Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 10/16/2000 PLANNING SERVICES 10 Fred N. Satterstrom,AICP, Manager VUWAV Phone 253-856-5454 Kt N-I- WASHI Fax 253-856-6454 INGTON Address 220 Fourth Avenue S Kent,WA 98032-5895 LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Continued Public Hearing October 161(2000 The continued meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Jon Johnson at 7 00 p in on Monday, October 16, 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, Vice Chair Charlene Anderson, AICP Brad Bell Roger LuboN ich, City Attorney Steve Dowell Pat Fitzpatrick, Asst City Attorney David Malik Bill Wolmski, Env Engineer Mgr Sharon Woodford Pamela Mottram, Administrative Secretary Terry Zimmerman APPROVAL OF MINUTES Terry Zimmerman MOVED and David Malik SECONDED to approve the minutes of September 25, 2000 with the following revision to add after Mr Dowell's statement in the sentence " would be construed as misleading and he would recuse himself if someone objects " Motion CARRIED. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None COMMUNICATIONS None NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Manager, Fred Satterstrom stated that there will be a November 7 City Council public hearing on the moratorium affecting urban separator lands He stated that City Council passed a moratorium affecting properties designated on King County's Comprehensive Plan as urban separators as well as any land proposed by Kent's Planning staff for deletion or addition to the urban separator Mr Satterstrom stated that the moratorium could remain in affect until this recommendation goes forward to City Council and a policy is adopted Mr Satterstrom stated that the moratorium disallows application of subdivisions, shortplats and rezones that would potentially increase the density of residential development in those areas Mr Satterstrom stated that a notice was mailed to all people in those designated areas announcing both this October 16 continued hearing and the upcoming moratorium hearing • #CPA-2000-1 URBAN SEPARATORS FRAMEWORK POLICY AMENDMENT Senior Planner, Charlene Anderson stated that she testified at the last hearing that the City of Renton fully accepted King County's urban separator land use designations and wished to correct this information She stated that Renton accepts in principal the concept of urban separators She stated that the City of f Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 2 Renton desires flexibility in designating lands within their urban separator areas, which they define as community separators Ms. Anderson stated that in all options except Option 1, King County designations would remain at one unit per acre on urban separator lands designated in the 1994 King County comprehensive plan and located outside Kent city limits Ms Anderson stated there are vested plats in the added areas along SR-IS under Options 3 and 4 of their report They include Meridian Pacific and Meridian Ridge. Ms Anderson submitted a letter from Rebecca Westbv dated October 16, 2000 for the record as #1 and an E-mail letter received from Mr Len Elliott on September 25, 2000 supporting Option 2A for the record as Exhibit#2, Roger Lubovich, City Attorney, submitted an October 16, 2000 memorandum from the City of Kent Legal department for the record as Exhibit#3 highlighting critical issues Mr Lubovich stated that although there are neither case laws nor Central Puget Sound Hearings Board cases on urban separators, there is a Snoqualmie case on countywide planning policies over a 1993 matter He referenced the statute relating to what the Growth Management Act requires of cities and counties on these county-wide planning policies. Mr. Lubovich said that 36 70A 210 states that the countywide planning policy is a written policy statement for establishing the framework for county and city comprehensive plans He said that the statute says that countywide planning policies cannot stop the land use powers of cities Mr Lubovich stated that the Snoqualmie case defines the land use power of a city as a development regulation such as zoning or similar regulations He stated that the intent of the countywide planning policies is to provide substantive direction to comp plans which in turn, provide direction to development regulations Mr Lubovich stated that countywide planning policies provide the vehicle for procedural consistency between cities and the county and that the City of Kent should follow these policies Mr Lubovich stated that Snoqualmie prepared a test to determine whether their legal substantive direction to a comprehensive plan meets • legitimate regional directives, • provides substantive direction to the comp plan without affecting the development regulations of the local jurisdictions, • is consistent with the other objectives of growth management. Mr. Lubovich stated that the City of Kent has ratified the CPP LU-27 "urban separator countywide planning policy" and is bound to follow that policy to the extent that it does not interfere with the City's development regulations Mr Lubovich stated that it is his understanding that the county has deleted urban separators from the Meridian area annexed by Kent in 1996 from their current comprehensive plan map He said that the City of Kent should establish a comprehensive plan, map and policies for the urban separator consistent with LU-27 Mr Lubovich stated that those properties zoned three or 4.5 units per acre are not