HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Planning and Economic Development Committee - 05/01/2000 -- ----------
CITY of �L!22HIT MARGIE PORTER
PLANNING
Jim White, Mayor
INVICTA
PLANNING COMMITTEE AGENDA
This is to inform you that the City Council Planning Committee will meet in Council Chambers East,
Kent City Hall, 220 4" Ave. S., at 5:00 PM on Monday, May 1, 2000.
Committee Members: Tom Brotherton, Chair Judy Woods Tim Clark
Action Speaker Time
1. Approval of Minutes of April 3, 2000 YES
2. Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study—Resolution YES Brent McFall 10 minutes
3. Year 2001 Community Development Block YES Carolyn Sundvall 10 minutes
Grant Funding Levels
4. Urban Separators YES Fred Satterstrom 20 minutes
The Planning Committee meets the first Monday of each month at 5:00 PM in Chambers East, Kent City
Hall, 220 4" Ave. South. For agenda information please call Jackie Bicknell at (253) 856-5712
ANY PERSON REQUIRING A DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S
OFFICE AT (253) 856-5725 IN ADVANCE. FOR TDD RELAY SERVICE CALL THE WASHINGTON
TELECOMMUNICATIONS RELAY SERVICE AT 1-800-833-6388.
220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT,WASHINGTON 98032-5895 11 TELEPHONE (253)856-5200
Noise and Land Use Compatibility
Study = Resolution
Recommended Motion:
I move to recommend to Council the approval of the
resolution dealing with the Noise and Land Use
Compatibility Study as it relates to south flow traffic
patterns from SeaTac International Airport.
�W
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the
City of Kent, Washington, regarding the Port of
Seattle's SeaTac International Airport Part 150 Noise
and Land Use Compatibility Study as it relates to south
flow traffic patterns from SeaTac International Airport.
WHEREAS, the Port of Seattle has been conducting a study, known as
the SeaTac International Airport Part 150 Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study, to
consider and evaluate programs to reduce the impact of aircraft noise in
neighborhoods impacted by aircraft operations from SeaTac Airport,; and
WHEREAS, the findings from the Part 150 Study will provide a basis
to update the current noise abatement efforts at SeaTac Airport while maintaining
existing programs, such as the Noise Remedy Sound Insulation Program; and
WHEREAS, participants in this study included a citizens' advisory
committee, a technical advisory committee, and three sub-committees (operations,
land use, and data); and
WHEREAS, at least five (5) open houses have been held, beginning in
December, 1997, to provide forums for the public to express goals for the study and
important areas of concern; and
1 SeaTac International Airport Part I50
Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study
r„
WHEREAS, based upon input from the committees and the public, the
study has produced findings of flight track alternatives for both north flow and south
flow aircraft traffic patterns at the SeaTac International Airport; and
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed and considered the findings on
the existing conditions on traffic flow as well as the proposed alternatives for traffic
flow, especially the data on the South Flow Two Tracks III.20.A and South Flow
Three Tracks III.20.B alternatives for south traffic flow from SeaTac International
Airport; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that adoption of the South
Flow Two Track Alternative III.20.A and the South Flow Three Track Alternative
I11.203 would impact the residents of the City of Kent by expanding air traffic into
the Kent area which may require a costly expansion of the Noise Remedy Sound
Insulation Program or other remedies beyond the boundary of the existing south flow
track if either alternative is adopted; NOW THEREFORE,
•
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENT, WASHINGTON
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the Port of Seattle maintain the existing south flow
tracks for operations at SeaTac Airport and not implement either the South Flow Two
Tracks III.20.A or the South Flow Three Tracks III.20.B alternatives as set forth in the
Part 150 Study in order to minimize impact of air traffic flow noise in the Kent area
and the need to expand remedial programs beyond the existing boundaries of the
current remedial program.
• 2 SeaTac International Airport Part 150
Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect and be
in force immediately upon its passage.
PASSED at a regular open public meeting by the City Council of the City
of Kent,Washington,this day of ) 2000.
CONCURRED in by the Mayor of the City of Kent this day of
2000.
JIM WHITE,MAYOR
ATTEST:
• BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROGER A. LUBOVICH, CITY ATTORNEY
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
passed by the City Council of the City of Kent, Washington, the day
of 12000.
