Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 01/12/1981 Kent, Washington January 12, 1981 A SPECIAL MEETING of the Kent City Council was called to order at 4:00 o 'clock p.m. Present: Mayor Hogan, Councilpersons Bailey, Hamilton, B. Johnson, J. Johnson, Masters, McCaughan and Mooney, City Administrator Cushing, City Attorney Mirk, Planning Director Harris and Public Works Director Wickstrom. Approximately 30 people were in attendance. It was determined that the meeting would commence with the public hearing on the Green River Corridor Plan which was continued from the special meeting of January 12. Mayor Hogan noted that the eleven "Green River Corridor Plan Policy Recommendations, shown in the Green Book, starting on page 16, had been discussed and that action on some of the 11 recommendations had been tabled. Harris noted that the Planning Commission had recommended that all of the Recommendations be approved. A motion was made, seconded and passed to remove Recommendation #3 from the table. RECOMMENDATION NO. 3 reads as follows: "Adopt the Green River Corridor Plan (1980) as the Approved Master Plan for parks and recreation in the Corridor. " McCAUGHAN MOVED to adopt Recommendation #3 as written, J. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. A motion was passed to remove Recommendation #4 from the table. Harris noted that RECOMMENDATION NO. 4 had been changed to read: "Adopt a resolution designating Russell Road and Frager Road as Scenic and Recreational Drives not intended to provide access to new developments . " He stated that this was necessary to formally designate these streets as other than through streets, noting that even the existing bike trail had not been authorized by a City policy. MOONEY noted that he had suggested that Russell Road, from S . 228th to S . 196th, be closed as soon as possible to all traffic other than pedestrians or bikes and there be no acccess to new developments, and so MOVED. January 12, 1981 B. Johnson seconded. Upon questions from the Council as to those people already there who might want to develop, Mirk noted that the important item was that there would be access to a public street. Mooney commented that the new north/south arterials pro- posed to be put in by the developers would be considered in the planning and the problems could be worked out. Motion CARRIED, with Hamilton voting nay. Later in the meeting this motion was WITHDRAWN, and HAMILTON MOVED to delete the reference to the Russell Road in Recommendation #4, so that it would read: "Adopt a resolution designating the Frager Road as a Scenic and Recreational Drive not intended to provide access to new develop- ments. " Mooney seconded. Motion CARRIED. A motion was passed to remove RECOMMENDATION NO. 5 from the table, reading as follows: "Adopt policy for joint-use of flood control facilities for public recreation and wildlife habitat areas. " Harris noted that in Auburn the dike control easement is also a fishing easement so you can have recreation going alona with maintenance. He pointed out that the banks are being sprayed by the County, that animals use the banks, and that the City should have a say about what is happening within its confines. Dikes can be used for both flood control and public recreation and wild- life habitats if it can be worked out with the Corps of Engineers and Ding County Hydraulics. Mooney asked if the new proposed LID for drainage would be included and would be considered flood control and Harris concurred that it would. Bailey pointed out that wild life would move about and that he was not in favor of putting jogging and bicycle trails down through the drainage channels in industrial areas, noting that developers would incur a liability if this was done. Harris pointed out that the flood control pro- ject is designed and developed to have a slope with water in the bottom, landscaped with green grass, etc. so as to allow use by the people. He noted that this could be worked out in future design, and that the Planning Commission recommended it and the Council should really leave the door open. B. Johnson stated that 2 - January 12, 1981 she had no problem with the wildlife habitat areas as far as the drainage ditches are concerned but concurred with Bailey's concerns with the public going through industrial areas. Harris pointed out that the public has access now so it did not hurt to re-estab- lish their rights into that area. He noted that he meant along a public right-of-way, not on private property. In response to Mayor Hogan 's question, Harris determined that the words"public recreation" referred to walking, jogging or bicycling and further noted that when the area is developed, the City was going to need all the public access possible, whether along drainage ditches or streets. In response to Bailey's question as to the Planning Commission 's intent, Hamilton noted that it appeared to be as Harris had stated-- that if it is a public ditch the public should have access to it. Masters suggested that it might be more appropriate to leave out the words "public recreation" and leave that up to the industry developing the area, perhaps for their employees to use. She noted that this should be up to the option of the individual property owner and that the policy should state something to that effect. Joel Haggard stated that he concurred with Harris that this was a question for the Council to decide. He noted that it was important that the Planning Commission recommendations be con- sidered and that Harris had already pointed out their views with regard to joint use along the river banks. He pointed out, how- ever, that all of the reasons stated related to the river and not to the North/South drainage channel. Haggard contended that while he agreed that the City did not