consistent with the intent of low-density urban separators, therefore, could be excluded from the map He stated that if these properties are not excluded from the urban separators, it is incumbent upon the City of Kent to rezone these properties to a lower density to avoid establishing conflict within our own polices or with the intent of the urban separator policy under the county's plan However, if the City of Kent decides to include the Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 3 high-density properties as part of the urban separator, zoning issues will need to be evaluated and the issue of"taking", which is parcel specific, considered as they arise Mr. Lubovich stated that if the City of Kent has permitted, vested applications pending, the applicant is entitled to proceed with their development In response to Ms Zimmerman, Mr Lubovich stated that the Legal Department's opinion is that the City of Kent has always been bound by the Countywide Planning Policies He stated that those policies could not dictate how the City of Kent regulates zoning or other development for the urban separator areas Mr Lubovich stated that the 1996 or 1997 amendment to the Growth Management Act states clearly that local jurisdictions have great deference in their ability and authority to develop local regulations He stated that if the City of Kent develops a regulation, which defeats the purpose of the countywide planning policy, this could manifest problems for the city He stated that 4 5 units per acre does not meet the intent of a low-density buffer under the policy Mr Harmon asked for clarification regarding staff s report concerning the goals and policies beginning with LU-20 through LU-20 8 Mr Lubovich stated that if the City of Kent wishes to review urban separator policy every 5 years, they would need to coordinate their review jointly with the county and neighboring jurisdictions In response to Mr Bell, Mr Lubovich stated that if the City of Kent were to act with the intent to defeat the urban separator, this would create legal challenges He stated that the city is bound by a policy to have urban separators and that the County could have a good basis for suing the City of Kent if the city were to deviate from the countywide planning policies. Mr. Lubovich defined a "vested application" as a substantially completed development application filed with the City of Kent for land use proposals that the city is working with He stated that a number of applications have been filed and that the applicant is legally entitled to proceed with that application Mr. Lubovich stated that for the City of Kent to prevent them from fulfilling that development or their right to develop by changing zoning would cause a "takings" issue In response to Mr Dowell, Mr Lubovich stated that an mterlocal agreement exists between the City of Kent and the County This agreement concerns pending zoning and land use applications at the time the applications were filed in the county and subsequently turned over to Kent because of the Meridian annexation Mr Lubovich stated that he is unaware of any new interlocal agreements between the City and County In response to Mr Dowell, Mr Lubovich stated that City Council adopted Resolution 1325 on September 1, 1992 with a subsequent adoption of Resolution 1326 ratifying Kent's proposed growth management planning goals These goals were based on goals contained in the Growth Management Act and County- wide Planning Policies There was a third ratification referred to in the memo Bill Wolinski, City of Kent Environmental Engineer, Dept of Public Works stated that he performed an analysis of the potential environmental impacts from development of the area located north of 282nd Street between 124th Avenue and 128th Avenue He stated that planning staff is recommending deletion of this parcel from the urban separator Mr Wolinski stated he looked at the principal impacts associated with storm water runoff from the • development based on existing conditions, at one dwelling unit per acre and with the potential of development at 4 5 units per acre. Mr Wolinksi stated that Kent adopted King County's criteria when they annexed the area, which is part of the Soosette Creek system He stated that these downstream areas are highly erodable Mr Wolinski stated that the City of Kent has stringent requirements for detention of stormwater in this particular area Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 4 Mr Wohnski stated detention ponds restrict the amount of water leaving the site and when a site is developed, the proportion of water flowing into the ground lessens with the density of development or the increase in imperviousness He stated that the amount of water that runs off the site increases. Mr. Wohnski stated that depending on the amount of impervious cover, there is a total increase in stormwater volume as the density of development increases He stated that when development increases from one to 4 5 dwelling units per acre, there is a dramatic increase in stormwater volume although the rate of release can be regulated Mr Wolmski stated that the principle adverse impact this has on the stream systems and environment is that less water enters the ground water system He stated that this impact is particularly acute with reference to the Endangered Species Act, as during the dry season there is not enough ground water to replenish the summer stream flows located downgrade from these sites. Mr Wolinski