Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 01/08/1981 Kent, Washington January 8, 1981, A special meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order al- 4:00 o'clock p.m. by Mayor Hogan. Present: Mayor Hogan, coun persons Bailey, Hamilton, B. Johnson, J. Johnson, Masters, McCaughan Attorne Mirk, Planning and Mooney, City Administrator Cushing, City for Public Works n attendance at Director Harris and City Engineer Gill substituting Director Wi.ckstrom. Approximately 30 people were i the meeting. an noted that according to the December 22, 1980 meeting Mayor Hog was being held to reopen the continued public minutes, this meeting g ur ose of considering the mapping. In response to hearing for the p p her questions, Harris concurred that there however, atrthependcofsthatc ting; had been tabled from the last mee continued public hearing it had be . gd and rthat dith was tnot stated g was to deal strictly with the mappin whether the Council wanted to look at the tabled policies at this meeting or not. _ (Note: Minutes of the December 22redyb meeting e distributed l the January to the Council on 1/2/81 and accept y 5, 1981 meeting.) ted that Masters referred to the December 22, 1a8t0 minutes d theCouncilhadasupposedly she would like to clarify one issue that approved at the December 22 meeting, referring specifically to page 6 of the Council minutes, at the bottom of the page, reading as follows : "PAGE 5 It was determined that GOAL 1 and Objective l were already existing. "HAMILTON MOVED to change 2 �� showndolfor moresintensiove resident al ooruindus- ''Rezoning of RA and MA an I trial use should occur contiguous to areas aeastdandanorthsofv the s� utilities and adequate road available, e.g. Green River. ' B. Johnson seconded, motion carried. " ha in She stated that it was her understafdthe Riverhnot east council anddnorthact been talking about south and west o Harris stated that at the end of the discussion tha lem had with uclarifica- at the December 22, 1980 he felt there had been no p tion as to what they were discussing---that the handout which he had - 1 - January 8, 1981 provided at the December 22, 1.980 meeting had resulted from a request for clarification at the December 1.8 workshop meeting for this particu- lar policy--and further, that he had described the mistake which had been made in the December 22, 1980 handout, which is reflected in the December 22 minutes. He noted that the handout contained a mistake which stated "south and west of the river" when it should have said "north and east. " He pointed out that considerable discussion had been held with regard to the mistake but that there was no doubt in his mind that the Council had been clear as to what had been intended: by the Planning Commission. Masters stated that she apparently had misunderstood the wording and that therefore her vote had not correctly reflected her thinking on the matter. Discussion was held as to whether it was proper to refer back to the item at this time and Mirk clarified that since it was part of the special Council meeting it could be reopened at this time. Mayor Hogan questioned whether the minutes were to be accepted at this time and also noted that if Masters wanted a change to the minutes they should either be approved or modi#:fell oi: amended. Harris pointed out that he did not think it w--:.L> a matter of a simple change; that there had been a great deal of on the issue at the time and there was no doubt that the was aware that the words "north and east of the river" waS tie intent of the policy. He expressed opposition at changing the wording of the minutes and suggested that more discussion of the terms would be appropriate. On Mirk ' s advice, J. JOHNSON MOVED that the minutes of the December 22, 1980 special Council meeting be accepted, Mooney seconded. Motion carried. At this point, Mayor Hogan declared the continued public hearing open and noted that according to the directions of the Council the subject of mapping would be under discussion, and if time allowed, discussion of the corridor hearing. Bailey expressed the need for clarification on the points which Masters had raised regarding the December 22, .1980 meeting, noting that he also had some concerns over the matter. Mirk responded by noting that the December 22, 1.980 minutes were in fact correct and accurately reflected the. action taken by the Council. He noted, however, that if the Council wished to reconsider the action they had taken at that time it would be proper to do so at this time. -- 2 - i I January 80 1981 I MASTERS MOVED to reconsider the action taken by the Council at the December 22, 1980 meeting with regard to the rezoning of RA and MA land as identified in the minutes, Bailey seconded. Motion carried, with Hamilton voting nay. Masters stated that her request was for a clarification of what the i Council had actually voted on because the results of the minutes did not reflect. what she thought they were voting on - that she had thought they were talking about "south and west of the river, " not "east and north of the river. " Harris again explained the action that had taken place at the Council meeting of December 22, 1980, referring to the fact that