want to have a sterile type of drainage channel, providing landscaping did not necessarily mean that it was necessary to have public access to the drainage channels since they function totally different. He noted that the river is a natural feature which exists now, but that the drainage channel is coming in for the specific purpose of handling a public utility type of function. Because of the difference, he stressed the importance of reasonable controls in the area--not leaving it unrestricted just because it is public property. In view of the concerns that were expressed by the Council over the drainage channel going through industrial areas, he suggested that the words "alongside the river" be added to the policy recommendation after the word "facilities. " He explained that this would mean that any facility alongside the River, which was what was really being considered in the Green River Corridor, should have multi- use where appropriate and consistent with planning. He suggested 3 - January 12, 1981 that the policy recommendation as it presently reads could be inter- preted to include detention/retention facilities also, since they are in essence flood control facilities and questioned whether the Council wanted to suggest that the public should have access to such areas contained within a platted area. Carol Stoner expressed concerns that the lagoons might be excluded for public access and stated that it was her understanding that the lagoons were to have a multi-use for wildlife habitats as well as public access. It was determined that the policy recommendation does not address the lagoons. Sally Millen, representing the Mueller Group, referred to their Lakes project and asked for clarification on Haggard's proposed change as to what "alongside the river" actually meant. She noted that they wanted to be sure that the ponds and lakes which are presently proposed within the Lakes project would not be considered flood control facilities; that they were in fact amenities which are provided for the residents of the project and were going to be surrounded by residential buildings. She clarified for Mayor Hogan that some of the property would be within the 1000 ' Green River Corridor area but that they were not next to the river. Haggard responded by noting that this pointed up the problem of _ having general language that could be interpreted to apply very broadly. He noted that his intent would not be to include the lakes and ponds referred to by Ms. Miller, but was in fact an attempt to find language to make certain that if Policy Recommenda- tion No. 5 were adopted, it would apply to the area alongside the river, not to any flood control facility, retention/detention pond, or North/South drainage channel that might be developed. Cushing noted that it appeared one of the difficulties the Council was experiencing was they were debating what the policy should be, when in fact Policy Recommendation No. 5 merely states that a policy should be adopted. He suggested that the question before the Council was in fact whether they wanted to have a policy and if so, the policy would be developed at some future time when the questions and concerns could be addressed. McCaughan concurred, noting that they seemed to be addressing a lot of technical points which should be dealt with at a later time. MCCAUGHAN MOVED to ADOPT Recommendation No. 5 reading as follows: "Adopt policy for joint-use of flood-control facilities for public recreation and wildlife habitat areas. " - 4 - January 12, 1981 Hamilton seconded. Masters suggested that they were now back to the initial problem which seemed to be a lack of clarification and con- tended that the Council had to state they were dealing with the Green River Corridor specifically. She recognized the fact that these were recommendations under the Green River Corridor Plan but suggested that the discussion had now broadened to include all the drainage channels throughout the Valley floor. Bailey noted that he could support the policy recommendation if it were to exclude the proposed and present drainage channels, noting that the policy recommendation as it now stands could have too broad an interpretation. McCaughan noted there might be some areas where public access would be wanted and the policy itself could dictate those areas, also noting that these areas may depend on the park plan which will be presented. He added that nothing should be excluded at this time. A gentleman from the audience concurred with McCaughan, noting that the policy recommendation does not state that the area has to be used for public recreation--only that multi-use purposes would be considered. He suggested that the Council adopt the policy recommendation. In response to Masters ' question, Wickstrom noted that the main drainage channel would have to have access on both sides; that one could be the main corridor (64th S./Russell Road Corridor) and the other could be used for pedestrian or biking trails. He noted that this would also have to be paved and would be utilized for equipment to get to the channels themselves, but that the option of utilizing that access road for other purposes still existed. Mooney referred to the $8.5 million LID for the area and questioned whether the City was going to acquire title to the property for the access road and Wickstrom noted this was the intent under the LID. John Barr of Pacific Industrial Concepts referred to the entire Green River Corridor of 1000 feet, noting that the first 200 feet had been dealt with under the Shoreline Master Program and suggested that the City was now dealing with the next 800 feet as far as this policy recommendation was concerned. He suggested that this 800 feet has nothing to do with the river itself but does cover flood control or storm drainage