Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 12/11/1980 Kent, Washington December 11, 1980 A special meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 4: 00 o'clock p.m. by Mayor Hogan. Present: Councilpersons Bailey, Hamilton, B. Johnson, Masters, McCaughan and Mooney, City Administrator Cushing, City Attorney Mirk, Planning Director Harris, and Public Works Director Wickstrom. (Jon Johnson arrived at approximately 5 p.m. ) Approximately 90 people were in attendance at the meeting. It was determined that notice has been given that the Council will hold special public hearings to consider the recommendations from the Planning Commission to the City Council concerning the Valley Studies Program on December 11, 1980 at 4 p.m. , December 18, 1980 at 4 p.m. , and on December 22 at 7 p.m. as follows: A) Amendments to the Valley Floor Plan B) Unique and Fragile Areas C) Amendments to the Zoning Code D) Green River Corridor Plan E) Surface Water Management Plan F) Transportation Plan McCaughan questioned the second paragraph of the handout entitled "City Council Procedure for Hearing Planning Commission Recommendations on the Valley Studies Program" which reads as follows: "It is the City Council ' s intention to hold a hearing on each of the six items listed above, accept public comment, and close the hearing on that particular item. Following closure of the hearing, the City Council will deliberate on the issues and make a final decision before proceeding to the next subject and the realted Public Hearings. " McCaughan asked about the procedure in case no decision was reached on a particular item and if the Council would then continue on to the next item and be given an opportunity to review the unresolved item. The Mayor noted that if necessary, an item could be continued to allow the Council to consider any new testimony which had been " introduced. Harris clarified that a handout from the Planning Depart- ment listed several items which had been corrected or clarified. A green covered book, entitled "Planning Commission' s Final Recommend- ation on the Valley Studies Program" has been filed as a part of the record and has been made available. The public hearing on amendments to Valley Floor Plan was opened by the Mayor. Jim Curran noted that the Kent Highlands property, con- taining approximatelv 350 acres, was mostly outside of the sphere of the study except for a small portion on Russell Road. He referred - 1 - December 11, 1980 to a letter which had been delivered to the City and filed for the record, dated December 1, 1980, in which he had requested that the Planning Commission study the West Hill area to consider its future use and development. He stated that it was appropriate that any decisions could be made in such future studies of the Kent Highlands area, and asked that the Council consider the idea of making decisions relating to Kent Highlands at a later date. John O'Rourke, co-counsel for Kent Highlands, addressed the meeting and referred to his letter dated December 11, filed with the clerk relating to Kent Highlands concerns over the matter before the Council. He suggested that while the Planning Commission' s recommendations may appear to be innocuous on the general issue of land use and reclassification, the recommend- ations also cover many areas impacting land use, referring specifically to prohibition of arterials in certain areas along Green River. He suggested that this might prohibit further crossings of the river. He added that this policy recommendation would make it extremely difficult for land isolated from the rest of the City to be developed without already having the necessary utility and road services. He also referred to the area of density development which is figured on a different basis than originally anticipated. O'Rourke continued by noting that because of the relatively small impact from the Valley Plan on the Kent Highlands property that the best manner in which to approach the development of this particular property is by an areawide reclassification to include Kent Highlands, as a separate study as suggested by Curran ' s letter to the Council dated December 1. McCaughan and Masters suggested that the Council had had no opportunity to read the letter and if decisions were to be made, it was necessary for the Council to review the correspondence. Bailey noted that the staff had had no opportunity to analyze and prepare responses to the letters presented tonight. Mirk stated that the letters should be read aloud since there might be people in the audience who wished to rebut what was stated in the letters or offer more testimony. Mayor Hogan stated that it was her understanding that those address- ing the Council were summarizing what was contained in their letters. HAMILTON MOVED that the letters be read, Masters seconded. Motion carried. At this time, both the Curran and O' Rourke letters were read by the Clerk and were filed as part of the record. Joel Haggard, Attorney, 1530 Bank of California Center, Seattle, com- mented on the rules for procedure as set forth in the handout. He agreed that time limits set for speakers was for the purpose of insur- ing everyone an opportunity to speak, noting that a public hearing meant a fair and impartial hearing. The Mayor suggested that the Council did have the perogative to set time limits and it was deter- mined that this was not a major problem. Haggard also referred to 2 - December 11, 1980 three points: 1) that verbatim transcripts would be available if necessary; 2) they would like the opportunity to review the package of material previously given to the Council to find out what information the