appeals Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 24 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 25. Severability Commissioner Haylor MOVED to accept Section 25 . Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Section 26. Effective Date Commissioner Heineman MOVED to accept Section 26 . Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Ted Knapp asked that a letter that was sent to the Commissioners by the Chamber of Commerce be made part of the public record. Commissioner Martinez pointed out that the letter was received after the public hearing was closed. Chair Antley said the letter would be part of the public record to the extent that every letter they receive is part of the public record. She suggested that he go ahead and send it to the City Council members. Commissioner Heineman MOVED to accept the draft statement on Aquifer Recharge Areas and recommend to Council that it be added to the Public Utilities Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Ward SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to add the Geologically Hazardous Areas draft to Goal 2 of the Human Environment Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. 5 Kent Planning Commission August 24, 1992 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLANNING GOALS Kevin O'Neill of the Planning Department said that the 1990 Growth Management Act outlined several planning goals that were to provide the framework for each jurisdiction in doing their own individual comprehensive plans. The 1991 amendment to that Act required each county to further refine and adopt countywide planning policies so that every jurisdiction within the county would be fairly consistent with certain types of framework policies. Early this year we went through an intensive public participation process called the Kent Community Forum and the Visual Preference Survey where we went out to the community and asked several questions relating to growth management issues and also asked citizens to respond to the type of development pattern they'd like to see in the community in the future. What this process does is fuse those three processes in terms of proposing framework planning goals for the City which are modeled after the state and county goals, but also involve some of the local planning priorities which were indicated throughout the Community Forum and Visual Preference Survey process. Mr. O'Neill pointed out that they went through a public process on these draft goals. They developed a questionnaire which was sent to each person who participated in the Community Forum. They also had two public forums where they presented some of these ideas and got comments from people. Since staff went through all of the goals in some detail at the last workshop, Mr. O'Neill proposed to highlight some of the changes which are based on comments received from the Commissioners and also from the public during the questionnaire and public forum process. The subject categories were selected to follow as closely as possible the 13 planning goals in the Growth Management Act. Some additions were made based on issues that are important in Kent, particularly human services, urban design and economic development. In the Urban Growth category, a minor change was made to UG-1 to emphasize that the particular type of urban sprawl that we would seek to minimize would be the conversion of undeveloped land not presently in the City into low density urban development. The last sentence of UG-2 has been modified to say "The Urban Growth Area shall provide enough land to accommodate at least twenty years of residential, commercial, and industrial growth. . . " . 6 Kent Planning Commission August 24, 1992 The words "at least" were added because some of the people who reviewed the goals felt that twenty years was too limiting and perhaps we should be looking beyond that. Regarding UG-6, background information was provided to the Commissioners relating to the specific description of urban centers in the Countywide Planning Policies. A map was also provided showing what a conceptual 1-1/2 square mile urban center might look like. There are four Transportation goals which emphasize the multi-modal approach to transportation. They also emphasize the support for development of public transit and programs which reduce the number of single occupancy vehicles. People in the Community Forum process felt strongly about both of these issues. In terms of Housing, H-1 was amended to emphasize that we would be preserving and improving single-family and multi-family residential neighborhoods. The first word of H-3 was changed from "ensure" to "encourage" and the second sentence was changed to read "Assure that opportunities for a diversity of housing are available to all income levels". The same type of change was made in H-7 to say "ensure opportunities for affordable housing" as opposed to just "ensure affordable housing" . The human services goals have not been changed since the workshop. In Economic Development, Mr. O'Neill suggested that the Commissioners might want to make the same type of change in ED-1 that they made to the Urban Growth section and say "at least the next 20 years of growth" to make it a little more flexible. Anne Watanabe said that the first item under Property Rights, which was intended to be a restatement of what the constitutional law is with regard to compensation for takings, was deleted. It generated a lot of comments as far as interpreting the section and because it was simply meant to reflect existing constitutional protections for landowners, they felt it was best to just leave it out. Under the Permits section, the public's health was added to P-1 in addition to the safety and welfare being involved. In the Natural Resource Industries section, an example of clustered patterns of residential development being appropriate in rural areas was deleted from NR-4 because the comments received indicated it was rather confusing. 