channels that are in the process of being developed or which will be developed. He suggested that because of possible future interpretation of the policy it might be appropriate to include the words "where possible" to encompass those areas which could be used for public recreation as well as those areas where it would not be appropriate to have public access. He stated that 5 - January 12, 1981 it was his opinion that the Council really wanted these areas alongside the river but the policy recommendation as written could be interpreted by others in the future to mean something different. MCCAUGHAN MOVED to AMEND Recommendation No. 5 to read as follows: "Adopt policy for joint use of flood control facilities for public recreation and wildlife habitat areas where feasible. " J. Johnson seconded. There was no discussion on the motion to amend and the MOTION TO AMEND FAILED with Hamilton, Masters, B. Johnson and Bailey voting against. The original motion CARRIED, with Bailey, Mooney and B. Johnson voting against, and Recommendation No. 5 was adopted reading as follows: "Adopt policy for joint-use of flood control facilities for public recreation and wildlife habitat areas. " Referring to Recommendation No. 6, Harris noted that the wording for this policy recommendation had been changed because it did not reflect the present situation which exists as written in the green book. He stated that it had been changed to read as follows: "Support implementation of the Green River Park and Recreation System through bonds and/or development fees. " J. JOHNSON MOVED to remove Recommendation No. 6 from the table, McCaughan seconded. Motion carried. McCAUGHAN MOVED to ADOPT Recommendation No. 6 reading as follows: "Support implementation of the Green River Park and Recreation System through bonds and/or development fees. " J. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. Harris determined that all of the 11 Green River Corridor Plan Policy Recommendations have now been adopted. He then directed the attention of the meeting to page 23 of the Green Book relating to Green River Corridor Special Interest Districts, reading as follows: 6 - January 12, 1981 "C. Green River Corridor Special Interest District "The Green River Corridor Special Interest District is generally defined as an area extending landward from the Ordinary High Water Line to a maximum distance of 1000 feet. The boundary may be somewhat less than or greater than 1000 feet where the district boundary can be better defined by an existing or pro- posed major street right-of-way or other major physical feature (see Figure 13, page 62, Green River Corridor Plan. ) (Harris pointed out the boundary on the map, noting that the Valley Freeway is on the banks of the River at one point south of Willis Street and there is also a railroad track running close to the river. ) The first 200 feet of the Corridor consists of the Shoreline Master Program. (Harris noted that this has already been dealt with and the Council was now looking at the next 800 feet) . "The consultant identifies some of the reasons for extending development controls in an area between 200 feet and 1000 feet from either side of the River as : ' l. An ideal area for applying standards for pedestrian access to the Green River. Within this area an average person can reach the River by foot in five minutes or less if adequate access ways are provided. ' 2. An ideal area to apply standards for street layouts. Based on commonly accepted standards, streets for through traffic (collectors and arterials) need not be spaced closer than 1/4 to 1/2 miles apart. Thus, these heavier traveled streets can be kept to the edge of the Special Interest District in any new development. This creates a defined development district along the River served only by local st.reets. ' "The Special Interest District is also seen as a transition area between the River environment within the 200 foot Shoreline Manage- ment Zone and the more intensive industrial, commercial or higher density residential developments permitted beyond the 1000 foot corridor. The Special Interest District was approved as a Com- bining District to be added to the Kent Zoning Code. (Harris pointed out that this Combining District was being recommended by the Planning Commission as an addition to the Zoning Code. ) 7 - January 12, 1981 "The regulations, as approved, recognize the importance of the Green River and that development adjacent to the Green River should be sensitive to one of the city ' s greatest assets. The regulation will insure that access to the River is either physically or visually blocked by development. " Harris commented that questions have been directed to him on several occasions as to why the Council was now expanding an additional 800 ' when they had previously dealt with the 200 ' area from the River. He pointed out the necessity of looking at the entire area for a total concept of the proposal, rather than looking at one or two individual pieces of property. He added that 1000 feet might seem like a lot of footage but that it was in fact a small area when viewed and compared to the entire area. He noted that it is approximately 1000 feet from the River to the end of the KOA Campground; also approximately 1000 feet from where Russell Road turns and starts going south at S. 228th. He suggested that it was important to keep in mind that while some of the developers in the area might not feel that it was a small area, it was necessary for the Council to deal with the entire area, not an individual piece of property. Harris determined that the next step would be to consider the 25 Green River Corridor Special Interest District Regulations - beginning on page 24 of the Green Book. The regulations recommended by the Planning Commission are as follows: "GREEN RIVER CORRIDOR SPECIAL INTEREST DISTRICT REGULATIONS 1) Every dwelling, building or lot shall have access to the Green River via sidewalks or a common trail system con- necting to the riverside public trail or scenic drive at 1000 foot or less intervals in industrial development and 500 foot or less intervals in residential development. 