Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 09/25/2000 PLANNING SERVICES Fred N. Satterstrom, AICP, Manager Phone 253-856-5454 KENT Fax 253-856-6454 WASHINGTON Address- 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent, WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing September 25, 2000 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Vice Chair Ron Harmon at 7 00 p in on Monday, September 25, 2000 in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall. LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS PRESENT Jon Johnson, Chair Fred N Satterstrom,AICP, Planning Mgr Ron Harmon Charlene Anderson, AICP Brad Bell Diana Nelson, AICP Steve Dowell Tom Brubaker, Deputy City Attorney Sharon Woodford Roger Lubovich, City Attorney Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD h MEMBERS ABSENT David Malik. Excused Terry Zimmerman, Excused APPROVAL OF MINUTES Brad Bell MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to approve the minutes of August 28, 2000 Motion carried ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS None #CPA-2000-1 URBAN SEPARATORS FRAMEWORK POLICY AMENDMENT Board member Dowell reported that a gentleman appeared at his work place to voice his concern over the urban separator issue and inquiring about the Land Use and Planning Board, Planning Committee and City Council procedures Mr Dowell stated that he did not present his opinion or offer information that would be construed as misleading • Board member Harmon stated that the ramifications of the urban separator issue would have a profound affect on Kent, surrounding communities and King County. Mr Harmon stated that the Board will accept public testimony from all interested individuals and consider it in a fair and equitable manner He stated that the Board would deliberate as long as necessary in order to reach a fair decision Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 2 Senior Planner Charlene Anderson submitted the following data for the record• • Page 12, the conclusion page of the legal opinion(was omitted from the staff report) • Resolution#1574 "Declaring an emergency to consider the urban separator issue" • Minutes from the June 20 and July 18 City Council meetings • November 3, 1999 letter from Denny Holt, President for Pacific Industries, by Holt and Associates, Inc • Materials originally submitted at the November 29, 1999 LUPB meeting specifically related to the Pacific Industries and Catmes Comprehensive Plan Amendments include -Exhibit One, the Lowe Estates Subdivision Neighborhood Response Report -Exhibit Two, the topographic survey map -Exhibit Three, a letter from Friends of Soos Creek Park along with a comprehensive land use map and zoning map from King County • The staff report from the November 29, 1999 public meeting • The minutes from the November 29, 1999 public meeting • Letter dated January 17, 2000 from Ardis Johnson directed to the Kent City Council, Kent Land Use and Planning Board, Mary Saucier with Prudential Meridian Real Estate regarding the rezone of Pacific Industries • A staff report dated January 18, 2000 and February 15, 2000 regarding the 1999 comp plan amendments addressed to Leona Orr, President and City Council members • The minutes from the February 15, 2000 City Council meeting • Letter dated March 15, 2000 addressed to the Honorable Jim White, Mayor City of Kent from Ron Sims, King County Executive • Letter dated September 25, 2000 addressed to the Honorable Jim White, Mayor City of Kent from Ron Sims, King County Executive and Larry Phillips, King County Council • E-mail dated September 25, 2000 from Ken Peckham, Snyder Homes Sharon Woodford MOVED and Steve Dowell SECONDED to accept Charlene Anderson's submittal of the additional articles into the record Motion carried Senior Planner, Charlene Anderson stated that the issue of urban separators first came to the attention of the Board members through the submittal of the Caimes and Pacific Industries 1999 comprehensive plan amendments located within areas designated urban separators by King County prior to Kent's annexation of these areas Those two comprehensive plan amendments were tabled by the City Council for consideration of the urban separator issue inside the City of Kent Ms Anderson stated that the urban separator issue was discussed at several Planning Committee and City Council meetings She stated that on July 5, 2000 the City Council voted to forward to the Board the following principals and guidelines for consideration and inclusion in the comprehensive plan and zoning code as appropriate A. PRINCIPLES: That the following principles relating to the Urban Separators be adopted: 1. Urban Separators provide benefits to the citizens of Kent and should be recognized and adopted with the current densities established for such by the County 2. New construction should not degrade existing nearby levels of isolation, tranquility and • environmental protection within existing urban areas 3. The ability of property owners to develop their property within existing standards should not be less than their neighbors as long as it does not degrade existing nearby levels of Urban Separator isolation and protection Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25,2000 Page 3 B GUIDELINES: That