Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 10/18/1994CITY OF J V Lt2 CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE October 18, 1994 4:00 PM Committee Members Present Leona Orr, Chair Jon Johnson Tim Clark Planning Staff Margaret Porter Kevin O'Neill Fred Satterstrom City Attorney's Office Roger Lubovich Other City Staff Other Guests GROWTH MANAGEMENT UPDATE - (Fred Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom updated the Committee on the progress of the Comprehensive Plan. It is not expected to be brought before the City Council for at least a couple of months. The Planning Commission has held three public hearings. They have inventoried all the public testimony, comments, and letters and have been deliberating on these issues meeting regularly two times per month. After the Capital Facilities and the Transportation elements are brought before the Planning Commission, which are not finished yet, it is anticipated the final public hearing may be November 28, 1994. Manager Satterstrom reported the Public Works Department will be presenting the Transportation Plan at the October 18th meeting under Public Communications. Since there is no backup material in the Council agenda packet, Mr. Satterstrom said the Planning Department is hoping for a copy of the written report. If the information is not provided, the deliberation meetings will cease until this material is provided to the Planning Commission. Mr. Satterstrom reported a letter was sent to the State over 60 days ago about the City's Draft Comprehensive Plan. Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill stated the requirement says a City must notify GMA at least 60 days prior to notification and they are suppose to respond back to us within this 60 -day period. As of October 18,1994, no response letter has been received. Mr. O'Neill stated his impression from the State is that the City's Comprehensive Plan is pretty good. RATIFICATION OF THE COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES - (F. Satterstrom) Mr. Satterstrom reported the Countywide Planning Policies were recommended to the King County Growth Management Planning (GMA) Council on May 25, 1995. The Metro King County Council adopted them on August 15, 1994 with some revisions. Mr. Satterstrom CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 2 stated the City has ninety days to act on ratification. Again, he said if the City does not act to approve or disapprove the Countywide Planning Policies, the City will be assumed to have ratified them. He passed out the same three-page document that was distributed at the last meeting regarding the impacts to the Planning Department's work program. Mr. Satterstrom and Mr. O'Neill presented information on the four(4) main issues on the work program: 1. Population and employment target issues (K. O'Neill) Mr. O'Neill reminded the Committee that about a year ago the Committee discussed this issue and the City Council adopted population and employment targets to comply with Phase I of the Countywide Planning Policies. This was needed in order to prepare a land use plan. These adopted targets are what is reflected in the Draft Comprehensive Plan. Since then, as referenced in the table in Appendix II, the GMPC have changed the target numbers to ranges with a high and a low for both households and jobs. The State has raised some concerns about this idea. It is possible allowing for too much growth is just as not in compliance A allowing not enough. The concern is that if a City goes with a range and cities shoot for the high end of the range, a City would be targeting greater population according to the County but according to the Office of Financial Management the figure would be lower. It is possible the State may raise an issue with the County. Also, each city was asked to do a target for its existing city limits. The city limits of Kent are pretty dynamic right now, and it is something Kevin asked the Council to think about. Perhaps the next amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will be addressing this issue. 2. Urban growth area (K. O'Neill) Mr. O'Neill stated the central issue the GMPC was dealing with in May 1994 was how big this boundary should be. A couple of things occurred that the City possibly should be concerned about and should be addressing if a letter of ratification is done. One concern is the idea that someone can urbanize rural land if an exchange is made for every acre that is developed, four(4) acres need to be dedicated for public open space. Mr. O'Neill said he thinks if there is a hearings board challenge to the urban growth area boundary, this idea could be thrown out because it allows for potentially unknown amounts of rural land being urbanized in the next 20 years. Secondly, the other concern is what the Metropolitan King County Council can do with this idea once they get this information from the GMPC. One item that the amended Phase II policies say is that the Metropolitan King County Council may make minor technical changes not to exceed 300 acres to the urban growth area CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 3 recommended by the GMPC. It is unclear if this is a one-time change of 300 acres or if this is