stated that the current Endangered Species Act requires 200-foot corridors on either side of the streams for protection He stated that the site he evaluated is located in the lower part of the West Soosette Creek system and at the time of annexation, the City of Kent completed a comprehensive fisheries assessment Mr Wohnski stated that Coho Salmon and Cutthroat Trout were located immediately downstream of this parcel He stated that this area could be considered sensitive due to the proximity of the parcel to these stream systems Mr Wohnski stated that he believes the rational the county was following in establishing the urban separators is that these areas were relatively undeveloped at the time and set in an area of high fish use with high land-cover value. He stated that the County wanted to retain urban separators although development had occurred in this area He stated that this site is contiguous to a larger urban separator system spanning both sides of the creek In response to Mr Malik,Mr. Wohnski stated that development of this particular parcel of land would not have a direct impact on the City of Kent's water supply as this site does not lie in the ground water recharge areas for the city's water supply system Mr Wohnski stated that from a storm water quality standpoint, our management capabilities in handling stormwater are in a relative infancy as far as our ability to prevent adverse impacts from development He stated that the city requires bioswales and wet ponds which are only 60 to 70 percent affective and stated that there is an increase in pollution loading as a result of development Karen Johnson, 31028 W. Lake Morton Dr Southeast, Kent, WA stated that she is in the process of purchasing the property at 24039 146th Place Southeast and voiced her support generally for maintaining urban separators. She stated that staff has defined urban separators as permanent low-density lands which protect adjacent resource lands Ms Johnson stated however, that she would like City Council to look at the lay of the land and consider where the natural boundaries are when defining the areas that need protection She indicated that, for example, a ridgelme in the Johnson property appears to create a clear demarcation for urban separators as it runs along the eastern edge of the property line clear to the road Ms Johnson stated that 240th provides a natural separator as well as the 20 to 60 percent ravine slope adjacent to 240th running down towards Soos Creek Ms Johnson stated that the Johnson's 8 acre parcel should be deleted from the urban separator as a majority of the property adjoins an extremely dense development on the south and west and does not meet the criteria for low-density • Ms Johnson stated that this property contains a water and sewer infrastructure along the property line for development purposes With setbacks and other required restrictions already in place, there would be more than an adequate buffer between the houses and the creek. Ms Johnson stated that at the March 6, 2000 Planning Committee meeting, the subject of property rights and compensation were discussed She quoted "the RCW provides that private property should not be s � Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 5 taken for public use without Just compensation". She stated that making public of private land, such as making private land into public urban separators without compensation to the land owners, is equivalent to what our forefathers fought for in the war against taxation without representation Ms Johnson stated that since the value of land as development property has been reduced, it seems fair to allow some reduction in taxes for landowners as compensation for the loss of development revenue Ms. Johnson voiced her displeasure in how people are abusing the open space areas and stated that these signs do not encourage landowners to leave their property undeveloped Ms Johnson spoke at length on the issue of "entitlement" She asked that the Board use a sense of reasonableness in considering all of the arguments and that they ensure that landowners not lose the right to develop their property at some future date She stated that language should guarantee under "Specific Guidelines"that development could not be challenged in the future Ms Johnson stated that the people yelling the loudest for urban separators have the least to lose Ms Johnson submitted a report for the record as Exhibit#4. Ms Johnson concurred when questioned by Mr Harmon that her property is currently zoned one unit per acre She stated that when the County zoned the property she believes that Mrs Ardis Johnson was not notified She stated that her family believes they should have the same right to zone their property at 4 5 units per acre Fred Mendosa, Post Office Box 140, Kent, WA 98025-0140 stated that he represents Mr and Mrs Don Clasen and is a member of the Curran-Mendosa law firm He stated that urban separators are critical to the environment and to those who live in the valley Mr Mendosa stated that it is important for the City of Kent to create an urban separator policy which follows the framework created by the county while still allowing the city the discretion necessary to develop land consistent with the needs of the citizens. Mr Mendosa stated that Mr and Mrs Clasen received approval of a rezone of their property from 3 to 6 units per acre one year ago He stated that this property has wetlands on it as well as abutting a large