he had been asked to bring in some changes on three different policies, including the one under discussion. He noted that he had clearly stated that there had been a mistake in his handout with regard to Policy 6 and Hamilton ' s motion had clearly alluded to this . Harris also noted that 4.n response to questions from the Council he had explained the reason that the city was not interested in rezones south and west of the r.z',:'t'Y ,, ,- because of the lack of utilities and services in the area. Bailey raised the gaestion as to 110W t. ;t l�o?.:I.Cy would actually be interpreted, should it apply drily tc tho,: 0 PA and MA zoned lands north and east of the river and not .south and west. Harris stated that the policy would be applied as it reads. . . "Rezoning of RA and MA land for more intensive residential or industrial use should occur contiguous to areas already having services, utilities and adequate road available, and that these lands are generally north and east of the river. " Bailey suggested that this did not auto- matically imply that this verbage wo1jl_d be used in land west and �Isouth of the river. Harris explained that if someone were to come in and ask for a rezone south acid wFsst of the river and the policy were in effect, the City would simply ::say {ghat by omission at this time the City was not dealing with rezones west and south of the river to more intensive uses . Ifs-, noted that this had. been clearly explained at the December 22 meetinc_j E,VCII though there were those who were taking a different tack at this time. Harris pointed out that the City should be dealing with rezones in areas where adequate streets, sewer lines or LIDS are already in place--that in fact have the services available to allow a more intensive land use type situa- tion � 1 not available _ were simply tion to take place, and that these services P y south and west of the river at, this t--ime . he explained for McCaughan that it does exclude rezoning south and west_. of the river to more intensive use unrie this the policy. - 3 .� i January 8, 1981 He further clarified for McCaughan that the policy states that the rezones SHOULD occur, not SHALL occur, and that this in fact was a change which the Council wanted and which is underlined in the minutes. Mirk and Harris also pointed out that this is a j policy statement, not an absolute ordinance. I Masters expressed concern that the policy could be applied too broadly through interpretation and suggested that perhaps it should be reworded. Bailey expressed similar concerns, noting that many times staff will. make the decision as to interpretation of the policy when in fact it does not reflect the Council ' s intent. He suggested that some safeguards should be built in to the policies for the benefit of future Councilpersons or planners . Mirk explained that this particular policy had in fact came from the Council--that they had been very consistent in not wanting to extend sewer service west of the river. He noted this particular policy was written in accordance with the long-standing wishes of the Council that until other areas are developed there was no intent to extend service west of the river. He added that if this was no longer the wish of the Counci] the policy could be rewritten in accordance with their recommendations . On questions from Mayor Hogan, it was the consensus of the Council that the area under discussion was part of the Valley Studies area, and for this reason the policy should apply. J. Johnson stated that he had no problem with what the Council ' s intent had been at the December 22 meeting and concurred with Harris and Mirk that it has been the policy of the Council not to extend rezones south and west of the river until utilities are available. Hamilton pointed out that the various policies are amendments to the Valley Floor Plan and questioned whether Masters and Bailey would have less objections if the policy did not explain where it: was to take place, since it appeared to be a good policy by itself, leaving off any reference to "south and west" or "north and east" . He suggested that it was the policy of the City to fill. in contiguous properties where services were available. Harris explained for McCaughan that while there were a few properties south and west of the river that do have services, generally they do not. He concurred with Hamilton ' s suggestion, noting that this would then leave a general policy which the Hea.rinc Examiner would have to deal with and then the Council for final determination. Masters and McCaughan both agreed that, they did not feel comfortable I 4 I January 8, 1981 I with the policy as it now stands and McCADGHAN MOVED that Policy 6 be amended to read as follows: "Rezoning of RA and MA land for more intensive residential or indus- trial use should occur contiguous to areas already having services, utilities and adequate road available. " Hamilton seconded. In response to Masters ' question as to whether implementation of jthe policy would preclude any consideration for rezone requests, j Harris noted that it did not--the request would still go to the Hearing Examiner and the Hearing Examiner ' s decision ultimately would go to the Council for their