a series of changes. This language would allow the Metropolitan King County Council to make unilateral changes to the already GMPC policies that have been setup during the GMPC process. Also, another language change occurred by the King County Council after the policies came back from the GMPC. This is stated in Ordinance No. 11446 on page 19 (underlined): "Urban Growth Areas, Rural Areas, and Resource Lands shall be designated and the necessary implementing regulations adopted. This includes Countywide establishment of a policy planning boundary for the Urban Growth Area. Local jurisdictions shall establish these land use designations, based on the Countywide Planning Policies which are to used as a framework for the adoption of the 1994 Metropolitan King County Comprehensive Plan." Mr. O'Neill stated he interprets this to mean that the GMPC will take Kent's recommendation as a framework but the Metropolitan King County Council has the final authority on what the UGA map will really look like. 3. Center Designations (F.Satterstrom) Mr. Satterstrom again mentioned Kent was selected as one of the 14 urban centers (all 14 submitted were selected). The ultimate policies of the County are two tier. Fred said it is an advantage in keeping the urban center designation rather than withdrawing it, even though Kent's Comprehensive Plan is going the route of a mixed used approach. Fred quoted language in policies on page 34: "Two approaches are used to set guidelines and track the growth of Urban Centers. First, the Countywide Planning Policies establish levels of households and jobs needed to achieve the benefits of an Urban Center. Some Urban Centers will reach these levels over the next twenty years, while for others the criteria set a path for growth over a longer term and provide capacity to accommodate growth beyond the 20 year horizon." Basically, some will attain it in the next twenty years, some are already there, and some will attain the growth beyond 20 years and will set a path for growth. This language covers the existing centers and the emerging centers, which Kent falls in the emerging category. However, with the above policy statement, Mr. Satterstrom thinks Kent can have both because the urban center designation will be emerging over the next 20 years. Also, Kent will be able to participate in the regional pot for infrastructure, capital facilities, or public improvements that might benefit urban centers. 4. Manufacturinq/Industrial Center designation (F. Satterstrom Mr. Satterstrom reported the GMPC confirmed the following Manufacturing/ Industrial Centers: North Tukwila, Duwamish and Ballard/Interbay in Seattle, and the Kent Industrial Area. Fred remarked it is hard to tell what the benefits of being a manufacturing center will be. The policies give the CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 18, 1994 PAGE 4 impression that these areas will be favored in regards to transit, regional infrastructure, grants or monies, economic development, and fiscal incentives, but it is undefined as of yet. Kent's nomination was a "can't lose" approach because the City already has an area that meets the criteria (i.e. 10,000 employees and an area zoned) for an industrial center. One of the main objectives of an industrial center designation is to limit non -industrial uses, under the theory that it's hard to find industrial sites in King County. It would be even harder if cities opened up manufacturing zones to commercial or non -industrial uses that could pay more for the land. Then, industrial uses would have to keep moving out of King County. Kent already has zoning for M1, M2, and M3, about 4,500 acres of it that already excludes most of the non- industrial uses. Mr. Satterstrom added that the Comprehensive Plan proposal only includes the M2 and M3 zones. Mr. Satterstrom stated he is recommending the Planning Committee's endorsement of the Countywide Planning Policies and to forward this item to the full Council. Additional concerns were brought up again about the adopted 1987 Federal Manual for Wetlands versus the 1989 manual, which the Countywide Planning Policies have adopted. City Attorney Lubovich expressed concern too. He was asked by Chair Orr to contact King County to get some answers. After these questions to this issue are answered, Chair Orr recommended the Committee hold a special meeting on November 1, 1994 and to forward this item to the full Council on November 15, 1994. The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m. mp:c:pco1018.min ATTACHMENT A - to Planning Comittee Minutes of 11/1/94 IMPACTS OF COUNTY -WIDE PLANNING POLICIES ON PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORK PROGRAM Development regulations "All jurisdictions shall make the decisions required to implement the countywide planning policies and their respective comprehensive plans through development regulations. (December 1994 target date) Comprehensive Plan amendment "All jurisdictions shall amend comprehensive plans as needed by July 1995 to be consistent with adopted and ratified Phase II amendments." p. 7 Household and Employment targets "Each jurisdiction shall report to the GMPC or its successor the household and employment targets adopted in its