wetland Mr Mendosa stated that with the city's land use and zoning requirements, some of their property will be incorporated into that wetland, creating a huge natural urban separator that will protect the environment in that area Mr Mendosa stated that Mr and Mrs Clasen do not have a vested application before the city at this time and that after last year's rezone, they began to invest in and have continued to invest a tremendous amount of time, effort and money in developing their land for housing Mr Mendosa stated that this property is the last large parcel of property inside the urban separator consisting of 11 acres and will not be developed at six units per acre He estimated development at 3 to 4 units per acre He stated that this property should not be reduced to one unit per acre, as development of this property would not alter the natural urban separator that already exists Mr Mendosa noted County Executive Ron Sims response to the Mayor in March, 2000 concerning comments made by Mayor White on the proposal before the Land Use and Planning Board that "it is not our intention to unnecessarily restrict land, limit its use to one unit per acre" Mr Mendosa stated that the City of Kent needs to develop an urban separator policy based on good environmentally sound reasoning Don Clasen, 13602 SE 282nd St., Kent, WA Mr Clasen submitted a comment letter dated 10/16/00 addressed to the Land Use and Planning Board for the record as Exhibit#5. Mr Clasen referred to his report in voicing concern that enactment of urban separators could affect his property He stated that a 20-acre wetland exists in the vicinity with part of this wetland located on his �.. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 6 property and two of his neighbors. Mr. Clasen stated that he and his neighbors are obligated to provide 100 foot buffers from the wetlands which provides for a natural urban separator of over 30 acres in size Mr. Clasen stated that his property could be developed at 4.6 units per acre rather than R-6 and quoted Charlene Anderson's statement of October 16 in that "while housing goals were met for this year, there is no assurance that future housing goals will be met" Mr Clasen stated that his property is one of the largest remaining prime developable parcels in Kent and there is no assurance that future housing goals will be met if developable property is taken away Mr Clasen stated that since the City of Kent has rezoned their property, they have made a number of irrevocable decisions and financial commitments based on the action taken by the city one year ago He asked the Board to weigh all facts and determine the needs for additional urban separators in our immediate vicinity in view of the existing natural urban separator abutting his property on the north and east side. Mr. Clasen voiced his desire for the Board and City Council to stand by their original decision when they rezoned his property, which is consistent with the Growth Management Act. Andrew Cairnes, 14845 Southeast 264th Street, Kent, WA stated that he purchased his property two years ago and spoke with the Kent Planning Department over one year ago about the feasibility of dividing his property for the purpose of building two single family residences. Mr Carrnes stated that he was informed that his property could be divided into three or more parcels, although his intent was to divide his property in half Mr Caimes stated that he submitted an application last year to divide his property Mr. Catmes submitted the portion of the Planning Department's staff report dated November 29, 1999,recommending that his property be rezoned to SR-2, for the record as Exhibit#6, Mr Caimes quoted from staff s November 29, 1999 report emphasizing that Planning staff recommended approval of a rezone change to his property to SR-2 and urged the Board to retain the current zoning on his property as previously approved Leonard Juhnke, 13511 Southeast 278th Street, Kent, WA stated that he resides on a one-acre parcel purchased 12 years ago due to the low-density rural nature of the area and backing onto the Little Soosette Creek He stated that the 27 large native fir trees existing on this property should be preserved Mr. Juhnke stated that since incorporation of this area two adjacent properties have been rezoned to R-7 Mr Juhnke stated that he believes that the City of Kent should support King County s current urban separator zoning and retain a 20-year review cycle Marc Imlay, 24625 148th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA stated that he lives within the interurban buffer and represents the 148th Lane Property Owners Association, a group of eleven property owners Mr. Imlay submitted a four page "Summary of Wetlands and Urbanization Implications for the Future" report for the record as Exhibit# 7 stating that this summary represents several studies performed in the Puget Sound area on wetlands and what is needed to protect them Mr Imlay stated that these studies were conducted to determine what urbanization factors negatively impact wetlands and at what levels these factors begin to affect wetlands He stated that preventative measures could mitigate these impacts Mr Imlay stated that these studies have included analyzing hydrological factors, water flow and retention, water and soil quality and biological indicators including plant, animal and insect. Mr Imlay stated that this book cover studies on, research design, broad data