final approval and decision. Mooney also suggested that the applicant might be required to show financial capability to provide the necessary services to the area. There was no further discussion and the motion to amend Policy 6 carried. The hearing then continued on to f:!,e mapping. Harris referred to the two maps displayed; one depicting the existing Valley Floor Plan and one the proposed changes made by the Planning Commission during the course of its hearings on the Valley Studies. He clarified that the Planning Commission had made no actual changes but merely recommendations for the Council. to consider during the course of these hearings. He pointed out that the basic changes suggested were in the area west of the river in the vicinity of S. 212th - changed from RA to Agriculture; an area south of the river and east of the WVH designated Industrial changed to Agriculture; and some other areas which were designated by the Valley Floor Plan map as Multi-Family also changed. to Agriculture. He referred to areas west of the West Valley highway which were designated as Agriculture under the Valley Floc"r Plan, actually in the County and which were still designated Agriculture "...ender the Valley Studies. Mayor Hogan referred to letters which had been received by the Council at the January 5, 1981 meeting from the following individuals, all of which deal with proposed land use: 1) Annette J. Garrett, 4924 - 98th Pl.. N.E. , Marysville, WA; 2) Henry M. Hart, 13743 S .E. 172nd, Renton, WA; 3) Mary K. Rogers, 9456 S . 248th, Kent , WA. 5 _ January 8, 1981 McCAUGHAN MOVED that the letters be made part of the record, Mooney seconded. Motion carried. Letters were also read by the Mayor from the following individuals, both letters expressing objections to their properties being designated for agricultural use only: 1) Mr. and Mrs. Walter E. Gray, 21507 - 42nd Avenue S. , Kent, WA 2) William A. Maltman, Attorney at Law, 215 Norton Building, Seattle, WA (attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Richard A. LoPriore) . It was noted that copies of both letters have been distributed to the Council this date. MASTERS MOVED that the letters be made a part of the record, McCaughan seconded. Motion carried. In response to the Mayor ' s question, it was determined that the map presented and under consideration was that reflecting the changes recommended by the Planning Commission as part of the Valley Studies and it should either be accepted as presented or amended. HAMILTON MOVED that all areas designed "A" or Agriculture which were designated RA or MA on the 1979 Comprehensive Plan be redesignated RA or MA as they were shown prior to the Valley Studies. Bailey seconded. In accordance with the Mayor ' s request, these areas were pointed out on the map, it being noted that there was no MA designation in the Comprehensive Plan. Hamilton clarified that he was asking for no changes in the boundaries of the map, only that the land that is designated Agriculture on the Valley Studies map be redesignated RA or MA as it was prior to the Valley Studies Program. He pointed out that the City does not even have an "A" or Agriculture designa- tion in the Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan--that all we have is an RA or MA designation. Masters expressed concern over the fact that the Valley Floor Plan. was done in 1979 and that considerable development has taken place since that time. She noted that the water table in the Valley has risen dramatically since that time and suggested that there were some areas where RA or MA or Agriculture designation could not survive. She questioned whether it might not be wiser to take the 1979 map and review the areas to determine what is legitimately a usable 6 - January 8, 1981 piece of ground under the RA or MA or A designation. In response to Mirk's question, Hamilton noted that it was the intent of his motion to make no changes to the current Comprehensive Plan map. He referred to the fact that there were several people across the river who have property shown on the present Comprehensive Plan map as RA and who have expressed a great deal of concern about their properties being redesignated Agriculture, feeling that this was in fact a down-grade. He noted that these property owners feel that with an RA designation there is some possibility they could develop the land at some time in the future ; with an A designation they feel they will be restricted to farming forever. Bailey concurred with Hamilton, noting that it had been fairly well demonstrated to the Council during the course of the hearings about, the economic feasibility of some of the lands under consideration for farming being nil and impractical. Upon further questions from Harris and Mirk, Hamilton reiterated that the intent of his motion was that he was not addressing anything that was not designated Agriculture or A now--he was referring to those areas designed Agriculture or,,^ on the Valley Studies Map and if it used to have a designation of RA of MA it should continue to carry the same designation. After further. discussion, Harris deter- mined that this could be dealt wit.ri . At the Mayor ' s request, Hamilton restated his, motion as