HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/2011 - Minutes
RENTON PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2011 Renton City Hall
6:00 p.m. Conferencing Center
Planning Commissioners Present: Michael Drollinger, Ray Giometti, Gwendolyn High, Michael O’Halloran, Nancy
Osborn, Ed Prince, Martin Regge
Planning Commissioners Absent: Michael Chen, Kevin Poole
City Staff Present: Chip Vincent, Planning Director; Vanessa Dolbee, Senior Planner
1. CALL TO ORDER: Commission Vice Chair Drollinger called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Commission Secretary O’Halloran called roll. Commission Chair Prince arrived late.
Commissioners Chen and Poole were absent and excused.
3. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED: None
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS: None
5. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None
6. DIRECTOR’S REPORT:
Chip thanked the Commissioners that were able to participate in the Walkability Audit in the Benson
Community last week. It was a success and Staff is waiting for a report from the consultant, which will
be shared with the both the Planning Commission and Parks Commission.
7. JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & PARKS COMMISSION MEETING:
See Attachment A: Parks Commission and Planning Commission Joint Meeting #2.
8. 2011 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS (CPA) DELIBERATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
M‐01: Vantage Glen Mobile Home Park
Planning Commission Recommendation
MADE BY OSBORN, SECONDED BY REGGE to accept the staff recommendation. FIVE FOR, ONE AGAINST,
TWO ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED.
M‐05: Barbee Mill
Planning Commission Recommendation
MADE BY REGGE, SECONDED BY DROLLINGER to take no action and the zoning and land use should remain
COR. Staff should conduct more analysis on the greater area, including Barbee Mill, for next year’s cycle.
SIX FOR, TWO ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED.
Planning Commission Minutes
Page 2 of 2
June 15, 2011
M‐06: Duvall
Planning Commission Recommendation
MADE BY GIOMETTI, SECONDED BY OSBORN to accept the staff recommendation. FIVE FOR, ONE ABSTAIN,
TWO ABSENT. MOTION CARRIED.
T‐01: Sustainability; T‐02: GMA Review; T‐03: Transportation Element; T‐04: Complete Streets; T‐05:
Economic Development; T‐06: Landscaping; T‐07: Assisted Living Density Bonus; and T‐08: City Center Plan
Planning Commission Recommendation
MADE BY GIOMETTI, SECONDED BY OSBORN to accept the staff recommendation. SIX FOR, TWO ABSENT.
MOTION CARRIED.
9. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: The next Commission meeting will be on July 6, 2011.
10. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
Ed Prince, Chair
Michael Drollinger, Vice Chair
Parks Commission and Planning Commission Joint Meeting #2
Date 6/15/2011
Time 6:00 PM – 7:45 PM
Location Renton City Hall, 7th Floor, Conferencing Center (Rm 720)
Participants
Community Services Administrator: Terry Higashiyama
Team Leads: Leslie Betlach, Vanessa Dolbee
Parks Commission Members: Al Dieckman, Chair; Cynthia Burns, Michael O-Donin,
Larry Reymann, Marlene Winter, Troy Wigestrand,
Planning Commission Members: Ed Prince, Chair; Michael Drollinger, Ray Giometti,
Gwendolyn High, Michael O’Halloran, Nancy Osborn, Martin Regge
Other Participants: Pete Maas, Kris Sorensen, Chip Vincent
Team Members Unable to Attend: Tim Searing, Michael Chen, Kevin Poole
Consulting Team Members (MIG): Ryan Mottau and Jon Pheanis
Meeting Summary
The second joint meeting with the Renton Parks Commission and Planning
Commission for the Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources (PROSNR)
Plan focused on the outcomes of the public involvement process to include a Draft
Preliminary Project List and Draft Preliminary Program List, the vision for the
PROSNR Plan and the project and program decision making tools.
Using a PowerPoint presentation, MIG introduced the project and gave an update of
the planning process. The presentation included a summary of the Visioning
Workshop (including the Visual Preference Survey Results and the Break-out Group
Exercise), the on-line Interactive Mapping Exercise and the statistically valid
Community Priority Survey.
Community Priority Survey
Following a review of the needs assessment, MIG provided an update of recent public
outreach opportunities. These included a community visioning workshop, an online
interactive map and a community wide survey. The random sample, statistically
significant survey occurred after the workshop and initial public outreach. The survey
is critical in testing key findings identified throughout the needs assessment process.
Meeting participants provided the following comments, with responses provided by
City staff and MIG.
Summary: Parks Commission and Planning Commission Joint Meeting #2 Page 1
Renton Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan
A meeting participant asked how improving existing sports fields is defined.