the Land Use and Planning Board consider and make recommendations as follows 1. Establish Urban Separator goals,which could include- Promoting animal habitat and connectivity, Protecting identified listed endangered species habitat, sensitive areas, and wetlands, Protecting the peace and tranquility of recreational areas, Protectmg geologically unstable areas, such as steep slopes, and Promoting water table recharge, 2. Review the areas of concern the Planning Committee identified in the existing Urban Separator in the county plan, 3 Develop a recommendation as to the appropriate Urban Separator boundary, using the Kent Urban Separator principles, 4. Consider whether clustering could be optional and adjust the proper zoning designation accordingly, if property should be moved out of an Urban Separator, and 5. Provide a recommendation for the proper zoning and any other conditions that would meet city Urban Separator goals and minimize restrictions on the property, if any property should be added to an Urban Separator. Ms Anderson stated that the urban separator issue resulted from the Growth Management Act, which states that "each city shall identify open space corridors within and between urban growth areas They shall include lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails and connection of critical areas " Ms Anderson stated that King County adopted county-wide planning policies with which the city of Kent must be consistent She stated that the city of Kent ratified those county wide planning policies, particularly LU-27, which defines urban separators as " low-density areas or areas of little development within the Urban Growth Area Urban Separators shall be defined as permanent low-density lands which protect adjacent resource lands, Rural Areas, and environmentally sensitive areas and create open space corridors within and between Urban Areas which provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits Designated urban separators shall not be redesignated to the future (in the 20-year planning cycle) to other urban uses or higher densities The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional a5 well as a local concern Therefore, no modifications should be made to the development regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence." Ms Anderson stated that the Soos Creek Community Plan and Soos Creek Basin Plan identifies the issue of urban separators in King County and includes several goals and policies Ms Anderson stated that the City of Kent's Legal Department generated a memorandum addressing urban separators which stated. " the county-wide planning policies cannot provide substantive direction or restrict the City's land use power in proposing comprehensive plan amendments of newly annexed areas, so long as such comprehensive plan amendments are consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's adopted comprehensive plan and with the overall framework of the adopted county-wide planning policies " Ms Anderson stated urban separators did not exist to Kent before the 1996 and 97 annexation of land that King County had designated as urban separators Subsequent review of some comprehensive plan amendments as well as the annexation zoning dealt with some of the urban separator areas Ms Anderson stated that some of the rezoning which occurred within the urban separator areas ranged from SR-1 to SR-3, SR-4 5 and SR-6. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25,2000 Page 4 Ms Anderson stated that staff proposes the following options• • Option 1 The City of Kent would not create any goals and policies related to urban separators, thereby not affecting change to Kent's comprehensive plan, the zoning code, zoning map nor the comprehensive plan land use map We would use the existing sensitive area regulations to comply with the King County's county wide planning policies related to urban separators • Option 2A proposes to adopt entirely King County's designated areas This option would not follow the principals and guidelines forwarded by the City Council to the Land Use and Planning Board This option would change the City of Kent Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map and Zoning Map to designate urban separators as one unit per acre This option would develop goals and policies for inclusion in the land use element of the comprehensive plan Urban separator amendments could only occur within five-year updates or when an emergency is declared by the City Council The City of Kent would coordinate with South King County agencies and adjacent cities to create a regional approach to urban separators, would link the urban separators of the City of Kent to those of adjacent cities and would encourage clustering of housing units, transfer of development rights, zero lot Imes as well as other land use patterns and funding options. This option would change the zoning and subdivision codes to define the parameters for cluster subdivisions within urban separators • Option 2B Ms Anderson stated that this option is similar to Option 2A, with the exception that certain areas have been designated for removal from the urban separator area whereas other areas have been proposed to be added. Ms Anderson indicated those areas proposed for deletion and inclusion • Option 3 would add and delete areas from the urban separator areas in King County's designation and would change the land use and zoning designations to one unit per acre Areas outside the city limits of Kent would not change from their current King County designation of one unit per acre Ms Anderson identified the affected areas. • Option 4 is similar to Option 3 but it would not change comprehensive land use plan map or zoning map densities or designations Ms Anderson stated that staff does not recommend Options 3 or 4 She stated that Option 3 customizes the urban separator for Kent and adds those lands that are existing parks to the urban separator area Ms Anderson stated that Option 3 would add lands along Highway 18 for which staff believes it would be best to establish a regional approach to transportation corridor open space prior to enacting a policy exclusively for Kent Ms. Anderson stated that a recommendation was made to include a policy in King County's 2000 Comprehensive Plan requiring King County to coordinate with the City of Seattle, the Washington State Department of Transportation and other urisl,ctions in order to link major elements of the open space system including the Cedar River, Lake Desire, Big Soos Creek, SR-18 and the Green River trail system Ms. Anderson stated that Option 3 proposes deleting from the urban separator an area north of 282ad Street between 132""and 144", deleting a significant linkage of streams, wetlands, parkland and sensitive wildlife habitat. Ms Anderson stated that staff does not recommend Option 4 She stated that Option 4 is similar to Option 3 but differs in that it recognizes urban separators while doing nothing to protect or increase open Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25,2000 Page 5 • space Ms Anderson stated that since zoning designations are not changed from what currently exist, the only effect this option would have is to restrict approval of future requests for increased density Ms Anderson stated that staff recommends Option 213, a county overlay with some adjustments She spoke at length regarding the details of this recommendation, referrmg to the staff report. In response to Board member Bell, Ms Anderson stated that her understanding was that the intent of the City Council's guidelines is to provide some principals for the Board to follow while considering the establishment of urban separator policies Ms Anderson deferred to Planning Manager, Fred Satterstrom who concurred Board member Ron Harmon questioned if the urban separator policy was in place at the time the Meridian area was annexed by the City of Kent Ms Anderson stated that King County designated the urban separator and that the City of Kent adopted a county-wide planning policy which is a framework policy with their comprehensive planning However, the City of Kent had no policies, goals, or designations for urban separators Mr Harmon, speaking for Ms Zimmerman, stated that she is concerned with how surrounding cities stand in reference to King County's urban separator policy. Ms Anderson stated that the City of Renton has adopted King County's urban separator designation and have adopted community separators in the May Valley area The City of Covington is supportive of King County's urban separator designations She stated that Covington has proposed increasing the urban separator area around Soos Creek Park, as well as adopting goals and policies related to urban separators . while adopting King County's low density designation. Ms. Anderson stated that it is her understanding that the City of Auburn is proposing to change their urban growth areas to remove any urban separator areas designated by King County within their urban growth area She stated that the other adjacent city is King County unincorporated Ms. Anderson stated that she included data on Maple Valley based on a request from Board member Ms Zimmerman although Maple Valley is not directly adjacent to Kent She stated that Maple Valley adopts urban separator concepts. Mr Harmon stated the majonty of the water serving Kent residents comes from the Maple Valley area and development occurring in that area will affect water quality Mr Satterstrom asked Ms Anderson to clarify staff s proposal of 2B Ms. Anderson quoted the Goal P LU-20 Establish urban separators to protect environmentally sensitive areas, including lakes, streams, wetlands, and geologically unstable areas such as steep slopes, to create open space corridors that provide environmental, visual, recreational and wildlife benefits within and between urban growth areas, and to take advantage of unusual landscape features such as cliffs or bluffs and environmentally unique areas. Ms. Anderson paraphrased the following policies under that goal • to establish urban separators as low density areas of no greater than one dwelling unit per acre, • to allow amendments to those urban separator areas only with the five year updates of the comprehensive plan unless an emergency is declared, • to require subdivisions within or adjacent to those areas to provide open space linkages, • To establish urban separators as links between and for protection of sensitive areas, public parks, open spaces or trails, critical aquifer recharge areas, flood plains, high value