Council does have; 3) referring to Mirk' s comments he concurred that the letters should be read, especially since there might be individuals who wish to comment. He suggested that staff ' s response to the Council should also be heard by those who had submitted the letters . Mayor Hogan noted that if a hearing remained open, the people would have the opportunity to respond to the staff' s comments. Jim Goldsmith of Goldsmith & Associates addressed the Council on behalf of the following clients: Urbana Equities, Polygon Corpora- tion, Tri-State Construction, Pacific Industrial Concepts and Cold- well Banker. Goldsmith read his letter dated December 11 which was then filed as part of the record. He suggested that a special Council Committee be formed to evaluate the aspects and impact of the studies as the recommendations from the Planning Commission were too general in nature and required evaluation, especially the amendments to the Valley Floor Plan, Unique and Fragile Areas and Amendments to the Zoning Code. Harris referred to Goldsmith' s suggestion to reverse the order of the public hearings and stated that it was not possible to start at the end of the program, that a normal sequence must be followed and that this meant that land use must be considered first. He suggested that Land Use Study may result, in changes to the Transportation and Storm Drainage studies. Bailey noted that Councilman Hamilton had served on the Planning Commission through the Valley Studies hearings and asked his opinion on Goldsmith ' s suggestion that a Council Committee be formed to evaluate the impact of the studies. Hamilton opined that the Council ' s proposed schedule for conducting these public hearings in only three special meetings was ridiculous, pointing out that the Planning Commission spent eight months deliberating over the issues . He further stated that the Council hearings were being held prematurely, that more workshops were necessary. Jerry Hillis, Attorney, 403 Columbia, Seattle, Washington, addressed the Council on behalf of Arrow Development and expressed his concerns over the procedures set forth for the hearing. He noted that it was difficult to know what the comments would be on the various items and that they needed to look at the entire package. He suggested that if they closed the hearing on Item A and adopt that and then make some changes in some of the other sections, those changes could affect that part already adopted. He suggested that while the Council is receiving input they needed to allow some flexibility since many are concerned about the Valley Studies program as a whole. 3 - December 11, 1980 He suggested that they make all changes with regard to each sec- tion as they proceed. The Mayor clarified that the procedure to be followed was set up to have some sort of sequence to the hearings. Hillis referred especially to the Valley Floor Plan, figure 12 of the Land Use Study and page 3 of the Planning Commission final recommendation. He stated that the map is not to scale and there- fore is inaccurate and that this should be made clear so as to avoid having the map interpreted as correct in the future. He referred to the specific area of the Lakes Development proposal and the area shown as open space. Harris noted the map was not exact and precise, and that that fact had been established. Hillis suggested that the Council keep that in mind when they consider that map and further suggested that the language be changed to show that the areas designated as parks and open space on this map are not drawn to scale and are not meant to be depicted as the exact location of these uses . MOONEY MOVED to accept the suggested language as part of the record, Bailey seconded and motion carried. Duane Lien addressed the Council on behalf of the Washington State Horsemen, Inc. and read a letter requesting that consideration be given to equestrian trails . A slide presentation was also made by the group. The letter was filed as part of the record. Tom Miller read a letter from James Leonard of the South King County chapter of the Northwest Steelhead & Salmon Council relating to their con- cerns about preservation of fisheries and wildlife. The letter was made a part of the record. Miller also commented that he felt the issues in the program appeared to be too large and too fragile to be handled in this fashion and concurred with Hamilton that more time was required. He asked that their group be included if more work sessions and special meetings were to be held. Jessie Gray addressed the Council noting that she owned property west of the river and would like to have it left RA zoned. John Barr of Pacific Industries, Cerritos, California, owners of approximately 75 acres of MA zoned lands on the south side of S . 212th, read a letter which was made a part of the record. He noted that he had given a great deal of testimony at the Planning Commission hearings and urged that the Council study all of the records in addition to the Planning Commission' s recommendation. Barr noted, as contained in his letter, objections to providing bicycle paths in a business park and sug- gested a pump station at S . 212th as an alternate to the open, im- proved ditch proposal. He further objected to policies 6 and 8 listed under Economic Development under Goal 1 - Objective l and to the imposition of being singled out individually to contribute funds for open space as listed in Objective 3, Policy 2. Barr further noted that Building Size on page 14 would restrict buildings to one acre in size and stated that buildings could be cornered. 