BRENDA JACOBER, CITY CLERK
P:1CiviNPesolutionlSeaT=Nois LandUseStudy.doc
3 SeaTac International Airport Part 150
Noise and Land Use Compatibility Study
YEAR 2001 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
FUNDING LEVELS
PROPOSED MOTION:
Recommending approval to;
♦ Accept the year 2001 Pass through funds,
♦ Allocate the City's maximum available of year
2001 CDBG funds for Public (Human) Services
($85,539)
♦ Allocate the City's maximum available of year
2001 funds for Planning and Administration
($78,986)
♦ Forward this recommendation to the full City
Council for consideration at its May 16, 2000
meeting authorizing the Mayor to sign the
County form indicating the City's desire for
distribution of year 2001 funds.
CITY OF )'�\IL �
Jim White, Mayor
VIrsvic'M
Planning Department (253) 856-5454/Fax (253) 856-6454
James P. Harris, Planning Director
CITY OF KENT
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(253) 856-5454
MEMORANDUM
MAY 13 2000
MEMO TO: TOM BROTHERTON, CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: CAROLYN SUNDVALL, HUMAN SERVICES PLANNER
• SUBJECT: YEAR 2001 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
FUNDING LEVELS
BACKGROUND
Recently the City received from King County its estimates of Community Development Block
Grant Pass through funds for year 2001. The estimate of $550,114 is approximately $302.00
more than the City received for the 2000 program. The estimate at this time is based on the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Developments (HUD) proposed year 2001 budget. The
estimated amount may increase or decrease due to changes in the entitlement, program income
and recaptured funds.
The City Council needs to take three actions:
1. Receipt of funds
The City of Kent needs to inform the County whether it elects to receive and administer the Pass
through funds again next year. By accepting the Pass through the City will be assured of
continued HUD funding. The Planning Department recommends that the City accept the Pass
through funds to: 1) Maximize local discretion in allocating the funds 2) Guarantee a minimum
• funding level, 3) Eliminate competition with other King County and small cities projects. If the
City does not elect to take the Pass through funds, Kent is not guaranteed any CDBG funds, and
would have to compete for all funds.
220 4th AVE.SO., /KENT_WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200
q
Year 2001 Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Funding Levels
May 1, 2000
Page 2
2. Public (Human)Services Funding
If the City chooses to accept Pass through funds, it can reserve the maximum of its fair share of
public service dollars. If the City does not reserve the right to use this amount of funding for
human services, another city can request the use of any unreserved ceilings. In order to retain
the maximum of flexibility in the use of its CDBG funds, and to continue in its present support
for human services, the Planning Department recommends that the City of Kent notify the
County that it wishes to reserve the maximum dollars for human services. The estimated year
2001 Community Development Block Grant funding amount for human services is $85, 539.
3. Planning and Administration Funds
As with human services, the City has a maximum of its CDBG funds that can be spent for
Planning & Administration. In 2000 the City reserved the maximum amount available. The
Planning Department recommends allocating the maximum amount available in year 2001 to
continue to fund salaries and other activities associated with the administration of the program.
The maximum amount of year 2001 CDBG funds estimated to be available for Planning and
Administration is $78, 986.
The remaining funds, approximated at $385,589. would be used for capital projects. The City
traditionally funds the Kent Home Repair Program out of this category and also any additional
capital project requests that Council Approves.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Approval to accept the year 2001 Pass through funds.
2. Allocate the City's maximum available of year 2001 CDBG funds for Public (human)
Services ($85,539)
3. Allocate the City's maximum available of year 2001 funds for Planning and
Administration ($78,986)
4. Forward this recommendation to the full City Council for consideration at its May 16,
2000 meeting authorizing the Mayor to sign the County form indicating the City's desire
for distribution of year 2001 funds.
CS\pm P:Human ServiceslCDBGlpassthr2doc
cc: James P.Harris,Planning Director
Katherin Johnson,Human Services Manager
URBAN SEPARATORS
i
PROPOSED MOTION:
♦ A request to move this to City Council with a
recommendation to endorse alternative Option
3.13.- to recognize the urban separator
framework policy but allow for local flexibility in
identifying lands which would fulfill the objectives
of county-wide planning policy LU-27.
CITY OF !V\ _` cS� t1
rNVIczA Jim White, Mayor
Planning Department (253) 856-54541FAX(253) 856-6454
James P. Harris, Planning Director
May 1, 2000
TO: TOM BROTHERTON, CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
FROM: FRED N. SATTERSTROM, PLANNING MANAGER
RE: URBAN SEPARATORS —OPTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The City Council Planning Committee has discussed the issue of urban separators for the past
two months. At its last meeting on April 3, 2000, the Committee requested staff to come back
with options for Council action, having discussed the origins of the urban separator policy, its
purposes, geographic application, legal aspects, and potential land use planning implications.
(Staff has attached each of these previous staff reports so as not to repeat that information here.)
