Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 12/10/1996 �r CITY OF WIMP Jim White, Mayor pe'�Wry7iC4�.P CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES December 10, 1996 Planning Committee Members Present: City Attorney's Office Leona Orr, Chair Laurie Evezich Tim Clark Tom Brubaker Jon Johnson Other Planning Staff Connie Epperly Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Rodger Anderson Margaret Porter, Administrative Assistant III Gary Volchok TIMELINES FOR AMENDMENTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (F. Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained the current state regulations for the amendment of GMA Comprehensive Plans. Mr. Satterstrom also explained the current application process for the • City of Kent. Mr. Satterstrom clarified that the City is set up to allow annual amendments. The state requires Comprehensive Plan Amendments to be no more frequent than once per year. Mr. Satterstrom explained that one of the conditions for approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that there is new information or a change in conditions or circumstances. The Committee discussed alternatives to reducing the frequency of amendments. Mr. Satterstrom explained that to the applicant amendments are not allowed frequent enough and to those who oppose certain applications amendments are allowed too often. Assistant City Attorney Laurie Evezich stated that state law allows a City to increase the time period between amendments. The Committee discussed the issue involving an applicant's ability to reapply again and again after the City has denied their request. Board member Tim Clark commented on the time and resources involved to continually deny the same application. Chair Leona Orr questioned whether there is any way to restrict how often an application can be made if the City has previously denied the application. Ms.Evezich agreed to research this issue and bring information back to the Committee. POSITION ON AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION (F. Satterstrom) Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom explained the position statement written that was in the agenda packet regarding the Council members stand on the preservation of agricultural lands. Mr. Satterstrom identified existing policy statements in the Kent Comprehensive Plan. • Committee member Tim Clark questioned the City's process for acquiring agricultural lands. Mr. Satterstrom explained that the City of Kent does not have a program established to purchase development rights. 220 4lh AVE.SO. /KENT,W ASHINGTON 98032 5895 1 TELEPHONE (206)859-3300/FAX#859-3334 j- • City Council Planning Committee Minutes December 10, 1996 Page 2 Satterstrom stated that State law requires cities to have either a purchase of development rights program (PDR) or a transfer of development rights program(TDR) if the City designates land for long term agricultural use. The City has formally requested the County to reinstate the PDR program so properties in the Kent valley will be eligible. The County responded that some money has been set aside for purchase of property in the lower Green River valley. Purchase of property within the City limits would not be eligible; however,the County has agreed to work with the City to establish a TDR program. Committee member Tim Clark MOVED and member Jon Johnson SECONDED a motion to research a PDR or TDR programs. Committee member Jon Johnson discussed his concern regarding lands in Kent's potential annexation area that will never be farmed and he would like to have a policy established to address these issues as well. Clark AMENDED and Johnson SECONDED the amendment to include consideration of a policy that would establish compatible uses for lands designated for agricultural use which owners would like development alternatives. Motion carried. • Johnson MOVED and Clark SECONDED a motion to recommend the Council adopt the City's position statement on the preservation of agricultural lands. Motion carried. ANNEXATION POLICY (F. Satterstrom) Chair Orr explained that this item is on the agenda as an information item only. Planning Mananger Fred Satterstrom outlined the area designated as the City's potential annexation area (PAA) and located three current annexations in progress within the PAA. Satterstrom explained that there is approximately nine square miles of unincorporated King County left in the PAA. Mr. Satterstrom explained that Planning Director James Harris worked to develop the existing annexation policy and the proposed amendments being presented to the Committee today. Satterstrom indicated that Mr. Harris has tried to lay out a systematic way in which to annex the remaining unincorporated areas. The proposed policy would promote larger area annexations that could pay for themselves so there is minimum or no impact on the level of service for existing residents and avoiding the smaller area by area annexations. The policy supports an annexation with a diversity of land use in each annexation area. Committee member Tim Clark voiced his concern limiting annexations by the criteria listed in the proposed annexation policy. Clark stated that if there exists minimum or no impact on the level of service although an area does not meet all of the criteria the City should annex that area regardless . of the size of the area. Clark indicated that he understands the guiding priciple; yet he is concerned with the justification the City will give citizens as to why one annexation is accepted and another is not. • City Council Planning Committee Minutes • December 10, 1996 Page 3 Assistant City Attorney Tom Brubaker explained that the purpose behind establishing this policy is to establish criteria or guidelines for accepting or denying certain annexations. Clark stated that in general he agrees with this philosophy; however,the policy should allow for certain exceptions. Brubaker suggested that language could be written in to allow