comprehensive plan, and the estimated capacity..." p. 7 "Jurisdictions containing Urban and/or Manufacturing Centers shall report household and employment target ranges both for Centers and areas outside Centers... and... shall evaluate the availability of infrastructure ... to ensure that capacity is available to accommodate a six-year estimate of ... growth." p. 7 "The GMPC or its successor shall establish a growth management monitoring advisory committee which shall recommend information to be reported annually to serve as indicators and benchmarks for growth management policies." p. 8 "The GMPC or its successor shall establish a Land Capacity Task Force to accomplish the work program prepared in April 1994." p. 8 Minimum density ordinance "All jurisdictions in the Urban area will adopt minimum density ordinances and review and, where appropriate, remove regulatory barriers to accessory dwelling units and manufactured homes on individual lots ... (within one month of ratification) p. 12 Environmental protection "King County shall establish a technical committee by January 1995 to ... evaluate and comment upon new development regulations proposed by jurisdictions..." p. 16 Designation of potential annexation areas "In collaboration with adjacent cities and King County, ...each city shall designate a potential annexation area. Each potential annexation area shall be specific to each city. Potential annexation areas shall not overlap." p. 29 Coordination with other jurisdictions "All jurisdictions shall cooperate in developing comprehensive plans which are consistent with those of adjacent jurisdictions and ATTACHMENT A - to Planing Committee Minutes of 10/18/94 with the countywide planning policies." p. 30 Urban and Manufacturing Centers Within designated manufacturing and Industrial Centers, fast -trach permitting shall be implemented. p. 33 Urban Centers Should the City of Kent maintain its Urban Center designation, a number of tasks will need to be accomplished, including: 1. Establish targets for population and employment growth within the Center and monitor achievement of these targets 2. Infrastructure and services shall be planned and financed consistent with the expected rate of growth 3. The City shall identify transit station right-of-way in their plans and reserve right-of-way and potential station sites 4. Strategies for land assembly shall be established 5. Establish a streamlined permit process and simplified administrative appeal process 6. Establish a zoning bonus program pp. 34-37 Manufacturing/Industrial Centers Should the City of Kent maintain its designation as a Manufacturing Center a number of tasks will need to be completed, including: 1. Develop a plan to preserve and encourage aggregation of vacant parcels for manufacturing use 2. Identify transit station areas and right-of-way and preserve these sites 3. Conduct detailed SEPA review to minimize site specific environmental review for projects pp. 38-40 Activity areas "To encourage transit use, jurisdictions should establish minimum and maximum parking requirements that reduce dependence on the single -occupant vehicle (in activity centers). p. 42 Infill development "All jurisdictions shall develop neighborhood planning and design processes to encourage infill development and enhance community character and mix of uses." p. 45 Transportation There are a number of tasks related to transportation planning, including coordination with adjacent jurisdictions, setting of LOS standards between and among jurisdictions, and integrating pedestrian and bicycle systems with transit and motorized vehicle systems. While these tasks are not the principal work of the Planning Department, they will involve considerable coordination and work with several city departments, including Planning. Historic resources "All jurisdictions should work individually and cooperatively to identify, evaluate, and protect historic resources including ATTACHMENT A - to Planning Committee Minutes of 10/18/94 continued and consistent protection for historic resources and public art works." p.53 Open space "All jurisdictions shall work cooperatively to identify and protect open space corridors of regional significance." p. 54 Affordable housing "Each jurisdiction shall participate in developing county -wide housing resources and programs to assist the large number of low and moderate income households who currently do not have affordable, appropriate housing." p. 57 Jurisdictions shall revise "land use regulations as needed to remove any unreasonable requirements that may create barriers to siting and operating housing for special needs groups." p. 58 "All jurisdictions shall monitor residential development within their jurisdiction and determine the total number of new and redeveloped units receiving permits and units constructed, housing types, developed densities and remaining capacity for residential growth." p. 60 Economic development "Jurisdictions shall...monitor the land supply for commercial, industrial, institutional, resource and resdiential uses. Local jurisdictions shall, in five year increments, for the next 20 years identify the amount, character, and uses of land needed to achieve the jurisdiction's job growth goals." p. 69