• Options:
Planning Department staff have met with the City's legal staff in order to outline a number of
alternative policy directions to resolve the City's position on the county-wide planning policy
(LU-27)pertaining to urban separators.
For the Council's convenience, LU-27 reads as follows:
Urban separators are 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 re-designated in the future (within the 20 year planning cycle) to other uses
or higher densities. The maintenance of these urban separators is a regional as well as a
local concern. Therefore, no modification should be made to the development
regulations governing these areas without King County review and concurrence.
This policy, as has been discussed, is both a "framework" policy and, in effect, a development
regulation. That is, while LU-27 defines urban separators and suggests they are of regional
importance, it goes much further in prescribing density controls and limiting local planning
authority. According to the City's legal analysis, the intent of the policy as a framework for
local planning is legitimate but, the regulatory aspect of it is not.
There are several options the City Council may consider to resolve this issue. These options
include the following:
2204th AVE.SO., /KENT.WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (253)856-5200
Urban Separators-Options for City Council Action
Planning Committee,May 1, 2000
Page 2
•
1. No Local Discretion/Literal Interpretation and Implementation
Under this alternative, the City would superimpose the County's urban separator designation
over its comprehensive plan and zoning maps, and disallow any changes in density until 2012
unless reviewed and approved by King County first. The mapped designation would be applied
pursuant to the County's parcel map and density would be restricted to no more than one unit per
acre.
Pros:
■ Consistent with policy and regulatory aspects of LU-27
■ Predictability; little change in land use permitted
Cons:
■ Lack of local land use planning authority within substantial area
■ Allow little flexibility for lands where growth factors may change over time
2. Complete Local ControUIgnore Regional Policy
Under this option, the City would evaluate plan amendments on a case-by-case basis, but
whether the property in question were designated within an urban separator would not be
• considered. There would be no need to track nor map urban separators since this designation
would not have an impact on the decision-making process. Decisions regarding density and
development potential would be based on other factors, such as compatibility with surrounding
land use, concurrency, and so forth.
Pros:
■ Ease of administration; no confusion caused by designation
■ Local control
Cons:
■ Not consistent with intent of framework policy LU-27
■ Not consistent with City's ratification of county-wide planning policies
3. General Implementation of Urban Separator with Limited Local Discretion
Under this alternative, the City would recognize and attempt to implement the framework policy
on urban separators but reserve discretion on a local basis to regulate land use and density on
such lands. At least two different sub-policy directions were identified by staff which may
accomplish this objective, distinguished primarily by how urban separators are identified:
A. Utilize the County's map(s). Under this option, the City would simply use the
designation developed by King County and superimpose this over its own plan
and zoning maps. For the most part, this map follows property lines and streets
and, therefore, is a very precise, zoning-type map. While the City would utilize
the County's map designation without issue, density decisions and land
development regulations would be decided by the City. Low density development
would be the goal, but the City would retain the prerogative of varying this
Urban Separators-Options for City Council Action
Planning Committee, May 1, 2000
Page 3
density according to circumstances of each affected property. Nevertheless, the
density of affected parcels would not be expected to exceed four (4) units per
acre.
B. Develop a Generalized Map. Under this alternative, the City would develop a
more generalized urban separator designation which, while not following the
rigid, zoning-like designation mapped by the County, would echo the basic
pattern of urban separators in a more generalized (conceptual) fashion. This
revised and more generalized designation would trigger a special, local review
process when properties within this area are proposed for higher densities.
Review criteria would be developed to ensure the integrity and longevity of
designated urban separator areas, but local discretion would be reserved to allow
higher density where properties only marginally contributed to urban separation
objectives.
Pros:
■ Implements the spirit of LU-27
■ Allows for local flexibility in implementation of LU-27
Cons:
■ May ultimately mean less area is designated urban separator
■ Confusion continues as to the effects of LU-27 on adjacent lands
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council endorse Option 3.B. This alternative would recognize the
urban separator framework policy but allow for local flexibility in identifying specific lands
which would fulfill the objectives of county-wide planning policy LU-27.
Should the City Council concur with the intent of Option 3.B, then the matter should be referred
to the Land Use & Planning Board for a specific recommendation on a map overlay designation
and criteria to be used in the local review and evaluation process. Since this entails an
amendment to the City's comprehensive plan, the City Council should simultaneously declare an
emergency in order to begin the plan amendment process prior to the September l't deadline.
FNS1pm IICENTENNIAIUSERSIPLANNINGIPUBLICI4DMIMlu27opt.doc
cc: James P.Harris,Planning Director
Roger Lubovich,City Attorney
•