for certain exceptions. Satterstrom agreed that certain exceptions could exist where the City would benefit from the annexation. Satterstrom suggested that staff could consider different wording or possibly accept each petition on a case by case basis at the time of the 10%petition. Clark was concerned with citizen reaction regarding the City receiving a 10% petition and the application being denied because it doesn't meet the requirements. However, Clark indicated that he understands the City's inability to piece mill everything. Chair Orr discussed her concern with an inconsistency of time frames; one indicating 20 years and the other 2007 (which is only 10 years). She was also concerned with the verbiage of the City conducting a"vigorous" annexation policy while the state statutes maintain the citizen's rights to greatly control annexations. • Orr questioned whether identifying citizens living in the PAA area to help facilitate annexations meant that the City was going to go out and recruit citizens in order to get annexations to happen. She stated that she doesn't think this is something that the City should be doing. Clark concurred with Orr's concerns. He stated that the majority of complaints he heard regarding the Meridian Annexation was that once the citizens signed a no protest covenant they lost their rights He stated that that comment was repeated constantly. Clark commented that this policy paints the City in an image that we are agressively seeking annexations. Orr agreed that if we follow the proposed policy we would be agressively seeking annexations and that concerned her. Clark agreed. Brubaker explained that he is on the City's annexation committee and that one of the reasons surrounding an adjustment to the City's approach on annexations is pressure from the County. The County is taking a very active stance on requiring cities to extend municiple services within potential annexation areas even before an annexation has occurred. The County is stating that if the City doesn't provide the service to these areas then the County will not provide service to these areas either. Orr questioned whether the County would be able to follow through with that. Brubaker stated that it was his opinion that their position is not as strong as they think it is; however,they are the County and they are very powerful. •4 City Council Planning Committee Minutes December 10, 1996 Page 4 Brubaker explained that if the City is required through regulation or law to provide service to our PAA, the Administration believes that the citizen's motivation to annex is gone. What benefit to citizens receive in supporting an annexation if they are already receiving municipal services? Therefore,the City is proposing a more agressive annexation policy. Orr suggested including verbiage to indicate that if the County requires the City to provide services then the City will vigorously pursue annexation. She stated that if the County requires us to provide services it would be in the City's best interest to pursue annexation, If Kent is required to provide services to the PAA areas, then we need to receive the revenue from these areas. Chair Leona Orr stated that according to the information presented past annexations are not paying their own way rather the City is losing money. Orr questioned whether the numbers were accurate or if they may have been transposed. She questioned whether the budget figures presented included the debt incurred from the purchase of the Fire station and Parks within the Meridian Annexation area. Mr. Satterstrom stated that he would look into that more thoroughly and let the Committee know. . MORATORIUM ON COMMUNICATION TOWERS (T. Brubaker) City Attorney Tom Brubaker passed out a draft Resolution and explained that the City of Kent is facing a telecommunications revolution. Similar to what has happened over the past ten years with personal computers. The development of fiber optic cables and wireless communication devices and wide open competition is going to explode on the scene. Cable providers will be providing telephone service and telephone providers will be providing cable service. All the providers will be providing data transmitters to allow communication between computers. Power companies may get into play. There is wide open competition. Much of the City's authority has been trimmed significantly by a law passed earlier this year by the Federal Government. Mr. Brubaker explained that one of the major issues is the siting of wireless telecommunication facilities. The concern is with the imminent antennas that will begin to appear throughout the region. This is a new issue. In order to move forward in the telecommunication era companies are going to need to erect antennas on buildings and hilltops as well as stand alone towers. There exists a public safety and health concern as well as an aesthetic concern. Mr. Brubaker stated that the purpose of the Moratorium is to allow the City some time to consider the impacts and to consider the different options available. Committee member Tim Clark questioned the exclusion of short wave radios. Mr. Brubaker stated that it should be clarified in the Resolution to exclude them. Mr. Clark also questioned homeowners purchasing direct satellite. Mr. Brubaker explained that it would not be a part of this moratorium d City Council Planning Committee Minutes December 10, 1996 Page 5 because a homeowner would not need a land use development permit to obtain a personal satellite dish. Chair Leona Orr questioned whether Mr. Brubaker would be available to present a small bit of information to the Council that evening to explain the need for this Moratorium. Mr. Brubaker stated that he would be available. Committee member Jon Johnson MOVED and Chair Leona Orr SECONDED a motion to bring this item to the City Council under"other business"to set a public hearing date. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. • U:1DOCTCOMIMINUTE STC O 1210.MIN