Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 10/26/1992 KENT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 26, 1992 The meeting of the Kent Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Martinez at 7:00 P.M. on October 26, 1992 in the Kent City Hall, City Council Chambers. PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Martinez, Chair Edward Heineman, Jr. , Vice Chair Gwen Dahle Albert Haylor Kent Morrill Raymond Ward PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Christopher Grant Greg Greenstreet PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James P. Harris, Planning Director Fred N. Satterstrom, Planning Manager Leslie J. Herbst, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 28 , 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Heineman MOVED to accept the September 28, 1992 minutes as presented. Commissioner Morrill SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKS IN GC ZONE - ZCA-92-3 Fred Satterstrom of the Planning Department said the proposed code amendment stems from a regulatory review action that was before the Planning Commission in 1990 wherein Betty Lou Kapela requested that recreational vehicle parks be allowed as a conditional use in the General Commercial zone. When someone comes to the City and finds that the Zoning Code does not permit the kind of action they are proposing, they can request that the Code be changed. When Ms. Kapela requested this change a couple years ago, the Planning Commission decided not to go forward with it because Planning staff said they would be proposing some amendments to the Recreational Vehicle Park Code. Nothing has been done to the Recreational Vehicle Park Code and it is not in the work program for 1993, so the matter is being brought back to the Planning Commission. Planning staff and the Planning Commission were positive in terms of the proposed code amendment two years ago and staff felt it should not be delayed further. Kent Planning Commission October 26, 1992 The current regulations only allow RV parks to be established in multiple family districts. The applicants own some property between I-5 and Highway 99 which they feel would be appropriate for an RV park. Staff agrees that for the most part RV parks would be an appropriate use in the GC zone, particularly if there is a hearing process established such as would be the case with a Conditional Use Permit. It would require a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner where the impacts to neighboring properties, traffic issues and so forth could be addressed. Commissioner Haylor asked if they were talking about RV parks similar to the KOA on 208th. Mr. Satterstrom said we are talking about recreational vehicle parks for short term stays, not mobile home parks where people live permanently. Commissioner Dahle expressed concern about the safety issue and wondered if fencing would be required between the park and the highway. Mr. Satterstrom thought that would undoubtedly be a concern which would be addressed at the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Also, that would be a typical Code requirement when the property in question abuts neighboring properties. The staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council that Section 15.04. 140 (D) be modified to add recreational vehicle parks as a conditional use in the GC zone. Robert Kapela, 5650B 132nd NE, Bellevue, said his mother initiated this action mainly because their property is directly south of the Midway landfill. The landfill is in the process of being cleaned up, but has made it tough to find uses for their property. Their neighbors are commercial; they don't have any multifamily neighbors. Regarding the safety issue, the entrance to the property will be from 240th which is a dead end road and there is a state fence which runs the length of the property which abuts I-5. Also they feel this use would be appropriate because it is similar to a motel/hotel situation which is allowed in a GC zone. Commissioner Haylor asked how many spaces they would have on their 14 acres. Mr. Kapela said they planned on having 50 spaces in the beginning with another part of the land set aside for RV and boat storage. The majority of the land would remain raw land for the interim period simply because it's too expensive to develop a 14 acre RV site. It would probably be developed in phases. Mr. Satterstrom produced a copy of the Recreational Vehicle Park Code to answer some of the questions asked earlier. There is a section dealing with park operation which addresses the licenses, registration of occupants, inspections and occupancy limit. There 2 — Kent Planning Commission October 26, 1992 is also a section that requires that all RV parks shall be surrounded by a five foot high, 50 to 100% view obscuring wall, fence or planting strip. Commissioner Ward MOVED to close the public hearing. Commissioner Dahle SECONDED the motion. Motion CARRIED. Commissioner Ward MOVED to modify Section 15. 04. 140 (D) to permit recreational vehicle parks as a conditional use in the GC zone. Commissioner Haylor SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED. CRITICAL AREAS - ZCA-91-3 AND CPA-91-1 Mr. Satterstrom reported that the wetlands ordinance that the Planning Commission recommended went to City Council on October 6. At that time, the Council was also presented with an alternative from the Chamber of Commerce. The City Council remanded the proposed wetlands ordinance back to the Planning Commission because the Commission had not had a chance to review the document from the Chamber. Council asked that the Planning Commission go through this review as quickly as possible and send it back to Council within 90 days. Because of the upcoming holidays, there is not a lot of time to deal with this as a Planning Commission. one of the ways of helping the Commission work through this ordinance would be to form a citizens advisory task force or committee, comprised of people representing a number of diverse perspectives on this, who know something about the Chamber's recommendation and the Planning Commission's recommendation. This group could work its way through and, to the best of its ability, try to come up with a consensus document that would be advisory to the Planning Commission. Chair Martinez pointed out that the City Council had asked that if anyone else had a plan, that it be submitted. She asked if any more had been received. Mr. Satterstrom said that at this point, there are only the two alternatives. Chair Martinez said that she would like to have Commissioner Heineman chair the committee which would be composed of a small group of people who would attempt to hammer out a compromise. She felt that since there is such a little bit of time, it would be better to do it in a small committee and then bring it back to the Commission. She asked the opinion of the other Commissioners. Commissioner Dahle said that each time the Commission has passed an ordinance and sent it to Council after working on it for a year, some other organization decides they have a better idea. She asked what kind of time limits should be put on people and if any more 3 Kent Planning Commission October 26, 1992 proposals will be accepted. Chair Martinez said we can't prevent people from bringing forth new proposals any time they want. Commissioner Haylor said he was not completely pleased with the final wetlands