wetlands, unstable slopes, regionally or locally significant resource areas, fish and wildlife habitat and other unique environmental features Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25,2000 ,Page 6 Ms Anderson stated that Policy LU-20 5 refers to coordinating with adjacent cities, other agencies and unincorporated King County to create a regional approach She stated that Policy LU-20 6 refers to linking urban separators within Kent to those of adjacent cities and unincorporated King County. Ms Anderson stated that Policy LU-20 7 encourages well-designed land use patterns These land use patterns include clustering of housing units, transfer of development rights, zero lot lines and other techniques to protect and enhance urban separators. Policy LU 20.8 refers to consideration of funding options, land trust,purchase of development rights and other methods for public acquisition of urban separators Ms Anderson stated that clustering and urban separators would be defined in the Zoning and Subdivision Code amendments She stated that under the SR-1 Development Standards section of the Zoning and Subdivision Code, it will be established that dwelling units shall be required to be clustered, whenever those lands are located wholly or partially within the urban separator Ms Anderson stated that the density in the cluster subdivisions shall be no greater than the density that would be allowed on the parcel as a whole, using the maximum density provisions of the zoning district in which it is located Ms Anderson stated that the minimum lot size of individual lots within a cluster subdivision is 2500 square feet with a minimum lot width of 30 feet. Ms Anderson stated that the common open space in a cluster subdivision should be a minimum of 50% of the nonconstrained area of the parcel She stated that the open space tracts created by clustering shall be located and configured to create urban separators and green belts to connect and increase protective buffers for environmentally sensitive areas, to connect and protect wildlife habitat corridors and to connect existing or planned public parks or trails. • Ms Anderson stated that nonbuildable areas, creeks, wetlands, geological hazard areas and buffers shall not be used to determine a lot size and common open space requirements in a cluster subdivision All natural features such as streams and their buffers, significant stands of trees and rock outcropping, as well as the sensitive areas such as steep slopes wetlands and their buffers shall be preserved as open space in a cluster subdivision Ms Anderson stated that future development of the open space shall be prohibited by a permanent deed restriction and protected either through dedication to the general public use or through legal arrangements approved by the City of Kent sufficient to assure its preservation, maintenance and management Site obscuring fences are not permitted along cluster lot lines adjacent to the open space area and new lots created by any subdivision action shall be clustered in groups not exceeding 8 units There may be more than one cluster per project. Ms. Anderson stated that separation between cluster groups should be a minimum of 120 feet. Restrictions have not been placed on the amount of area for cluster residential development, and other subdivision changes mirror what the zoning code requirements would be Ms Anderson stated that the clustering regulations in urban separator areas give property owners more flexibility in developing their property The proposed guidelines and regulations mirror King County regulations for the most part In response to Mr Harmon, Ms Anderson stated that staff s decision to reevaluate urban separators within five years versus King County's 20 year plan (1992 — 2012) is that the five year period would coincide with the five year updates normally required with the Growth Management Act She stated that • staff proposes to begin the five years at the time that the urban separator issue is adopted by the City Council, the ordinance passed and published. Ms Anderson stated that the five years was chosen to allow the City of Kent opportunity to review urban separators as they relate to the five year update of the comprehensive plan per the Growth Management 9 Act as well as allow for flexibility specifically in emergencies Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 7 • Ms. Anderson stated that the term"emergency"as it relates to land use and planning was chosen as a tool to allow the City of Kent a means to correct any defects they may have inadvertently created, as the urban separator policy is new to the City and there needed to be a method in place to address any errors on an emergency basis Ron Harmon MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to open the public hearing Motion CARRIED Bill H. Williamson, 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2750, Seattle, WA 98104 stated that he was testifying on behalf of a 20 acre parcel of property located at 27864 124"' Avenue Southeast owned by the Pfaffs He stated that staff has identified this property for deletion as part of Option 2B which he fully supports. Mr Williamson submitted a copy of the City of Kent's Sanitary Sewer Facility Map indicating urban utilities surrounding the