tables, statistical analysis as well as utilize the results annotations to other published studies and conclusions Mr Imlay referred to the Summary Report in reiterating facts for protection of the wetlands Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 . Page 7 Mr Imlay indicated that the recommendation for protecting wetlands in the report represents an ideal situation which is no longer available with the current buffer system that is in place with the county Mr Imlay submitted a letter from the 148th Lane Property Owners Association for the record as ExWti t #8 Mr Imlay quoted from the letter, stating that "the member households of our organization, nine of which are in the City of Kent, and in the urban separator, with the remaining two on the Covington side of the Kent/Covington border within the urban separator unanimously endorse the Kent Planning Board's urban separator Option 2A which overlays the King County Urban Separators onto the Kent Comprehensive Plan" Mr Imlay referred to his report in detailing the reasons that the 148th Lane Property Owners Association endorse Option 2A Mr Imlay submitted a February 2000 Newsletter from State Representative Phil Fortunato for the record as Exhibit# 9 The newsletter includes a controversial issues survey on Growth Management, which Mr. Imlay quoted from Emily Leonard, 13321 Southeast 278th Street, Kent, WA stated that her residence of 11 years abuts Little Soosette Creek where Colic, Salmon exist She stated that in fall and winter water levels overflow and in the summer water levels are low in this sensitive urban separator area Ms Leonard stated that she would like to see that the environment is preserved so that the wildlife habitat is not destroyed She stated that the development around her threatens urban separateness and voiced her support of Option 1 with no change to the policy Phil Fortunato, 10223 Southeast 200th Street, Kent, WA stated that he speaks on behalf of the property located at 132nd Avenue, north of Southeast 280th He stated that government agencies and legislative bodies need to provide for the protection of people's property rights as well as the environment Mr Fortunato stated that he is in the business of erosion and sediment control on construction sites He stated that King County's Ordinance for storm water management resulted in increased water runoff, decreased aquifer recharge and reductions in water quality Mr Fortunato spoke at length on his knowledge of storm water policies and storm water management studies conducted in Washington Mr Fortunato stated that with infrastructure in place near this property, it would not be feasible for the City of Kent to rezone this property to a lower density In referring to the February 2000 newsletter quoted by Mr Imlay, he added that 90 5% of survey respondents thought the City should be required to pay the property owner when a government action causes a reduction in an owner's property value Cal Ainley, 24524 148th Lane Southeast, Kent, WA stated that his residence is located in the buffer zone He stated that a high degree of pollutants is evident on his property six or seven months of the year because of high volumes of water runoff from a development outside the buffer zone near his property Mr Ainley stated that as a schoolteacher, he lives by the adage in the classroom that says, "to say what you mean and mean what you say" He stated that when he tells his students, there are boundaries to live by and then if those boundaries are compromised to accommodate whatever whim comes along, it has a tendency to create havoc Mr Ainley stated that the City of Kent should adhere to King County's urban separator policy stating that the policy has built in provisions for reevaluation if needed Mr Ainley stated that the City of Kent needs to question if they are doing what they say and that this will send a strong message about integrity and what our young people can believe in government. He Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 8 encouraged the Council to look at what the County has set up and what the City of Kent decided to act upon when they annexed those portions of King County Barbara Holt, 24920 177th Avenue South, Kent, WA 98042 stated that she lives in unincorporated King County and is a member of Wildlife Habitat and Justice Prevention She stated that the urban separator policy is of regional concern and that policy decisions affect people like me and my neighbors living outside the City of Kent Ms Holt stated that Soos Creek Park is abundant with plants and wildlife, which are disappearing due to rapid and uncontrolled development She stated that Soos Creek Park needs continued protection and stated that of the four options proposed for the urban separator policy, 2A appears to be the most appropriate option in regards to protecting land Ms Holt stated that she supports a 20-year review period and that the word "emergency" should be removed as it creates a loophole for politicians, planners and developers Pamela Yager, 18303 Southeast 263rd, Covington, WA stated that she is the corresponding secretary for Wildlife Habitat and Justice Prevention Association She stated that her family has resided near Soos Creek since 1919 and moved into Covington near Jenkins Creek in 1923. Ms Yager voiced her concern over always allowing the next parcel to be rezoned like the parcel next to it and envisions big box retail working its way out to the mountains She stated that she would