4 - December 11, 1980 Joel Haggard, representing Barry Margolese, property owner, stated that the city is losing industrial-zoned land and gave figures , summarized as the changes in the last sixteen months : M-1 increase of 18%, M-2 decrease of 120 , 19-3 decrease of 170. Haggard stated that the figures presented in the city ' s report are not current and that Kent needs 108 to 160 acres of M-1, M-2 , and M-3 zoned land per year for development. He noted that the size of industry- zoned parcels was important and that size would vary with need. He further stated that the fact that land was zoned for industry did not mean that it can or will be developed. He concluded that Kent did not have enough industrial land to satisfy the need. At the conclusion of the meeting, Haggard submitted hand-written comments, noting that further written comments would be submitted. The hand-written material has been filed as a part of the record. These comments suggested specific changes to the "Green" book on pages 5, 10, and 11 . He suggested that the Council form a committee to review the availability and need for industry-zoned property and the proper location of same. Jack Martz referred to the land use map noting that it was difficult to compare RA zoned land with that proposed for Agricultural zoning. He noted that to downgrade RA land to A classification would work an economic hardship on the owners and that such a proposal was un- reasonable, considering the farmland preservation program. Ross Bentson read a letter from the Chamber of Commerce (copy NOT tiled for the record) . The letter referred to the recommendations made by the Chamber in July, 1980 . (Copy of 3-page report was ob- tained from Planning Department and made a part of the record. ) At the request of a member of the audience, Bentson read the recom- mendations, divided into three categories : Land Use, Green River Corridor and Surface Water Management. The twelve recommendations dealing with Land Use include: support for adoption of Valley Development Plan, Figure 12 with revisions , support for placing 400 acres of the valley in multi-family zoning , keeping steep hillsides for open space , support for the findings of Puget Sound Air Pollution Central Agency, support of consultant' s recommendation to develop 1200 additional acres using onsite water detention, and enlargement of the city ' s water supply. The Chamber further recom- mends support of common sense approach in zoning setbacks, opposes limiting landscaping materials and building designs compatible to those with characteristics of the valley, supports landscaping that requires little water other than normal rainfall , encourages the use of solar heating and opposes public use of industrially developed open space areas . Mrs . Donofrio stated that she did not want to develop her property on S. 216th but that she wanted it retained as RA zoned and not as a unique and fragile area . 5 - December 11, 1980 Nancy Blau supported the prior testimony urging that trails for horses be provided. Gary Volchok asked if the slides he had shown the Planning Commis- sion were made a part of the packet provided to the Council. Harris explained that every letter and picture seen by the Plan- ning Commission were not forwarded to the Council, that these materials were considered by the Commission at their hearings and the Commission, in turn makes a recommendation to the Council. Joel Haggard objected stating that without these materials the Council does not have a complete packet. McCaughan noted that the handout listing the procedures to be followed by the Council in these hearings states that only NEW material will be introduced and asked if all Planning Commission material was available. Mirk noted that the Council had exercised its perogative in having the Planning Commission conduct public hearings. Lengthy hearings were held and data was presented and the Commission has made recom- mendations to the Council . He pointed out that the Council now may take the material from the Commission and consider it, hear more input, suggestions and objections and deal with that. Mirk further noted that the Council may ask for any material which was filed with the Planning Commission and further that the Council was not required to go back and forth with the public by constantly continuing the hearings . He suggested that specific items be heard and then considered. Volchok then showed a series of slides relating to acreage density of people, building density and acreage available. He noted that the City' s chart shows 1 , 957 acres as M-1 , M-2 and M-3 in the developed area but that his figures indicated only 953 acres. He noted that the report in the "Green Book" , in appendix "F" , says that in an M-1 area there can be 60% coverage and pointed out that the highest existing coverage was 49% and that the average was 45% land coverage. He noted that his figures showed approximately 10 employees per acre. Harris noted that the Planning Commission had deleted references to the number of employees per acre. Volchok stated that the Planning Commission recommendations contained in the "Green Book" were vague and would deter development if adopted by the Council . He commented on the use of the word "dedicate" and stated that just compensation would have to be given. He noted that the requirements of the "Green Book" would increase the cost of development by approximately $30, 000 per acre. Les Samford stated that he owns property in Kent and that he agreed with the Chamber of Commerce ' s recommendation in that any property to be classed as unique and fragile should be owned by the City. 6 - December 11, 1980 He also noted that there did not seem to be a clear definition of a unique and fragile