Pfaff property for the record as Exhibit #1 He stated that three sides of this property are developed as single family plats and parcels to the south have established homes and outbuildings as well as city sewer systems running through and around the property Mr Williamson stated that in effect, the Pfaff property is surrounded on all four sides by development. It would not be sensible to identify the Pfaff property as urban separator He encouraged the Board to support Option 2B Rita Bailie, 20607 101`i Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98031 stated that she represents the Rainier Audubon and submitted a letter addressed to Leona Orr, President and City Council dated June 6, 2000 for the record as Exhibit#2 Ms Bathe referred to her letter in stating that "Kent citizens support the protection of urban separators, which are vital quality of life areas for people as well as the life support system for certain, wildlife species" She stated that the Audubon Society voted for growth management and does not wish to see intrinsic parts of it removed or negatively altered Ms Bailie stated that the County Wide Planning Policy LU-27 states that "designated urban separators shall not be redesignated in the future in the 20 year planning cycle to other urban uses or higher densities." Ms Bailie stated that Rainier Audubon supports either Option 2A or 2B as well as a 20 year planning cycle as urban separators are defined as permanent low density lands She stated that the Audubon supports adopting the existing King County urban separator boundaries or adding more land under the urban separator zoning. Ms Bathe stated that the Audubon would like the term "emergency" carefully redefined or stricken entirely as its current definition is vague and leaves urban separators at risk She stated that she believes that Safeco field came about as the result of an emergency Ms Bailie submitted a letter addressed to the Land Use and Planning Board dated September 25,2000 for the record as Exhibit#3 Joe Miles, 24639 156th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98042 stated that he is President of"Friends of Soos Creek Park" a nonprofit organization committed to the enhancement and protection of Soos Creek Park Mr Miles submitted a packet of material which included, a letter addressed to the Land Use and Planning • Board dated September 25, 2000, a 1994 King County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, a February 1995 King County Zoning Atlas and the King County Growth Management Planning Council Countywide Planning Policies as Exhibit#4. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2000 ,Page 8 Mr Miles stated that his organization is encouraged by the recent changes made to the urban separator policy by City Council and Planning Services and concurs with much of staff's report However, he voiced concern that consistency needs to be maintained between all jurisdictions in King County as required by the Growth Management Act He stated that RCW 78 210 requires county-wide planning policies to be developed as a basic framework from which all cities and the county would develop their comprehensive plans. Mr Miles stated that the LU-27 county-wide planning policies were adopted and ratified by the cities and the county in 1992 Mr Miles highlighted the basic factors of LU-27 from which comprehensive plan policies should be developed Mr Miles stated that RCW 36.70.100 requires local jurisdictions within King County with common boundaries or related regional issues to develop consistent, common comprehensive plans, which should be updated simultaneously Mr Miles stated that in 1994 King County's comprehensive plan designated a sensitive area corridor surrounding Soos Creek as an urban separator He stated that this corridor was part of the Soos Creek Community Plan as well as the King County Comprehensive Plan, which included extensive environmental review reports. Mr. Miles stated that Covington, Kent and King County abut the Soos Creek area and that Covington supports a 20-year planning cycle. He stated that his organization supports the county map corresponding with Option 2A. Mr Miles stated that the staff report says that Policy 20 1 allows for a five-year review cycle for urban separators and believes this to be inconsistent with Policy LU-27 He encouraged the Board to consider a more consistent 20-year review cycle Mr Miles stated that his organization is in favor of deleting the term "emergency" or redefine the term in LU-20 2 to the following: "Designated urban separators shall not be redesignated in the future in the 20 year planning cycle to other urban uses or higher densities consistent with Covington, consistent with King County, consistent with the county wide planning policies ", striking the five years and in addition saying "unless in an emergency which poses an imminent threat to public health and safety is declared by the City Council " Then the public would have a better understanding of"emergency" Mr Miles asked for clarification that the area between Kent Kangley and Highway 18 would be reestablished as SR-I under these proposals and questioned the City of Kent's growth targets for housing Ms Anderson stated that under staffs Options 2A, 2B and 3, those areas between Kent Kangley