Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 05/16/1995 CITY OF LQ\LC!j CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES May 16 , 1995 4 : 00 PM Committee Members Present City Attornev' s Office Leona Orr, Chair Laurie Evezich Jon Johnson Roger Lubovich Tim Clark Planning Staff Other City Staff Jim Harris Margaret Porter Other Guests Kevin O'Neill Fred Satterstrom Holly Nydegger Linda Phillips J. Steve Harer Marilyn Caretti Iris Stripling Janette Nuss Ralph Fitzthum AMENDMENT PROCEDURES FOR KENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - (K. O'Neill) Senior Planner Kevin O'Neill summarized the three added sections of the Amendment Procedures for the Kent Comprehensive Plan as requested at the last meeting. The three added sections were Standard of Review (12 . 02 . 050) , Hearing Procedures - notice requirement 12 . 02 . 060, and City Council action (12 . 02 . 070) . Kevin explained that Section 12 . 02 . 050 spells out three criteria which both staff and ultimately the Council would consider when looking at either text or map amendments relating to findings that the Council would make in terms of if the amendments are to be adopted. He stated that Section 12 . 02 . 060 relates to hearing procedures . There are different notice procedures whether there is a text amendment or a map amendment . If it is a map amendment, it would be advertised and noticed the same as a rezone. In regards to the last Section 12 . 02 . 070, there was some discussion at the last meeting relating to needing a time frame within which the Council would make their determination or decision once they had received the information. This section provides a sixty (60) day time- line once the Council receives the recommendation(s) . Kevin also pointed out a very small change to Section 12 . 02 . 030, Time of filing. This change clarifies that the Planning Department has the responsibility of establishing the application procedures and determining whether or not an application is complete or not . The underlined sentence below was added: CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 16, 1995 PAGE 2 "Annual amendments to the comprehensive plan shall be submitted to the Kent Planning Department by September 1 of each calendar year. Requests for amendments shall be submitted on forms prescribed by the Planning Department . Incomplete amendment applications will not be accepted for filing. Requests received each year after September 1 shall be considered in the following year' s comprehensive plan amendment process . " Kevin asked the Committee members for questions . Councilmember Johnson expressed concern as to whether Section 12 . 02 . 060, "notification of all property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the affected property" is adequate language. Fred replied that discretion will take place on a comprehensive plan amendment of at least 200 feet and probably more. Fred explained comprehensive plan amendments are different because they are more in a policy making role . It' s not like a Hearing Examiner interpretting policy in a quasi-judicial role. Fred gave an example if a potential comprehensive plan amendment occurred to North Park located on James Street . If an application was submitted, their application proposal has the signatures of the affected property owners directly related to this particular application. When the Planning Department staff reviews the application, they look at it in a broad area and determine whether this is a plan amendment or a policy role . When this is brought to the Planning Commission and City Council, the Department would provide many alternatives and alter the boundary lines . These changes would go beyond the property owners listed on the actual application. If the Department had taken the 200 foot limitation literally, the Department could be ultimately holding a public hearing and going for a recommendation that involves people that weren' t notified. Related to the North Park example, Fred stated the Department would be notifying people beyond the application and include notification of all affected property oweners based on the staff' s alternatives and then a 200 foot radius . There was much discussion on this . Chair Orr stated she agreed with Fred and suggested stating "at least 200 feet" . Assistant Attorney Evezich commented this language could work against the City since there is a burden on the City if the language is not as clear as possible. Roger Lubovich expressed concern about leaving areas open for discretion which could lead to discretionary action against the City. Fred reported that there is a section in the City code that gives the Planning Director some authority to broaden the notification area. The language does not say at least 200 feet but more if in the judgment of the Planning Director a larger area is necessary. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 16, 1995 PAGE 3 Laurie Evezich suggested not changing the language but reminded the Committee that the Planning Director would have to temper his discretion from being arbitrary and capricious by treating each instance with the same considerations, whatever they were, each and every time. Mr. Harris suggested the Zoning Code language be referenced in the ordinance or flat out change the language to 300 feet or 400 feet so no discretionary language could be challenged. Ms . Evezich stated to keep mind that this is 200 feet of the affected property, which is potentially not a single applicant, is a designation on a map of a very broad area. So 200 feet around or within that area is like putting a buffer of 200 feet around that area. In addition, it looks like we're talking about looking at the cumulative impacts of all of the planning map applications each year. There is a large number of people so are likely to get notice of all of the potential impacts of all of the plan map application amendments . There was a lot of discussion on notification and who wwould be notified with this language . Chair Orr brought up another concern on Section 12 . 02 . 060 - Hearing Procedures, and asked if the City is required by some State law for these amendments to go the Planning Commission. Laurie said yes . Mr. Harris commented that the City of Kent is a code City and that we have to go through the process of a Planning Commission, via City Clerk and Mayor' s office to make changes to our City code . Chair Orr asked that this item be pulled from the City Council agenda scheduled for tonight' s meeting. She asked that this item be brought back to the Committee meeting schedule for June 20, 1995 and for this item and ordinance be put on the June 20th City Council agenda. ADULT USE ZONING #ZCA-95-1 - (F. Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom briefly went over the staff report and mentioned that pages two and four were mistakenly omitted and the missing pages were handed out at the meeting. He reported to the Committee that the staff recommended Alternative #4, which was the one that had the most sites (32 potential sites) . He reported that the Planning Commission did not have a majority vote to come up with a recommendation. They held hearings on February 27, March 27, and April 24, 1995 . City Attorney Roger Lubovich suggested something that the Committee might want to consider. He suggested the City consider looking into this matter at the same time that the Planning Department does the Growth Management Act zoning changes related to the Comprehensive Plan which are coming up soon. He recommended this because the zoning map may have some impact in how many sites would be available, potential issues related to mixed use residential, and issues related to the fact the City recently adopted new licensing regulations that broadens the CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 16, 1995 PAGE 4 definition of facilities subject to adult entertainment licensing. Roger recommends the City amend the Zoning Code to meet the newly adopted licensing regulations . Roger has already started a drafting a draft ordinance. Chair Orr stated she doesn' t have any problem with doing this except for the concern on the second moratorium that is in effect right now. She asked if the City would be able to successfully adopt a third one. If the can, she does not have a problem with his suggestion. She recommends that Roger bring back a proposal that encumbances all of the changes . She thinks the better job the Council can do to resolve all of the issues, the better off the City will be . Mr. Harris commented that he thinks the Council needs to keep this in abeyance or defer action on this issue until after the Planning Commission has done everything they need to do on the Zoning Code. Chair Orr asked Roger to find out if in fact the City can extend the moratorium if the City needs to do this. She said she would like to keep this issue at the Planning Committee and make a recommendation to the full Council without this issue going back to the Planning Commission (because the Planning Commission already has shown us that the majority is not willing to deal with this) . She would like to incorporate this issue after the zoning changes have been done on the Kent Comprehensive Plan to be able to see the whole picture before this adult use zoning issue can be fully resolved. Roger said the Council currently has a recommendation which is a "no recommendation" from the Planning Commission right now. The Committee can either act on it now or hold this in abeyance until later and take another review of this to make sure this is not impacted after the Kent Comprhensive zoning changes have been done. Roger also stated he doesn' t see a problem in extending the moratorium. Marilyn Caretti, 4604 Somerset Court, Kent, WA 98032, turned in for the record today 240 signatures that are from both east and west hill and others supporting staff' f alternative #4 recommendation. Planning Commission member, Janette Nuss, 26220 42 S . , Kent, WA 98032, asked if the Council had received the Findings report she had submitted to the City Council . Leona mentioned this was received at the last Council meeting. Janette reported she had contacted nine (9) different cities in Western Washington regarding this adult use issue and she explained