follows: "That all areas designated A or Agriculture on the Valley Studies Map that were previously designated RA or MA on the 1979 Compre- hensive Plan be redesignated RA or MA as they were shown prior to the Valley Studies . " Mirk questioned whether there was any other land on the Valley Studies map other than RA or MA that is now designated Agriculture and Harris referred to the areas designated Multi-Family. After discussion as to the intention c-f the notion, Harris determined that they could just say that anything that was in the 1979 Valley Floor Plan was still there. In response to McCaughan ' s question as to how this would affect the Corridor Study, Harris noted that the Corridor Study was dealing with regulations, not land designa- tions per se. McCaughan stated that he could go along with the suggestion made by Harris since there was no MA or RA designation in the Valley Floor Plan, only Light Industrial/Business Park. In response to the Mayor ' s questzor; s whether he intended to 7 ._. ;Tanuary 8, 1981 withdraw his motion, Hamilton clarified that the present Zoning Code divides Agricultural land into two categories - MA or RA; now the land is referred to as A or Agriculture by virtue of the Valley Studies; that this is causing a great deal of concern to people affected by this designation; and the intent of his motion was to get the land back to the way is was designated in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. He further stated that it was not his intent to change the Comprehensive Plan because this would destroy the work that has been done in the Valley Studies. Mirk suggested that all Hamilton was asking was that the land designations stay the way they are for the present and Hamilton concurred that this was his intent. After further discussion, it was determined that the Council was not dealing with zoning, merely land use, and whether or not the areas designated should be devoted primarily to agricultural use. Mirk clarified this was the intent of the Comprehensive Plan also. Bailey stated that he concurred with lAaY!)ilt.on that the land in question should not have an Agri.cul designation. HAMILTON WITHDREW the ori.ginal Dailey The second. HAMILTON MOVED that all land designat =d. A,/Agriculture on the Valley Studies Map be redesignated F.A � McCaughan seconded. In response to questions raised by McCaughan, Hamilton noted that his intent was to get the A designation changed back to RA and then the individual pieces of .land that did not fall. into this category could be dealt with separat.el . Masters spoke in opposition to the motion, suggesting that the Council should make a thorough study of where the Agricultural designations should be since the Valley Studies Plan has arbitrarily changed great blocks of land into designations with which the Council is not in agreement. At Mcca�..aghan ' s request, Harris pointed out the areas covered by the motion, re-emphasizing that there was no MA designation in the Comprehensive Plan--that the closest thing to MA is designated Industrial Park. He pointed out the area where this applied., including the land which has the Multi-Family designation. Gary Volchok suggested that t-iamilton and masters were saying exactly the same thing---they were trying to reaffirm the 1979 Comprehensive Plan, not the zoning as it was adopted in 1979. Masters responded by noting that the 1.979 Comprehensive Plan - 8 January 8, 1981 indicated one thing and the Valley Studies has indicated another and suggested the new designation was unfair to those property owners who had intended uses for their land at some future time. There was no further discussion and the motion CARRIED. In response to McCaughan ' s question, Harris noted that it would be appropriate to deal only with comprehensive planning with regard to the 1979 Valley Floor Plan. McCAUGHAN MOVED that the land that is east of the West Valley Highway immediately north be left as Light Industrial/Busi.ness Park as shown on the 1979 map, and the northern one-half of that piece of property be returned back to Multi-Family designa- tion as the 1979 Valley Floor Plan indicates . Bailey seconded . Motion CARRIED. Harris questioned whether the Council wished to address the piece of property, designated multi-Farm,_,,,°, that is east of the Burling- ton Northern and south of the River , Fie noted that it is outside of the City at this time but would pronlibly be annexed at some time in the future. He clarified for. Masto rs that it is designated Multi-Family in the valley Floor P.lAn btit. has now been changed to RA by virtue of Hamilton' s 1110t i_01 . MASTERS MOVED to reaffirm the 1979 Comprehensive Plan designation for the area, McCaughan seconded. B. Johnson suggested that since it was within the sphere of interest it might be best to leave the area with the RA designation, rather than Multi.