like to see the definition "emergency" eliminated as she recalled even though people said no to Safeco Field, Safeco Field became a realty because legislation determined it was an emergency She cited other emergency • ordinances adopted by the City of Covington against the wishes of the people Ms Yager stated she approved of the downzomng of her five acre rural parcel from 4.5 and 6 units per acre to one unit per acre as it keeps this southeast area of King County from being overrun with houses Ms Yager stated that people could save 30 to 90 percent of their property taxes by setting aside a portion of their land as open space She stated that the City of Kent needs to lower housing goals and the State needs to lower mandated upzoning for housing goal development, as our habitat can not withstand it Ms Yager stated that the goals of the Wildlife Habitat and Justice Prevention Association are to educate the public and government and to try to make government controlled and responsible Ms Yager stated that King County chose the parcels in the urban separator with careful consideration and based on scientific data, which included geologically sensitive areas Ms Yager spoke about the effects that land development has on our quality of life, wildlife, critical aquifer recharge areas, air quality and water quality and quantity She stated that Kirk V Cook, a hydrologist, developed a guidance document for the establishment of critical recharge area ordinances from which he developed a water quality program for the Washington State Department of Ecology Ms Yager stated that in 1990, the Washington State Legislature adopted the Growth Management Act and Substitute House Bill 2929, now codified as Chapter 36 70A RCW This statute combined with that of Article 11 of the Washington State Constitution mandates that local jurisdictions adopt ordinances that classify, designate and regulate land use in order to protect critical areas • Ms Yager stated that critical areas are defined as wetlands, frequently flooded areas, aquifer recharge areas and geologically hazardous areas She stated that these definitions are part of the concept set forth by the Department of Ecology for establishing our laws She stated that these concepts exist regarding groundwater protection They are general in nature and they are applied regardless of whether it is a local ordinance, a federal or a state statute, state regulation or guideline. Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 9 Ms Yager continued to speak at length quoting from reports on the importance of protecting groundwater in sensitive areas with the use of technically sound but realistic methodologies Ms. Yager stated that the City of Kent must have an ordinance policy in place outlining the methodology by which the city will determine how they will deal with the critical aquifer recharge area problems in order to comply with the law. Ms Yager stated that the guidance document she has been referring to is entitled- Guidance Document for the Establishment of Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Ordinances by Washington State Department of Ecology She encouraged the Board and Council to read this document Robert Pfaff, 29204 124th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA stated that his property is located at 27864 24th Avenue Southeast and surrounded on three sides by development He stated that he was in favor of this area being annexed at the time that it occurred and was told that he would be able to develop his property at 4 5 units per acre He does not want to see his zoning down sized Nancy Streiffert, 10102 Southeast 270th Place, Kent, WA 98031 stated that the urban separator is a special area deserving of full protection under the Kent Comprehensive Plan which should be consistent with the King County Comprehensive Plan She stated that there should be a 20-year review period in order to protect green open spaces as an urban separator Ms Streiffert stated that she supports Option 2A as a way to protect this area Ms Streiffert stated that the emergency clause should be removed, as she cannot see how it would apply to the urban separator She stated that the Soos Creek Trail provides a necessary and safe space for families. Ms Streiffert stated that she owns a two-acre parcel, which abuts up to a mitigated area for the 272nd road She stated that she has chosen to put this property into the public benefits rating system, which substantially reduces property taxes She stated that this system allows a property owner to voluntarily give up their development rights in return for a decrease in property taxes. Shelly Bauer, 26203 131 st Place Southeast, Kent, WA 98031 stated that she works as a volunteer with the Cascade Conservation sector of the Sierra Club and represents a group of 20,000 members in Washington State, 8,000 in the Puget Sound area and about 1,000 in the Kent and surrounding areas as well as the South King County Sierra Club group Ms Bauer stated that she frequently uses the Soos Creek Trail She stated that she and her husband chose their community to live in, as it was more secluded with a permanent green space in the background designated as wetlands Ms Bauer stated that preservation is less costly than rehabilitation of the urban separator and stated that when mitigation occurs, these lands can never regain the same environmental quality She stated that if the urban separators are compromised, there could be legal ramifications