ordinance, but they voted and passed the general consensus of what the Commission decided would be the final wetlands regulations. They had hearings and the public was invited to speak and he wondered why this proposal wasn't presented during the public hearings. He said he would not be a part of this committee because they have done their job and presented their proposal to the City Council. Chair Martinez said the only thing she could say to counter that is that Council could have taken this and done exactly what the Commission had done--go through it step by step and hammer it out. She would be opposed to that because the Planning Commission is the hearing agent. She too feels it is almost unconscionable the way people attempt to manipulate the system, but also felt that asserting the process was important and so she accepted it back. Commissioner Haylor said he could understand that, but if they form a committee that's still not a hearing. It's giving one special group an inside track on designing and coming up with their own regulations. The people who came down in good faith and testified do not have the same opportunity to sit in on that committee and that's where the new ordinance will be put together. In response to a question from Commissioner Dahle, Mr. Satterstrom said the following was a list of suggested committee members: Ed Heineman, Chair Ted Knapp, Chamber of Commerce Joe Miles, Mayor's Environmental Task Force Sharon Rodman, who has a lot of interest in preserving wetlands Paul Crane, Boeing Company He asked the Commissioners to bear in mind that the frame of reference as we work through the alternatives is that we will be working from the Planning Commission's recommendation. Whatever the committee does, it will come back to the Commission and they will be the final say on this. He agreed with Commissioner Haylor that it would have been a lot easier to deal with this during the ongoing meetings while everything was on the table. Now we have to do the best we can with the resources that we've got. The committee will have to work in good faith. Both sides will have to have an open mind and be flexible. 4 - Kent Planning Commission October 26, 1992 Commissioner Ward asked where the Chamber's recommendation was at the time the Planning Commission was reviewing the ordinance. Mr. Satterstrom said he couldn't answer that. Hearsay was that the Chamber had no intention of dealing with it at the Planning Commission stage; that they were waiting to deal with the City Council. Whether any of that is true, he couldn't say, but it is too bad the Commission didn't have the proposal during the public hearings because that would have been the proper time to review it. He also agrees with Chair Martinez that the only alternatives were to let the City Council wrestle with it or take it back. He feels the Council did the appropriate thing in sending it back to the Planning Commission because that substantiates that it is the Planning Commission that people have to deal with. Commissioner Ward said the Chamber's proposal is a very impressive looking document and there are probably some very good ideas in it that they could have taken into consideration at the time. It concerns him that the Council would agree to allow a document to be presented at the eleventh hour and expect the Commission to go back and review it. He feels that, in effect, they are saying the Commission's recommendations aren't as good as they should have been. He feels it will be interesting to see how what comes out of the committee will compare with the Planning Commission's recommendations. Commissioner Dahle wondered if they're going to work on these processes for a year at a time and as soon as they pass them on to the Council, some organization in the City does an end run around them, why are they here? Chair Martinez said they are all good questions and asked if the Commissioners wanted to hear from the representative from the Chamber? The Commissioners said no. Commissioner Morrill wondered if a precedent were being set that when the Commission sends something to the Council that some organization may disagree with, Council will listen to them as much as they do the Planning Commission. Commissioner Haylor said that as far as he was concerned, the point of this discussion is that they tell people to come to a public hearing and that is their opportunity to tell the Commission what they want and everyone will have a fair shake. Then after the public hearing is closed and they have voted on the issue, it is sent back to go behind closed doors. That makes a sham out of the whole hearing process. Chair Martinez said this would not be done behind closed doors and there will certainly be a public hearing to hear the recommendations of the committee. 5 Kent Planning Commission October 26, 1992 Commissioner Haylor felt it is wrong for the Council to send this document back to the Planning Commission and ask them to deal with it all over again. They have already had the hearing process and voted on it. James Harris said that the City Council is not an organization that generally sits down and begins to dissect something this complicated. He feels that the Council, in order to be fair to all parties and so that no one can ever come back and say they never got to the core of this issue, has decided that if this is looked at one more time, whatever comes out of that will be the ultimate final decision. Apparently, the Chamber has said they don't feel they got a fair hearing. That's neither here nor there. This is a strategy the Chamber decided to use and it worked for them. Commissioner Dahle said the Commission set an agenda of things they wanted to work on a year and a half ago, and they're being told by every organization in town that they have to do these jobs over and over again and they have no time to work on their own agenda. Nobody gives a damn what their plans are. Commissioner Morrill MOVED to appoint a subcommittee to review the two wetlands ordinances and come back to the Planning Commission with a recommendation. Commissioner Dahle SECONDED the motion. The motion CARRIED with Commissioner Haylor voting against. Commissioner Heineman said there is a tentative plan to have the first meeting of the committee Friday morning, October 30. Commissioner Morrill recommended that Jack Nelson be appointed to the committee. He is an attorney in Kent and was at all the public hearings. Chair Martinez said they are going to try to keep the committee to four or five people and would consider Mr. Nelson. Chair Martinez asked if the Commissioners wanted to initiate a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce to tell them what the Commission thinks. The Commissioners felt that the Chamber now knows what they think. Commissioners Ward and Heineman felt that if this has happened repeatedly over the years, which apparently it has, they should talk to the Council about it. Chair Martinez said she would see if she could get some two way dialogue going perhaps sometime in January. Commissioner Heineman asked if a technical consultant would be available to the Wetlands Committee. Mr. Satterstrom said if the Committee felt it was necessary, it would be arranged. 6 Kent Planning Commission October 26, 1992 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Dahle 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, J mes P. Harris, Secretary JPH/ljh: 102692 .min 7