-Family, since RA was in fact a holding designation and the City was not sure at this time what they wanted in that area. Hamilton pointed out that at the time of annexation, the Planning Commission would hold a hearing as to the zoning. Mc-� -tc,rs suggested that an RA designa- tion would be a down-zone. .I . .7Tohnsor, {disagreed, noting that they were not discussing zoning, but only comprehensive planning. There was no further discussion and the motion CARRIED, with B. Johnson and Hamilton voting nay. In response -to McCaughan ' s question, Harris noted that all the changes to the Valley Studies map related to the west and south and that nothing had been done to the north and east since these would remain the same. In response to McCaughan' s further ques- tion as to whether there was anything to south and west of the 9 January 8, 1981 Harris referred to an area, river which had not been addressed, known shown as open space or known as the Rosso property, park, which is now RA. He stated that if an attempt was made at this time to put a genuine RA zoning use to the property this could be done; if an owners wouldpt was still bed told that to gthehlandzoning from RA to _R 1 the ocil would had a park land designation the it wasndeterminedhthattthe determination. After discussion original motion did thehVall�Y Studiesthe mapdesignation that the secondfrom A to RA as shown on motion had returned it to its 1979 designation. HAMILTON MOVED to adopt the Valley Studies Map as AMENDED, J. Johnson seconded. Sally Miller of Arrow Developmeddsthatt some he onotation be ng that they had made a request previously put on the map that was adopted which geral areas,tnot parks andopen space areas were meant to show g, r}. sizes or exact locations . Harrisrt of �t3.�ndnuaefmap but eis built the trail system was not pa into the policies and regulations that will be discussed later. Motion carried. on the MOONEY MOVED that a notation and mopen ade lspace Tarease d generally, map that indicates the p Masters seconded. Motion carried. LANDSCAPE CORRIDOR MAP Referring to page 3 of the Green book, paragraph 2, Harris read as follows : "The Landscape Corrido�sedPazderalseand the series proposedrdrainage rs along existing or Prof trunk channel. The Landscape Corridor Map implements the Open Space Goal 3 :4:4 and 3:4: 5. " intent Harris referred to the rnaand thnote bouaevards1would be the landscapedthat as--the areas were developed e MOONEY MOVED to adopt the map�eBn����uGeclandac:aPedHarris areasalon clarified for Masters that this was to existing or new arterials as well t be he propo 3edod���ncouncilnwhen that final plans and designs necessary. Motion married. - 1.0 -- January 8, 1981 It was determined that "II. Unique and Fragile Areas" (Pages 7 - 9 of the Green Book) would be bypassed at this time as well as "III. Amendments to the Zoning Code" (Pages 10 - 14 of the Green Book) Corridor Plan" and the hearing would continue on to "IV. Green River (beginning on page 15 of the Green Book) . Quoting from page 15 of the Green Book, the following was read into the record by Harris : "The Green River Corridor Plan is dgdeael.opment provide adjacent City to the withboth policies and regulations to guide Green River. The Plan, as approved by the Planning Commission, con- tains three elements . The first establishes the overall policy for the Green River, while the remaining elements set forth specific regulatory measures for development adjacent to the Green River. The three elements of the Plan are : a. Green River Corridor policy Recommendations b. Amendments to the Kent Shoreline Master Program (Harris noted that this has been completed and adopted by the State) C. Green River Corridor Special Interest Districts (Harris commented that this would be considered in great detail) . "A. Green River Corridor Policy. "The consulting firm of Jones and Jones presented a plan depicting the Green River as a unique environment in Kent. The Plan begins with an inventory of the natural resources along the Green. The inventory analysis explains how the river continues to change due to nature ' s and man ' s influences (i.e. erosion, agricultural settle- ment, flood control programs, and industrial and residential develop- ments) . Jones and Jones points out that many of the environments along the river are some of the last "natural environments" in the Valley and that special efforts sl.oul.d be taken to preserve these "natural environments" . "Prior to developing the Master Plan for Parks, Jones and Jones studied the alley Floor Plan and found that the City has adopted several goals and policies which indicate the desire of thetcoommunity to protect the environment of the Green River. Therefore, Valley Floor Plan gave the consultants specific direction in pre- paring an implementation plan for the Green River. i i i January 8, 1981 "The consultants discuss the river ' s potential to function as a linear park because of many of its existing characteristics, such as Frager and Russell Roads and the dikes. Both the scenic roads and the dikes can provide linkage to the sites proposed as parks. The plan evaluates 19 different sites as potential park sites for either passive or active recreation. The plan discusses design considerations for dike improvements and the long term improvements required for the parks along the scenic roads. The plan, also, reviews potential funding alternatives to implement the park plan. "The final section of the plan outlines specific regulations designed to protect the River and its environment while insuring public access to the River. (Harris noted that this was broken down into two parts--the first 200 ' covered by the Shoreline Master Program and the next 800 ' covered by the Green River Corridor Special Interest District, for a total of 1000 feet. ) "The policy recommendations made by the Planning Commission concur with the consultants ' Summary of Major Recommendations (see page 4 of Green River Corridor Plan) , except for the establishment of a .