One of the key findings from the survey is that improving existing facilities is
important to residents. The survey question did not specify this definition, but
the question was useful in gauging interest between improvements to existing
facilities and constructing new ones, such as a new sports field complex.
A participant asked about youth participation percentage and whether the
related survey question specifically asked about youth sports. The youth
participation questions did specify participation in youth sports.
A participant asked about “silent participants” or those of diverse backgrounds
that may be underrepresented in the public involvement process but rely on
parks and recreation facilities. This issue is especially important in Renton, due
to distinctive differences among planning areas. A complete summary of the
survey methodology is presented in the Community-wide Survey Summary
Report. The survey was conducted in three languages: English, Spanish and
Vietnamese. The survey required a five-percentage point difference among
different planning areas to indicate a difference from the overall average. The
survey demographics very closely matched the 2010 Census demographics.
Similarly, a participant questioned whether reliance of a phone administered
survey would introduce bias due to the percentage of the population that do
not have or answer a phone. The survey process included a check on census
data to compare whether demographic data is representative of the survey.
Survey responses closely matched demographic data.
A related comment noted that neighborhoods of similar demographics may
skew survey results, and that distinguishing among different planning areas
would be valuable. The survey relied on a statistically valid sample. A greater
sample of demographically diverse neighborhoods would require a more
extensive effort which is not possible given the existing project budget.
One participant asked if any of the results stood out from typical surveys. A
response of “no activity” was one finding in the survey, in response to a
question about frequent recreation activity. Related to this question, a
participant asked whether some survey respondents could interpret walking as
utilitarian activity and not necessarily a recreational activity. Such an example
would lead these respondents to omit walking as a preferred activity.
Plan Vision
MIG presented the draft community vision for the plan. The draft vision is based on
public input generated during the planning process and Community Visioning
Workshop. The Inter Departmental Team approved of the draft vision earlier in the
month as did the Steering Committee.
Summary: Parks Commission and Planning Commission Joint Meeting #2 Page 2
Renton Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan
Draft Vision: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resource Areas provide
the opportunity for the community to connect to, participate in,
support and encourage a healthy environment and active lifestyle.
Decision Making Tools
The remainder of the meeting focused on the Decision Making Tools and the Draft
Preliminary Project List and Draft Preliminary Program List. MIG presented four draft
decision making tools: Recreation Program Evaluation, Design Guidelines,
Prioritization Criteria and a Capital and Operations Cost Model. Public input was
incorporated into the development of these draft tools. The draft tools were tested at
IDT #3 and the previous Steering Committee meeting; based upon input at both of
the afore-mentioned meetings minor revisions were incorporated into the draft tools.
The recreation program criteria will help the City discuss existing and future
recreation programming in the efforts of providing programs that reflect community
needs and priorities. A goal for this meeting was to review and discuss the Draft
Decision Making Tools in order to identify potential changes to the criteria and review
the Draft Preliminary Project List that utilized the draft tools for list development.
Specific comments and responses related to the Decision Making Tools are presented
below.
Design Guidelines
Comments indicated that the discussion of non conforming parks (existing
sites that do not meet the guidelines) is helpful in determining future direction
for these parks. There are several methods that can be used to address parks
that do not meet the design guidelines.
On a related note, a participant stated that certain small parks are desirable
amenities because these parks can meet some needs of the community,
especially where neighborhoods are underserved by larger parks. One of the
survey questions asked about preferences for small or mini parks. Responses
showed that residents prefer larger parks (community and neighborhood) with
more amenities. However, Jones Park was identified as a popular small park.
This site nearly meets size guidelines and is in close proximity to an exiting
trail. Sunset Court Park is another example of a small park that is land locked
and is near a redeveloping area. Through the Sunset Planed Action, EIS and
potential future development, a project is proposed to replace the park site.
The redevelopment project would showcase the new park and serve as a
model for future development.
Meeting participants agreed that some parks are popular even though they do
not meet guidelines. Glencoe Park is an example of a site that should remain in
its current condition as an exception to the guidelines.
Meeting participants also agreed that existing parks that do not meet the
proposed draft guidelines be noted as exceptions and be re-classified to the
most appropriate park category and asterisked, as these parks currently
provide a valuable function.
Summary: Parks Commission and Planning Commission Joint Meeting #2 Page 3
Renton Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan
A participant asked about restrictions on conditions for use and development of
a park site. If the condition is not clear from the beginning, such restrictions
should be identified in the criteria. Similarly, land donations can be weighed
against the criteria, identifying whether these sites meet community needs.
Access is another issue that is important to the community. Improved access is
a concept that was mentioned frequently in the public involvement process.