why. After this research, she stated it confirmed her belief that option #4 was truly the best option for the City to go with and hopes the Council will see this too. Councilmember Clark made the MOTION and Councilmember Johnson SECONDED a motion to review adult use zoning concurrently with Growth Management implementing zoning. Motion carried. CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 16, 1995 PAGE 5 AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A BUDGET TO THE 1994 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT GRANT (GMA) GRANT FUNDS RECEIVED - (M. Porter) Administrative Assistant Margaret Porter went over the memo enclosed in the agenda packet . The following action was requested by the City Council Planning Committee as follows : 1) For the City of Kent to receive the 1994 Growth Management Act grant dollars of $55, 754 and to reduce the overstated budget for 1993 of ($18, 451) ; 2) Authorization to establish a budget for 1995 of $37, 303 ; and 3) To forward this item to the City Council on June 6, 1995 for approval . Councilmember Clark MOVED and Councilmember Johnson SECONDED a motion to approve the aforementioned three (3) actions . Motion carried. REGULATORY REVIEW: HARER - (F. Satterstrom) Mr. Satterstrom reported that Mr. Harer submitted a regulatory review request proposal to amend the Mobile Home Park Code to allow more than one single family dwelling in a mobile home park. Currently, the code allows one permanent, single family structure in a mobile home park, and that dwelling must be used by the manager or owner. This application stems from a code violation. A service building in a mobile home park had been converted to a residential dwelling without a building permit when it was discovered by the code enforcement officer. When the applicant applied for a building permit and was routed to the Planning Department, the conflict with the mobile home park code was discovered at that time . Fred asked Mr. Harer for clarification about his stated language in the application of "multiple single family dwellings" . It is an existing building of a previous laundary room with all the plumbing and electrical in and it could be made into a one-bedroom unit . Chair Orr clarified that Mr. Harer is asking for some sort of action that allows the building to exist before Mr. Harer can be expected to see if it exists in a way that Mr. Harer can use it . Fred said he has been told by the Planning Department that this is not an authorized use; therefore, the Department would be inclined to decline the permit . Mr. Harer has submitted for a change in the code to see whether or not the City would want to change the code requirement . If the code requirements are changed to allow another unit, then the processing of the permit could be done but right now the permit is on hold pending the outcome of the regulatory review. Mr. Satterstrom stated the action that the Committee members would take, if you want to approve this, would be move this forward for a CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES MAY 16, 1995 PAGE 6 public hearing at the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the Council . Chair Orr recommended some useful and helpful language . Instead of using the words "multiple single family dwellings" , she recommended to say "existing structures being able to be converted to residential uses" . Councilmember Clark MOVED and Councilmember Johnson SECONDED a motion to forward the Harer regulatory review to the Planning Commission for a hearing. Motion carried. REGULATORY REVIEW: FITZTHUM - (F. Satterstrom) Mr. Satterstrom reported that Mr. Fitzthum submitted an application for a regulatory review proposes to add automobile repair as a principally permitted use in the M-1 (Industrial Park) zone . This amendment proposal would allow automobile repair in the M1 zoning district . Mr. Fitzthum asked about whether a home occupation would allowed because he buys a damaged car at an auto auction, fixes it, and takes the vehicle back to the Auburn auction and sells it . There are not the ordinary customers coming and going on the property etc. There was discussion of a concern in the past the Chamber of Commerce testifying before the Planning Commission of being opposed to adding commercial uses in the M-1 zone. Currently, automobile repair is allowed in DC, CC, and CM-2 zones, which are hundreds of acres in the City already. Chair Orr requested that this item be brought back to the Committee at the next meeting of June 20, 1995 to get more information and gets the Chamber' s feeling about this type of use, particularly since this is not an ordinary auto repair business like the code now refers to. KINGSTONE PRELIMINARY PLAT (#SU-94-11) TIME EXTENSION - (J. Harris) Mr. Harris briefly stated this preliminary plat was approval by King County in April 1992 and a one-year extention is being requested. Councilmember Johnson MOVED and Councilmember Clark SECONDED a motion to approve a one-year extention of the Kingstone Preliminary Plat #SU- 94-11 and to forward this item to the City Council on June 6, 1995 . Motion carried. mp:pco516 .min