2) In residential development, pedestrian access to the Green River shall be accomplished without crossing vehicular streets, unless this is clearly shown to be infeasible. This does not apply to crossings of riverfront roads . 3) Public parking facilities for access to the Green River shall be located as near as possible to riverfront parks 8 - January 12, 1981 and/or historic sites and shall be clustered in lots not exceeding 30 cars. The city may accept or require payment in lieu of providing the land and parking facilities on the applicant ' s property. Every public parking area shall be visible from a street accessible to the public and be situated so that the public can clearly see riverfront open space and how to access the public portion of the open space. 4) Loading docks shall not be located on river-facing sides of buildings. 5) Buildings beyond the 200 foot Shoreline Management Zone but within the "Special Interest District" shall not exceed 35 feet in height (see Implementation section for definition of the Special Interest District) . 6) In order to avoid development which creates a "wall" of buildings on riverfront lots the building lengths shall be limited to 200 feet in width. 7) In order that there be sufficient area within which development can occur on riverfront lots, the subdivision of land for riverfront lots shall consider the access easement and the "building setback line" requirements. 8) Development shall maintain or establish a permanent vegeta- tive buffer of trees and shrubs between the development and the river. OR, between the development and flood con- trol structure or riverfront road or riverfront park of "unique and fragile" area, such buffer having an average width of twenty-five feet along the length of the shore- line and minimum width of fifteen feet. Existing unsightly land uses along the Green River shall have a permanent vegetative buffer established between themselves and the river within two years of time of adoption of these regu- lations. These unsightly uses shall include: materials storage, Itruck maneuvering areas , equipment parking, junk yards, refuse storage and other such visually objectionable uses. 9) Landscape screening and buffer strips shall be planted so as to be harmonious with those already planted on adjacent properties and consistent with the Kent Landscaping Require- ments. 9 - January 12, 1981.. 10) There shall be no disruption or destruction of areas identi- fied as "unique and fragile" in the Kent Green River Corridor Plan (1980) , OR, in the event that disturbance is demonstrated to be unavoidable, disruption or destruction shall be "fully mitigated" by the applicant through complete land reclamation and restoration of vegetation. New dikes or levees will be set back around "unique and fragile" areas . The "unique and fragile" areas shall be clearly defined on a detailed map. 11) Areas proposed for donation as parks or wildlife areas shall conform to recommended parks appearing in the Kent Green River Corridor Study. Additional park lands may also be accepted. 12) The applicant shall follow any applicable recommendations of the State Department of Fisheries and State Department of Game for preventing and mitigating adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources and enhancing wildlife habitat. 13) If public funds are used in the construction of flood control works (dikes, levees, flood walls) , public rights of access to such works are required prior to construction. 14) Surface drainage facilities such as drainage channels and retention areas shall be designed to be integral parts, if possible, of any common trail and open space system con- nections to the riverfront. 15) There shall be no rail or rail spurs within 500 feet of the River. 16) All new lots and buildings must have road access without using Scenic and Recreational Roads as defined by the Green River Corridor Plan (1980) . 17) Development shall include no street connection to Scenic and Recreational Roads . 18) Development shall not force or encourage property outside the proposed development to use a Scenic or Recreational Road for access. 19) Development shall not force or encourage traffic from the proposed development to use a Scenic or Recreational Road for access. - 10 - January 12, 1981 20) Roads within the Special Interest District shall be designed for low-volume local traffic. 21) Overhead utilities will not be allowed unless underground placement is clearly demonstrated to be infeasible. 22) Applicant shall locate uses on Riverfront lots which will benefit from a Riverfront location and contribute to a parking-like atmosphere along the Riverfront. Such uses may include but are not limited to the following: - residences - club houses/meeting rooms - resident recreational facilities - employee recreational facilities - lunchrooms - offices - light manufacturing - research and development facilities - restaurants - limited convenience commercial with river-orientation. 23) Applicant shall not locate uses on Riverfront lots which would adversely affect the shoreline environment. These uses include: - outdoor storage of materials or equipment - heavy industry - "strip" commercial - shopping centers 24) No natural or constructed features of potential historic, cultural and educational significance shall be destroyed or modified so as to negate its value to the public. 