based on ESA requirements Ms Bauer stated that she does not believe that taxpayers should pay to subsidize development and the city should consider the economics of intangibles Ms Bauer spoke at length on her view of property values in the urban separator area as well as how property values relate to the "takings" issue She stated property next to the Burke Gilman Trail has increased in value Ms Bauer stated that the City of Kent's policy should be consistent with King County and other cities. She voiced support for keeping King County's existing urban separator map based on hydrological and geological concerns She supports King County's 20-year review period and wants the ill-defined "emergency" loophole eliminated Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 10 Ms Bauer voiced her support of Option 2A or 2B if deletions are offset with additions of the same acreage and the same quality of land John Cate, 15232 Southeast 272nd Street, Space 17, Kent, WA 98031 stated that he resides in the mobile home park which receives water from wells in the area Mr. Cate stated that he supports protecting the Soos Creek urban separator and spoke on the importance of maintaining the wetland ecosystem and controlling groundwater in the area Mr Cate stated that the emergency language needs to be eliminated. Mr. Cate stated that the city should not change the current urban separator map and stated that he favors a 20-year review period He voiced support for Option 2A Britt Pfaff, 516 N. 8th, Mount Vernon, WA 98273 spoke on behalf of her family's property located at 27864 124th Avenue Southeast which is surrounded by development She submitted a letter addressed to the Land Use and Planning Board, dated October 16, 2000 for the record as Exhibit # 10 Ms Pfaff quoted from this letter emphasizing the following points- Ms Pfaff stated that in reviewing the County-wide Planning Policy LU-27, she does not believe her property meets the urban separator criteria, therefore, should remain at its current zoning of SR 4 5. Ms Pfaff stated that the property consists of 20 acres unsuitable for wildlife habitat as it has been heavily grazed for cattle production She stated that the original drainage of the property has been altered due to surrounding development and that surface water draining from the site enters into the surrounding surface water drainage system exiting into both the City of Kent and King County. • Ms Pfaff submitted a copy of the Washington Administrative Code, WAC 365-195-420 Identification of Open Space Corridors for the record as Exhibit#11. Louise Lea, 12605 Southeast 282nd Street, Kent, WA stated that she purchased her property located at 12624 Southeast 282nd Street with the intent to develop it She stated that she would not have purchased her property if the urban separator issue had been brought to her attention at the time of her feasibility study through Planning Services. Ms Lea spoke at length on her concerns with the urban separator She voiced her believe that the Growth Management Act 36 70A 210 gives full control of land use to the cities, quoting from the GMA Ms Lea stated that the City of Kent needs to set its own policy in accordance with the GMA and spoke at length on the goals and spirit of the GMA. Ms Lea referred to two letters addressed to Mayor Jim White from Ron Sims, King County Executive expressing to him that increasing the residential density within the designated urban separator is inconsistent with Countywide Planning Policy LU-27 Ms Lea responded to Mr Bell's concern that the County has the potential to sue the City of Kent, stating that the city may be opening itself up for a law-suit through the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board if the city attempts to opt out of planned growth Ms Lea said that she states this because of Case #98-3-0012 LMI/Chevron v the Town of Woodway who in attempting to restrict growth was found to be in non-compliance with the GMA Ms Lea stated that the City of Kent is mandated to plan for growth by state government and that laws and regulations are in place to protect environmentally sensitive areas She stated that King County should not be allowed to set policy for the City of Kent and that Kent should not downzone areas currently zoned R 4 5 or R-6 and that the City of Kent should plan for responsible growth Jim DiPeso,419 Hazel Avenue North, Kent, WA stated that he represents the Rainier Audubon Society consisting of 700 south King County members with a mission to support the conservation of birds, fish and other wildlife He stated that the Society supports the proposed urban separator policy Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16, 2000 Page 11 Mr DiPeso stated that when development occurs, storm water impacts include erosion, water pollution, and high water temperatures, and reduced aquifer recharge Mr DiPeso stated that the urban separators are permanent low-density lands of regional significance, therefore, supports a 20-year review period He asked that the "emergency" loophole be redefined or deleted from the proposal and stated that the Society supports Option 2A. Mr DiPeso stated that if the Board votes in favor of Option 2B, that it be offset with an acreage of equal or higher environmental quality Mr. Philip Skinner, 24048 146th Street, Kent, WA stated that he purchased his 2.25 acres, adjacent to the Johnson property, four years ago with the assumption that the area would remain free from