Prioritization Criteria
Leslie Betlach provided an overview of the preliminary projects and how
projects ranked, displaying the list through color coded ranking. A participant
asked to provide an existing example of how the criteria can be used. Projects
can be adjusted based on additional considerations. As an example, Ron Regis
Park and the NARCO property shifted from the initial ranking based on
conditions related to the NARCO property. Grant funding utilized to acquire the
NARCO property encumbered half of the property for use as open space and
cannot be developed, unless the City purchases the equivalent value of land
(right to use the land for active recreation use). The likelihood of Ron Regis
developing prior to the NARCO property is greater because the site is owned
by the City (without restrictions) and therefore ranks higher.
The majority of top ranked parks are existing parks with developed facilities.
This matches the public input showing support for maintenance of existing
facilities. The list also reflects support for natural areas and opportunities for
youth.
One participant mentioned that filling gaps in the Benson Area is not listed as a
top priority. A participant noted that there is expressed interest about
providing a public pool and community center in the Benson Area. Another
participant identified a need for new facilities in East Renton. Participants
expressed the desire to identify the needs of individual planning areas.
However, the project list is intended to show needs across the entire system.
A meeting participant noted that there is currently no dedicated dog park in
the City and that a dog park is not listed on the project list. Through the
planning process, one of the concept plans includes a number of sites including
a new dog park. These concept plans take into account many of the concerns
raised at the meeting including gaps in service.
Another issue was more clarity about the “meets multiple plan objectives”
criterion. This criterion sought to identify the number of plan objectives which
a given project meets by advancing the goals of previous planning efforts,
support in regional planning objectives and or supporting the PROSNR vision..
Funding is not addressed in the criteria for scoring projects (at this time) but is
an influence of the order of how a project can be implemented. If there was
available land for a new park, the scoring could be increased.
Summary: Parks Commission and Planning Commission Joint Meeting #2 Page 4
Renton Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan
A participant asked about public input that wasn’t a key finding. Feedback from
the workshop was screened to identify major themes conveyed during public
outreach opportunities and helped to identify the criteria.
The Planning Director clarified that while the screening criteria are helpful,
further analysis is needed to quantify the realities of the list. Sorting of the list
can be shown by specific planning area, City wide, by park type, etc. Through
this, residents can identify projects that are specific to their neighborhood. In
addition, some of the more specific needs will be addressed in future specific
area plans.
Based on meeting feedback, quantity versus quality is an important
consideration. Larger parks can accommodate a greater number of needs. A
local park in every community may not be the best approach to Renton. There
is a need for parks with multiple facilities. However, although Renton has been
successful in building parks, adding too many sites may dilute the system (in
terms of the ongoing maintenance and operational costs).
A participant asked about the ranking of corridors and whether natural area
characteristics and important connections are factored into the scoring.
Environmental factors such as salmon habitat are an important consideration.
The review of these projects is based on a broader look of projects and the
criteria attempts to capture existing conditions such as natural features and
connections. As an example, a participant noted a new routing of Springbrook
Creek (East side of Talbot, north of the Trout Farm) which provides a good
opportunity for public access to wetlands, similar to the Oak Creek trail.
Participants asked about the change in ranking over time, based on changing
conditions and new planning efforts. For example, adoption of the Benson
Community Plan will re-rank the order of projects as proposed projects in this
area will be meeting multiple planning objectives
Summary: Parks Commission and Planning Commission Joint Meeting #2 Page 5
Renton Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan
Summary: Parks Commission and Planning Commission Joint Meeting #2 Page 6
Next Steps
MIG asked participants to take a closer look at the criteria and whether the tools are
reflective of community needs. When asked, participants acknowledged that the draft
criteria is appropriate as are the ranked Draft Preliminary Project List and the Draft
Preliminary Program List. The project list will be revisited periodically as conditions
change. MIG used the final few minutes of the meeting to summarize next steps in
the planning process. This will include a meeting update for the Committee of the
Whole (June 20th); and community meetings to review the documents and concept
plans on June 28th – 29th.
Materials Provided
The following materials were provided to participants at this meeting (and are
included in the summary pdf files):
Agenda
Sign in sheets
PowerPoint Presentation used during the meeting
The following materials were provided either prior to or at the meeting, but are not
attached to this summary due to file size:
Draft Tools for Decision Making including: Program Evaluation Tool, Design
Guidelines, Prioritization Criteria and Capital and operations Cost Model
Draft Preliminary Project List and Draft Preliminary Program List Draft
Community Priority Survey Summary (Appendices on project website)
Visioning Workshop Summary and Workshop Appendices
Needs Assessment dated May 2011
Summary of the Interactive Mapping Results