$ dviGreen River Citizen ' s A sory Committee. The Planning Committee � a made the decision that the Planning Commission already acts as an advisory board which can both direct and .review the development adjacent to the Green River. " Continuing from page 16 of the Green Book, Harris read as follows: "Green River Corridor Plan Policy Recommendations 1) Continued Inter-Governmental cooperation with the City of Tukwila, the City of Auburn, and King County and other governments and agencies interested in establishing a regional system of parks and trails along the Green River. (Harris noted that the City of Kent Parks & Recreation Department is part of a consortium that has been formed by Parks & Recreation Directors outside the area to discuss key regional park plans that might be acquired. ) 2) Adopt the Green River Corridor Plan' s "Unique and Fragile Areas" map as officially recognized areas to be preserved in the Corridor. (Harris noted that the Planning Commission recommendations would be presented when this was discussed. ) - 12 ,7anuary 8, 1981 "3) Adopt the Green River Corridor Plan (1980) as the Approved Master Plan for parks and recreation in the Corridor. 4) Adopt resolution designating Russell and Frager Roads as Scenic and Recreational Drives and prohibiting traffic increase on these riverfront roads . (Harris noted that Mirk had raised some questions about the words "prohibiting traffic increase" and it would be necessary to look at this recommendation to be consistent with other policies pertaining to traffic on these roads. ) 5) Adopt policy for joint-use of flood control facilities for public recreation and wildlife habitat areas . 6) Support implementation of the Green River Park and Recreation System through bonds which shall be retired by the proceeds of per lot or per unit development fees to cover new develop- ment ' s fair share of park costs and by the proceeds of com- munity-wide property assessment.s for the community-related portions of the implementation costs . (Harris noted that some of this Fiav be tied down through the environmental tax and the Council. might wish to approach this recommendation through the terms of that tax. ) 7) Amend Subdivision and Zoning Codes to better regulate open space building setbacks , landscape, pedestrian areas, and visual and auditory intrusion of development on riverfront lots. 8) Prohibit new through-traffic arterial streets closer than 1000 feet to the Green River. 9) Update the Shoreline Master Program to strengthen and clarify shoreline development regulations and to expand the "conservancy zone to better reflect and protect the extent of unique and fragile environmental and recreational resources along the Green River. (Harris noted that this has been done. ) 10) Increase Planning Staff manpower and budget allocations to provide adequate on-site enforcement of riverfront develop- ment regulations. 11) Amend Landscape ordinance to include Green River Corridor planting guidelines. " - 13 - January 8, 1981 Masters stated that she had some concern with Recommendation No. 2 as to what constitutes unique and fragile" areas and also expressed her disagreement with the 1000 ' figure in Recommendation No. 8. Bailey noted that he had questions with regard to Recommendation No. 10. At McCaughan' s suggestion, it was determined that audience input should be allowed at this time since it could affect how the Council might vote on some of the Recommendations . A letter was read by Carol Stoner of the Green River Study Group regarding the Green River Corridor Plan. HAMILTON MOVED that the letter be accepted for the record, McCaughan seconded. Motion carried. A slide presentation was made by Ms. Johnson who expressed the hope that the Green River Corridor Plan would remain intact and also encouraged the Special Interest Districts . Gary Volchok referred to Recommendation No. 2, noting that he did not believe that a "unique and fragile area" map had been approved by the Council as yet and suggested that no action be taken on that item at this time. Harris concurred that the map had been recom- mended by the Planning Commission but not adopted. Referring to Recommendation No. 5, Volchok questioned how this was going to be implemented. He noted that the City was presently in the process of putting together an LID for the proposed flood control facilities, that this would be wide enough and have the necessary vegetation to provide a habitat for wildlife, but questioned the public recrea- tion portion of the recommendation. He cited insurance purposes and public safety as two factors which should be considered before this recommendation is adopted. Referring to Recommendation No. 8, he asked that more consideration be given to the 1000 ' figure. and suggested that this was