7 Kent Planning Commission August 24, 1992 Under Open Space and Recreation, OS-1 was split into two sentences to make it a little more comprehensible. OS-5 was added to address a request from the Parks Department that there be some language regarding the regular update of the Comprehensive Park Plan. There were no changes to the Environment section. Mr. O'Neill said the Public Facilities goals are meant to emphasize the goals in the Act and the Countywide Planning Policies about linking development with services and the ability to pay for them. Urban Design is a section for which there is no framework under Growth Management. It has been an emphasis of our planning to date and these goals make it clear that it will continue to be so. There were no changes to the Historic Preservation section. The Growth Management Act requires early and continuous public participation and the Community Involvement section is a proposed local goal relating to that. Commissioner Martinez asked if there is anything that the Commission or the City has done or the way we are funding our infrastructure that is absolutely counter to what we're saying in goal PF-2. She particularly was thinking of the way we fund LID's as a reactive mode. She believes the intent of PF-2 is to push us toward something else and wondered if that was the understanding of the Planning Department as well. Mr. O'Neill said it is. The Act makes it perfectly clear that capital facilities planning needs to be part of the Comprehensive Plan. This goal would change the way things are done. Paul Seely of the Boeing Company, 7735 E. Marginal Way, spoke about the Countywide Planning Policies. He feels communities should have the right to prescribe how they want to grow. Commissioner Martinez said they are looking at specific language in the planning goals, many of which are fully supported by our visioning and our community preference forums. She asked Mr. Seely what specifically he would like them to consider that they haven't. Mr. Seely said he would have liked to rewrite the whole thing. Commissioner Martinez asked if he was talking about the county's part and not Kent's part. He said he was. He would be satisfied with having us ratify it as-is as long as we ask them to do a supplementary EIS and financial impact analysis. Fred Satterstrom said there may be some confusion because Mr. Seely is speaking largely to the Countywide Planning Policies, some of which have been appended to the staff report on Planning Goals. That may have 8 Kent Planning Commission August 24, 1992 given Mr. Seely and others the impression that the Planning Commission was going to be acting on the ratification process. There will be a public hearing on that before the City Council on September 1. Because it is a ratification process, it bypassed the Planning Commission. Chair Antley asked Mr. Seely what he would like to see changed in the section on Economic Development. She said if she understood him correctly, he didn't really have any problems with our goals as long as when we get down to objectives and the activities to meet the objectives which in turn meet the goals, that there are other things we need to keep in mind. Mr. Seely said that was correct. Hugh Leiper of American Commercial Industries, 1819 S. Central, Suite 116, talked about where the boundaries of Kent should be. Commissioner Haylor pointed out that the Planning Commission has already approved and passed on to Council their proposed urban growth area boundary. Commissioner Martinez MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Martinez said she would like to have some further discussion on UG-6 which is Kent designating an urban center area. She is not convinced that designating ourselves as an urban center would do a lot for the City of Kent. It may be the only way we get transit in here, but it seems to her to be using a very heavy club to accomplish a goal. Commissioner Heineman said he can see Kent as an urban center, but he's afraid that his definition of urban center does not agree with the county's definition. He wondered if the Commission really needs to get into that right now. Commissioner Martinez said it seems to her that if they incorporate that, it means what the county has said it means. Chair Antley said she thinks they're stuck with that unless they want to come up with their own definition. James Harris of the Planning Department said that the county seems to be saying if you want to be an urban city, these are some parameters within which you have to work. He thinks the cities that become urban centers are going to get the transit money and the money to do all these good things and if you don't want to be an urban center, those kinds of monies may not come to your community. He feels we want to keep our options open and not cut ourselves off at this point by saying we don't even want to consider it. 9 Kent Planning Commission August 24, 1992 Mr. O'Neill said the reason this goal is in the document is because under the Countywide Planning Policies that have been adopted to date by the County Council, all jurisdictions of the county will have to decide by October 1 whether they want to apply to the Growth Management Planning Council to be an urban center or not. The Countywide Planning Policies likely will be amended throughout the next year, but we don't know what those amendments are going to be. One action the Commissioners may wish to consider is keeping the goal of the urban center in there, but passing on any concerns they have about it to the City Council. The City Council will be considering ratification of the Countywide Planning Policies as a whole, as well as these Planning Goals, and can pass on the Commission's concerns to King County. Chair Antley said she shares everyone's concern about the definition of an urban center, but thinks she would rather err on the side of saying this is something we wish to work toward. If we either fail to achieve it due to various other circumstances or we just plain change our minds, we will