and Highway 18 would be rezoned to SR-1. Ms Anderson stated that Kent is on track with meeting our 20-year housing targets annualized over a yearly basis She stated that the buildable lands inventory and analysis currently under evaluation will tell the city how efficiently land is being used and whether or not the city will have enough capacity in the future to meet housing targets. Mr Miles stated that he primarily objected to Option 2B as he felt the policy was inconsistent both legally • and historically Mr Miles stated that Option 213 was inconsistent with the way in which the urban separator was originally established through the Soos Creek Comprehensive Plan and King Countys Comprehensive Plan. Geraldine Miles, 24807 156th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98042 yielded her time to Doctor Klaus Richter. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 9 • Dr. Klaus Richter, 11040 104tb Avenue Northeast, Kirkland, WA 98033 stated that he is a wetland ecologist specializing in wildlife issues and is in favor of retaining the urban separator He stated that this judgement comes from ten years of studying wetlands in the King County area to determine effects of urbanization on wetlands He stated that his research is published through many scientific journal articles. Mr. Richter stated that his summaries have been published in comprehensive detail in a book entitled "Wetlands and Urbanization Implications for the Future" which he submitted for the record as Exhibit #5. Mr Richter stated that a hydrologist; water quality specialist, botanist and soil specialists analyzed the wetlands The concluding study clearly demonstrated that the most important factor to preserving wetland wildlife (frogs, salamanders, toads, robins, warblers, flycatchers, field mice, shrews, and moles) is by protecting both wetlands as well as retaining forested land adjacent to those wetlands Mr Richter stated that as urbanization intensified closer to wetlands, wildlife habitats were fragmented, substantially decreasing the number of wetland associated species while at the same time allowing rats and mice to flourish, displacing native mammals Mr Richter stated that the ordinance pertaining to sensitive areas and their buffers are inadequate to protect amphibian habitat Mr Richter stated that he supports King County's Option 2A and submitted for the record, a study on "Some Thoughts on Wildlife in Landscape-Level Wetland Assessments"as Exhibit#6. Mr Richter stated that King County has a clause in their sensitive areas ordinance stating that they do not have all wetland location maps available nor are they aware of where all wetlands are located, leaving the responsibility of locating wetlands to the individual land owner. Elizabeth Miles, 24639 156th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98042 stated that she is a regular park user and leads nature walks for elementary school children and adults on the Soos Creek Trail. She stated that she supports Option 2A map as King County originally designated it Ms Miles stated that her two concerns regard consistency and policy language. She stated that Friends of Soos Creek Park has collected 1,289 signatures from citizens requesting preservation of the current urban separator policy of one home per acre ratified by the City of Kent in 1992. Ms Miles submitted the Urban Separator Signature Petitions for the record as x i i . These petitions indicate that Soos Creek Park is a regional park and trail used by people from many local communities including Kent, Covington,Renton, Maple Valley,and Issaquah Ms Miles stated that this petition indicates that the urban separator is a regional issue, not just a City of Kent issue She stated that the Growth Management Act requires jurisdictions with common borders or related regional issues such as the Soos Creek Park to maintain consistent comprehensive plans Ms. Miles stated that Kent's proposed policy must be modified to reflect the permanency of urban separator designations such as retaining a 20-year planning cycle Ms Miles stated that she would like to see the term "emergency" removed from the policy language as she could not conceive of an emergency that would cause a city to increase density in the sensitive areas surrounding Soos Creek Park, which deserves preservation • Barbara Wuepper, 1914 36th Street Southeast, Auburn, WA 98002 stated that she would like to see Policy LU 20 2 changed to reflect a twenty year rather than a five year review period and delete the emergency option YI Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25,2000 Page 10 Bob Nelson, 24048 156th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98042 commended staff on their comprehensive, thorough staff analysis Mr. Nelson concurred with Mr Miles in stating that the City of Kent's policy and comprehensive plan should be consistent with adjoining Jurisdictions concerning urban separators and cited RCW 36 70A 100 He stated that the urban separator review period should be 20 and not 5 years. Mr Nelson referred to the January 20. 