just an expansion of the conservancy zone. Te_dKnapp of Upland Industries addressed the Council, noting that they were under the impression that the Green River Corridor Plan would not be discussed until the Special Meeting of January 12, 1981. He also noted that he had talked to Don Bendetti of Pacific Industrial Concepts in Los Angeles and he was also of the same impression and so had not come up for the meeting tonight. Knapp asked that the public hearing be continued until January 12 to allow the opportunity for more input. He also expressed concuraence with Volchok with regard to Recommendation No. 2, noting that the "unique and fragile area" - 14 - January 8, 1981 map had not been adopted by the Council as yet. He also asked for clarification with regard to Recommendation No. 6 and questioned whether the funding for this item would be covered by the environ- mental excise tax. There were. no further comments from the audience and Mayor Hogan questioned whether the Council was ready to adopt any of the recommendations or if it was their wish to wait for staff response to questions that were raised and hold the hearing over until January 12. Before a decision was made, Harris asked that he be allowed to present a handout covering an amendment to Recommendation No. 4 which would change it to read as follows: "4) Adopt a resolution designating Russell and Frager Roads as Scenic and Recreational Drives not intended to provide access to new developments . " He clarified for Masters that if the two streets as they presently exist provide the only access to a piece of property then access would be allowed; however new areas which were being subdivided which could be served from the new Russell Road would be required to put streets and cul de sacs in from that new road to serve their properties. He noted it was his impression that most of the land in the area was aggregated into large ownerships but there might be a few small parcels which would have the right to access from what- ever road was in front of their property. B. Johnson questioned whether Recommendation No. 8 would be neces- sary with the amended Recommendation No. 4. Harris noted that Recommendation No. 8 was dealing with the new Russell Road itsetreets lf and was referring to arterial streets as opposed or cul de sacs. He clarified for Masters also that the intent of Recommendation No. 8 was not to allow arterial streets closer than 1000 ' to the River, but that, it was primarily directed toward the new Russell Road. He noted that in some areas, particularly with the Boeing property, it might be necessary for the new Russell Road to be closer than 1000 ' to the river because of existing buildings but that this was something that the Council would have to consider at the time. Masters questioned whether this recommendation could be interpreted as precluding crossing of the River and Harris determined that there are new arterial streets planned, referring specifically to the new S . 228th Street, and that it might be - 15 January 8, 1981 necessary to look at the policy again. He stated, however, that any new arterial crossing the river would be suggested that designed o as not perhaps to destroy access to the river. Masters sugg the word "parallel" should be added to indicate the Council ' s intent. on that Mooney stated that he wished lo�ation reiterate closedPosHelreferredtto Russell Road in its present comments from the Boeing Company recently when their representa- tive noted that they Were tlthendangerous to t intersection e the lwhich Road in their area. He pointed exists at S . 212th and suggested the sooner this was removed the estion merited further better. Bailey concurred that Mooney' s sugg consideration. At this point action was taken on the Green River Policy Plan_ Recommendatjons as follows : 1) MASTERS MOVED to ADOPT Recommendation No. 1 as follows : with "Continued Inter-Governmental CUandrK.ing�1CauntytandCother ity of Tukwila, the City of Auburn governments and agencies interested in establishing a regional system of parks and trails along the Green River. " B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. 2) McCAUGHAN MOVED hfolaction be DELAYED on Recommendation No. 2, reading as "Adopt the Green River Corridor plan' s "Unique and Fragile Areas" map as officially recognized areas to be preserved in the Corridor. " until such time as the Council actually studied and adopted the map. Bailey seconded. Motion carried. 3) HAMILTON MOVED to TABLE Recommendation No. 3, reading as follows: "Adopt the Green River Corridor Plan (1980) as the Approved Master Plan for parks and recreation in the Corridor. " B. Johnson seconded. Masters suggested that since the Council 16 January 8, 1981 did not have all the facts it would be premature to adopt the recommendation at this time. Motion carried. 