development He stated that Kent agreed to set aside the Soos Creek area and the County designated the area as a natural buffer zone Mr Skinner stated that his property contains a sensitive hillside area. He voiced concern that if homes are built on the land above his property in excess of one home per acre, hillside erosion could occur, causing the potential for homes to slide downward Mr Skinner voiced support for Option 2A to retain urban separators and asked that the "emergency"clause be removed from this option Gabriel Cordi, 28424 144th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA 98402 urged the City of Kent to look at protecting the environment and not alter the comprehensiNe map of the urban separator area without making a careful assessment of the area Mr Cordi spoke at length on the importance of protecting the wetlands, citing areas in the region that have been destroyed • Mr Cordi urged the Board to weigh all factors, voicing his belief that his children and grandchildren should be allowed the opportunity to use their land in any way they desire. Jeff Tate, 28424 144th Avenue Southeast, Kent, WA stated that he represents the Cordi property, which has a zoning of R-6 He stated that Planning staff s proposal would change that zoning to one unit per acre Mr Tate stated that densities in the area are R-3, R-4 5, R-6 and MH-P He stated that the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearing's Board does not address urban separators but specifically addresses densities within cities Mr Tate stated that in Pierce County versus Tacoma, Vashon versus Morrie, Benaroya versus Redmond; it has been repeatedly and emphatically ruled that I 1 unit per acre is not an appropriate urban density He stated that the Hearings Board further stated that four dwelling units per acre is the minimum acceptable urban density Mr Tate stated that low density, as required in the land use countywide planning policy LU-27, would be four dwelling units per acre, which is a minimum urban density or low density, by urban standards Mr Tate stated that the staff report falls to mention how this density would comply with the precedence established by these Hearings Board rulings Mr Tate stated that the Hearings Board has on occasion upheld the one unit per acre density, but only where there is a significant presence of critical areas limiting development potential and requiring added protection He stated that the area where the Cordi property is located as well as most of the adjacent properties is flat, with no wetlands or flood plains He stated that most of the area has been cleared of any mature vegetation Mr Tate stated that a one unit per acre density on these properties would not meet the intent or the purposes of what lower densities are supposed to mean in urban areas He stated that designation of this area, as an urban growth area required previous planning efforts to provide and fund urban services such as water, sewer and storm water infrastructure It had to do so based on the potential urban densities that would apply upon eventual annexation Land Use and Planning Board Minutes October 16,2000 Page 12 Mr Tate stated that the taxpayers funded these urban services, whereby providing the taxpayer with a certain level of commitment by the city and or the county of what type of development potential would apply to their land He stated that if the city wanted lower densities on these lands, they should not have annexed the land and set up a development scenario that would later be changed Mr Tate stated that this change would result in a change to the City's land capacity and overall density He reiterated that the Hearings Board ruled that urban areas are required to maintain an overall density of four dwelling units per acre Mr Tate questioned how this change would effect that requirement and what is the City's overall density at maximum buildout if this change is adopted. Mr Tate stated that rezoning these parcels to a density of one unit per acre should not be approved He stated that if amendments are entertained, that they focus on development standards that protect critical areas rather than density Mr Tate asked staff to provide answers to the Board and the community prior to making a proposal as to how this change differs from the decisions he previously mentioned as well as how this change is justified with respect to previous Hearings Board rulings He further asked that staff provide a general inventory of known critical areas within this area, calculate what the City's overall density would be if this change took place and what the densities would be at total build out Chair Jon Johnson stated that this hearing will be continued to Monday, October 23 at 7 00 p in in the City of Kent Chambers He stated that the remainder of the people signed up to speak would be heard on that night and that the Board will not accept any more sign ups for speaking after tonight Mr Johnson • stated that written correspondence will be accepted up through the October 23 hearing Ron Harmon MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to accept all Exhibits submitted for the record Motion CARRIED Terry Zimmerman MOVED and Sharon Woodford SECONDED to continue the public hearing to Monday, October 23, 2000 at 7 00 p.m in the City of Kent's Council Chambers Motion CARRIED ADJOURNMENT Chair Jon Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9 55 PM. Respectfully Submitted, F ed N Satterstrom, AICP Secretary