2000 City of Kent's legal brief in speaking at length on the Countywide Planning Policy LU-27 Walt Kuehlthau, 24116 145th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98042 commended staff on the thoroughness of their report and presentations He stated that he supports Option 2A to accept King County's designated urban separator, to maintain consistency with the surrounding communities and establish a 20-year review policy without increasing density in the urban separator area. Mr Kuehlthau stated that he would like reference to "emergency" stricken from the urban separator policy as it signals a red flag allowing City Council to declare an emergency at their whim Denise Brumbaugh, 25902 146th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98042 stated that her property abuts the urban separator She stated that her family moved to Kent due to the natural abundance of green wide open spaces and purchased their home with the knowledge that the area surrounding them would be ; protected for at least 20 years Ms Brumbaugh voiced her support for Option 2A to keep the urban separator agreement intact She stated that she would like the review period to remain at 20 years and see that the term"emergency" is more thoroughly defined" or stricken from the documentation s Roger Lubovich, City Attorney in response to Board member Bell's request stated that the 20 years is part of the planning cycle under the Growth Management Act and that the emergency designation is part of the City of Kent's comp plan process He stated that per the Growth Management Act the City of Kent could generally only accept comprehensive plan amendments once per year Mr Lubovich stated that the city code defines emergency as a procedure designed to allow for the processing of comprehensive plan amendments and is a designation assigned by Council He stated that the urban separator issue was being heard before the Land Use and Planning Board because of an emergency declaration resolution generated by the Council as part of the amendment process Catherine Patton, 24430 148th Avenue Southeast, Covington,WA 98042 stated that she has resided in her rural Kent location for 15 years and voiced support for retaining urban separators She stated that the community has the obligation to look at the future needs of their area, which may not be met if the urban separator is changed Ms Patton stated that her property abuts Soos Creek and she supports the wetland issues as well as being sensitive to the wellhead designation She stated that her home is located at the bottom of a hill and she obtains her water through a well system Ms Patton raised concern that if the urban separator designation changes this could cause additional pollution in the area as well create water run off problems Ms Patton stated that people have the right to develop their property but that we have a greater obligation to preserve urban separators Bernard Bailie, 20607 101st Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98031 stated that as an enthusiastic Soos Creek Trail user, he voiced his concurrence with the comments made by Joe Miles and the Friends of Soos Creek Land Use and Planning Board Minutes September 25, 2000 Page 11 • John Cate, 15232 Southeast 272nd, Kent, WA 98042 stated that when he moved to Kent nine years ago he expected to reside in a tranquil rural area He stated that he found this tranquility in the Soos Creek Park, along the trail and from the water from a well near Soos Creek. Mr. Cate stated that although the urban separator areas are ghosts of their former selves, they need to be retained in order to provide a relaxing reprieve from urbanization that only a wilderness like area can provide Mr Cate stated that he supports the option to keep King County's original plan for urban separators and said that he would like to see the term"emergency"better defined Ardis Johnson, 24039 146th Place Southeast, Kent, WA 98064 stated that when urban barriers are considered they should be doled out with equality She stated that she has owned her 8 6 acre parcel of land for over 50 years and that it is zoned SR-1 Ms Johnson stated that two sides of her property are developed at 4 5 units per acre and that she should be granted the same opportunity to develop her property at the same level as the adjoining property owners Ms. Johnson stated that reducing her property value by 50 percent sounds like punitive zoning Mr. Harmon stated that she would be equitably treated concerning development of her property as development has occurred around her property Ms Johnson voiced her opposition to a 20-year review period, as Kent will need to be able to accommodate housing needs as the population of the area grows She stated that Kent's land use laws currently in effect protect the property owner with slope setbacks, wetland exclusions, stormwater retention ponds, cul-de-sacs, traffic flow configurations as well as other restrictive requirements before approval for development. Ms Johnson stated that where open space is required to safe the salmon and wildlife, the City of Kent should introduce a bond taxing the citizens to purchase the land necessary to protect Soos Creek Steve Dowell MOVED and Brad Bell SECONDED to continue the public hearing to Monday, October 16, 2000 at 7 00 p in in the City of Kent's Council Chambers Motion CARRIED ADJOURNMENT Chair Jon Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9 25 p in. Respectfully Submitted, Fred N Satterstrom, AICP Secretary •