4) HAMILTON MOVED to ADOPT Recommendation No. 4 reading as follows: (Per Harris ' s amendment) "Adopt a resolution designating Russell Road and Frager Roads as Scenic and Recreational Drives not intended to provide access to new developments . B. Johnson seconded. Harris clarified for Masters that the amendment was not restricting more traffic but restricting hookups where unnecessary. Masters referred to the fact that Mooney had suggested that the old Russell Road be closed at some future time or as soon as possible when development takes place providing access to the new Russell Road and Harris suggested that perhaps the Council would like staff to do further work on this recommendat.icri in view of Mooney' s request. HAMILTON WITHDREW the original motion and MOVED TO TABLE Recommendation No. 4 until the Planning Department completed additional studies, B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. 5) B. JOHNSON MOVED to TABLE Recommendation No. 5 reading as follows : "Adopt policy for joint-use of flood control facilities for public recreation and wildlife habitat areas. " McCaughan seconded. Motion carried, with Bailey voting no. 6) MOONEY MOVED to TABLE Recommendation No. 6 reading as follows : "Support implementation of the Green River Park and Recrea- tion System through bonds which shall be retired by the proceeds of per lot or per unit development fees to cover new development ' s fair share of park costs and by the pro- ceeds of community-wide property assessments for the com- munity-related portions of the implementation costs . " B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. 17 January 8, 1981 Bailey noted that the question had been raised as to whether the environmental tax would cover a portion of these costs and stated that it was his opinion that it was the intent of the Council and administration, when the ordinance was adopted, that some guidelines would be developed to show how these funds were to be expended. He suggested that it was not the intent of the ordinance that the funds be allocated 100% to parks activities . He further suggested that it would be necessary to estab- lish some priorities on the environmental ordinance before Recommendation No. 6 could be adopted. It was also deter- mined that the King County Bond Ad Hoc Committee was still in the process of studying distribution of the King Co. bond issue funds. Cushing suggested that staff be given an opportunity to reword this recommendation before it is brought back to the Council, noting that in any event it would not be possible to retire bonds through monies received through the environmental excise tax. ___.._. 7) J. JOHNSON MOVED to 1�Dc)£�'1' Rey onut =rYdata.on No. 7 reading as follows; "Amend Subdivision and zoning Codes to better regulate open space building setbacks, landscape, pedestrian areas, and visual and auditory intrusion of development on riverfront lots." B. Johnson seconded. Harris clarified for McCaughan that this is just a policy that the City would be changing codes and ordinances to reflect the changes that are to be made-- that it merely covers amendments to the various codes to authorize better regulation of open space on riverfront lots . Motion carried. 8) MOONEY MOVED to ADOPT Recommendat.iori No. 8 as AMENDED by Masters, reading as follows : "Prohibit new parallel through-traffic arterial streets closer than 1000 feet to the Green River. " Bailey seconded. Upon questions from the Council, Harris concurred that it was possible that the new Russell Road might be closer than 1000 ` in some areas because of the Boeing property but any changes would be discussed with - 18 January 8, 1981 the Council. He also noted that in some areas the road would be more than 1000 ' from the river but Recommendation No. 8 was an overall policy. Motion carried. 9) MOONEY MOVED TO ADOPT Recommendation No. 9, reading as follows : "Update the Shoreline Master Program to strengthen and clarify shoreline development regulations and to expand the ,'conservancy" zone to better reflect and protect the extent of unique and fragile environmental and recreational resources along the Green River. " J. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. 10) BAILEY MOVED to DELETE Recommendation No. 10, reading as follows : "Increase Planning Staff manpower enforcement buofet allocations to provide adequate on-sit riverfront development regulations . " for the reason that this decision should come from Admini- stration if and when necessary. McCaughan seconded. Motion carried. 11) McCAUGHAN MOVED to ADOPT Recommendation No._ 11, reading as follows: "Amend Landscape Ordinance to include Green River Corri- dor planting guidelines. " Masters seconded.. Harris clarified this was to allow for a more natural type of landscaping--that the materials to be used would require less maintenance. It was determined that the types of plantings to be used were listed on pages 57 and 58 of the Green River corridor Plan. Motion carried. Harris noted that all policies which were tabled would be the subject of staff discussion and they would come back with further input. He suggested that the Rec )mmeidations_ be cleared up before the Council continued with the Regulations. It was determined that these matters would be further discussed on .Monday, January 12, and HAMILTON MOVED - 19 - January 8, 1981 to continue the hearing until Monday, January 12, 1981 at 4:00 o ' clock p.m. , McCaughan seconded. Motion carried. MOONEY MOVED to adjourn the special Council meeting at 6: 00 o 'clock p.m. , Masters seconded. Motion carried. BettyGray, c s Deputy City Clerk 20