be far better off by saying "yes, we' ll play this game" now than by saying "no, we're not going to play this game at all" . This is our window of opportunity. Commissioner Ward agreed with Chair Antley. If we say we don't want to participate, we surely won't get anything. If we say we want to participate and we decide later that we can't make it or we don't meet the objectives or the plan, then that's a different thing. But if you remove yourself from the competition by restricting what your plan would be and just stating unequivocally that you want to be outside that plan of action, then you surely won't get anything. Commissioner Martinez said that 30 years ago we decided to play a game and bring some manufacturing in which we have been trying to get rid of for 30 years. Twenty years ago we decided to be a warehouse place and we succeeded mightily and now we're all unhappy about that. Ten years ago we decided to be a multifamily community and we succeeded mightily at that. She is afraid that one more time we will succeed at doing something that is not very well conceived. The visioning that she saw from the citizens was more of an urban village than an urban center with 50, 000 jobs within a mile and a half radius. She has really serious concerns that if we designate ourselves as an urban center without further thought, the first thing that will happen is that indeed transit will come and all of the other things will happen. We will not be in control of our destiny and what we' ll end up with is a city that no one wants to live in. We moved to Kent to be in a community like Kent. 10 Kent Planning Commission August 24, 1992 Commissioner Ward said he has the impression that if you're a game player and there's only one game in town and you're not a part of that game, then you're left standing. He believes the county is not really sure what the final definition of a true urban center will be, but if Kent is not a part of it, it will be to our detriment. He feels that the development in terms of warehousing and manufacturing has been somewhat of a positive thing in the sense that it is growth. He still believes that a City either regenerates itself by growing or it dries up and dies. Kent has tried to grow a little too fast in some area, but the net result is still positive. Commissioner Dahle said that if you go back 35 years, Kent was an urban center. It has now fallen apart and it takes time to regenerate and get it going again. She feels it should be designated as an urban center. Commissioner Martinez said she doesn't disagree with what Commissioners Ward and Dahle said. She is uncomfortable with the present wording and suggested we may just want to add "in alignment with the vision of the community forums" or "of the community of Kent" just to make it very clear that we want to guide our own destiny. Mr. Harris said he thinks that's a good idea because the vision that the citizens had was more of a design vision; what the community will look like. We would not want to foreclose the opportunity, but on our terms and design. How this thing's going to look. Chair Antley proposed adding an additional sentence to UG-6 which would say "This area will mirror the visioning which was developed through Kent's public forums" . All the Commissioners agreed. In the Housing section, Commissioner Grant thought that again they could refer back to the public forums because there was a lot of input from the public concerning housing. Chair Antley suggested that they add a footnote to the Housing section. Commissioner Dahle asked if we got any feedback from the people who received the community forum report. She felt that the conclusions in the report were not the conclusions reached by the people at the meeting she attended. Mr. O'Neill said he was not aware of any comments about the report. The draft planning goals were sent to all the participants of that process with an evaluation form and they did receive some comments on the goals, which is the reason some of the language has been changed. After much discussion it was decided that rather than adding footnotes throughout the entire document, the following language should be added to the introduction: "The following Planning Goals shall be interpreted in light of the vision for Kent which was developed by the Community Forum on Growth Management and Visioning, June 1992" . 11 Kent Planning Commission August 24, 1992 This would also allow the additional language to be removed from UG-6. Under Economic Development, it was decided to change ED-1 to read "at least the next 20 years of growth" . Commissioner Dahle said she is still not happy with the Property Rights section because it still does not say that you shall not take over property rights without just compensation for the land. Chair Antley said she does not think this is the document for them to interpret state or federal law. It is a goals statement and she doesn't feel we should lock ourselves into a statement which doesn't need to be stated because it's a constitutional issue. Commissioner Heineman didn't feel that they could go any farther than they have as long as they're talking about goals. They are not in the business of creating law or defining law. Staff referred the Commissioners to Appendix A which is the Growth Management Act Planning Goals. The property rights section is almost identical to what was in the first draft of the City's Planning Goals and it would not hurt to exactly restate what is in the Growth Management Act. Commissioner Dahle MOVED to put the language "Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made" back into the Property Rights section as PR-1. Commissioner Grant SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED with Chair Antley voting against. Commissioner Ward MOVED to adopt the Planning Goals as amended. Commissioner Martinez 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 9:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, JJas P. Har is, Secretary JPH/ljh:82492 .min 12