area. Dennis White noted that it was important that the wetlands be preserved for wildlife. Dave Uhrich of Upland Industries stated that he concurred with the suggestion that the Council take a close look at the Planning Commission ' s recommenda- tions. He noted that a city document entitled Interim Planning Program, written 21 months ago, stated that the staff, working with consultants and developers would develop a plan assess the impact that new development would have on storm water, trans- portation, domestic water and sewers . He stated that the staff and consultants did not work with potential developers and property owners and that we are now looking at a whole new land use policy. Uhrich showed some slides and commented that the data did not justify the conclusions of the consultants. The slides showed the area near Upland Industries and how little land would have been developed under all the various restrictions now proposed. He stated that a realistic projection of Kent' s expected capture of the valley demand would be 700 or 175 acres per y ear ather than the 83 acres stated by the consultants and that industrial development takes many forms . Uhrich noted that the arreaa was already served with utilities and was contiguous to p p Y already developed and stated that taxes remitted to Kent from the Upland properties would be $6, 000 per year if the land was undeveloped and $900 , 000 for developed land. Uhrich filed three letters for the record, one dealing with the Land Use Study, one with the Green River Corridor and one with Unique and Fragile areas. He read the letter dealing with Land Use Study, expressing cern with Goal 3, suggesting that Objective 2, Policy 4 be deleted. The letter also suggests changes to Objective 3, Policies 1 , 2 and 3 , using the word 'encourage ' instead of ' require ' as well as consider- ing the environmental excise tax ordinance and other revenue generat- ing sources. Uhrich suggested that Policy 8 of Goal 1be deletenext and that Goal 6 , Policy 1 be amended to clarify yofses proh 7 . The re- ibtd to the river, along with deletion of a p code and mainder of the letter dealt with amendments to the zoning was not read by Uhrich. Tom McCann, owner of 32 acres west of the river, stated that the terms unique and fragile were too general and created a hardship to landowners. He suggested that further investigation be made of those areas declared to be unique and fragile and opined that his land was buildable and had good access . Norm Bunkowski of the S . Seattle Saddle Club spoke in favor of per- mitting use of horses in the proposed trail system. - 7 - December 11, 1980 Paige Darraugh read a letter which was filed for the record noting that a trail plan can be developed for compatible use by joggers, bikers and horsemen, as has been demonstrated in other areas. John Torrence stated he bought property just outside the city in 1964 as a possible place for development as a business park in the future. He noted that it should be not classed as farmland since it had been impossible to lease it for farming. He noted that the consultants should consider some of the suggestions made by some of the California developers. Carol Stoner noted that an informational meeting on the Valley Studies Program was held at the library and the results of a questionnaire showed that most people were concerned with the preservation of open space land. Laurie Johnson spoke in favor of the Green River Corridor and noted that some of the wetlands could not be replaced. She noted that if the Planning Commissions recommendations were followed and develop- ment allowed east of the river, and it happened that the city could not acquire wetlands on the west side, the city could be left with no wetlands at all . She noted also that the city should protect the public access to the Green River. Sylvia Langdon stated that she had lived in the valley all of her life and that she thought that the "Green Book" addresses the issue- She stated that the Council had to look at the way of life, the environment and the jobs, keeping the "people" issue foremost. Barry Margolese read and submitted for the record a letter dated October 28 and addressed to the Planning Commission, with a petition attached signed by nine property owners. The petition, dated April 22, 1980, objected to the agricultural designations proposed for property zoned as MA located south of the river, east of the West Valley Highway, west of the Valley Freeway, and north of S . 277th. He noted that the majority of the land was not eligible for the King County Farmland Preservation bond issue and that when the land was leased to farmers, the rent was insufficient to pay the taxes. He stated further that water and sewer service will be readily available. The Clerk read a letter from _Genevieve Lopez opposing the proposed 1, 000 foot setback along the river, stating that this would deprive her of her property rights . The letter was filed as a part of the record. 8 - December 11 , 1980 After all those wishing to speak had been heard, B. JOHNSON MOVED to continue the hearing to the next special meeting scheduled for 4 : 00 p.m. on December 18 . Hamilton suggested that a WORKSHOP be held on the 18th and that the hearing be continued to the scheduled special meeting on December 22 at 7 : 00 p.m. B. JOHNSON withdrew her motion and MOVED for a workshop to be held at 4 :00 p.m. on Thursday, December 18 , and for this hearing to be continued to the special meeting scheduled for Monday, December 22 at 7 : 00 p.m. Hamilton seconded, motion carried. The special meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Marie JenSe CMC 1 City Clerk - 9 -