25) Commissioner Hamilton MOVED and Commissioner Baer SECONDED a MOTION to eliminate Southcenter Corporate Park property from the Green River Corridor Special Interest District regulations . MOTION CARRIED. " It was determined by the Council that they would prefer to have public input and discuss each regulation individually before their. adoption. MASTERS MOVED to discuss the general concept of the Special Interest Districts, Bailey seconded. Motion carried. - 11 - January I2, 1981_ Masters noted that she was speaking generally with regard to the Regulations without addressing any particular item. She suggested that use of the grazing land should be allowed up to the water ' s edge since the action of the Council would be arbitrarily taking it away if the Resultions were adopted. She added that the City should buy the property if it wished to 1i,-iv(- siich rights and if not, she was not in favor of adopting the ltegu 1 rtions. Bailey expressed his support of Masters ' position. Hamilton suggested that before the Council began discussion of the 25 .Legulations , it might be well to decide whether they were in fact. .interested in having a Special Interest District that extends an additional 800 feet out from the Shoreline Management area. He rioted that this determina- tion could save a lot of time in what otherwise might be useless discussion. B. Johnson noted that she felt the City should have a Special Interest District but did not agree with the 1000 feet and felt perhaps there should be some compromise on the City ' s part. J. Johnson noted that while tie agreed with the 1000 foot figure, he also agreed with B. Johnson s comments about some compromise. Mooney stated that he thought 1000 feet was unreasonable, noting that he could go along with the 200 foot figure now covered under lthe Shoreline Management Plan, together with spacing the buildings 6 at least 100 feet back from that line, property designed and pro- tecting the 200 foot corridor, and keeping the railroad spurs 350 feet back from the river, also properly screened from the corridor. Bailey concurred, noting that it was not necessary for the tracks to run to the ends of the buildings and noted that with proper screening there would be no railroad spurs or auto- mobile traffic showing from the River. B. Johnson noted that she could accept the 200 feet and the limits on the railroad tracks through 350 feet, but suggested that the overall district could be extended, perhaps to 500 feet. It was determined that it seemed to be the consensus of the Council that they would not go along with the 1000 foot concept and Hamilton noted that while he was not necessarily in favor of the 1000 feet, the Council should give careful consideration to any action it mitht.- take since it could end up being meaningless. Bailey noted that. he felt. it was proper to establish a Special Interest uist.r:ict , lie could riot accept the 1000 foot figure--that he could tc.ckkpt the 2.00 feet of the Shoreline Management Plan plus an add.it-i-on i i 200 feet and moving the rail spurs back another 50 to 75 f_ee McCaughan noted that on December 11, 1980, Upland Industries had presented a letter to the Council on behalf of themselves and Pacific Industrial. Concepts which con- tained proposed language similar to that which the Council was now considering. Bailey suggested that unless the City was in a position to buy the 1000 foot area lie could not accept the figure. 12 - January 12, 1981 He noted that he was in favor of the district but thought it could be limited to 600 feet on each side of the river. Masters stated that they were in essence talking about a gift to the City and asked that the Special Interest District be given a better defini- tion. Harris responded by noting that the Special Interest District was defined through the 25 Regulations. Harris further clarified that the City did not want to use the land but was merely putting some restrictions on the buildings--that they shouldn't be more than 35 feet high nor come closer than 500 feet to the River, and that some pedestrian walkways should be developed. He pointed out that the Regulations would not prohibit developing the land but would cover the first 200 feet from the River, already covered by the Shoreline Management Plan, and phase into the next 800 feet with a general area of restrictions, and the remainder of the land would be covered by the Zoning Code as it presently exists. He reiterated that when looking at the entire Valley floor, 1000 feet on each side of the River is minimal and barely outlines the River. Masters repeated that the City should buy the property if they wanted it and Harris clarified that the City' s only intent was to be able to impose some restrictions on its use; that the property owner would still be allowed to use the land but there would be more restrictions on the land than presently exist. Dave Uhrich of Upland Industries presented the following document the Council, a copy of which was filed for the record: "PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ADJACENT TO GREEN RIVER" 1. Property owners (Upland Industries and Pacific Industrial Concepts) donate all property lying within 200 feet of the Green River. 2. Property owners will landscape easterly 15 feet of 200 foot corridor. City of Kent will own and maintain 200 foot corridor. 3. 250 foot minimum building setback from Green River. 4. 300 foot minimum setback for all railroad tracks and facilities. 5. Railroad tracks and facilities to be visually screened with earth berms and dense landscaping. 6. 1000 foot Special Interest District will be eliminated. 13 - January 19, 1981 7. The north-south trunk channel will not be developed as a pedestrian/recreational corridor. 8. Development will provide public access to the Green River via sidewalks or common trail system at 1000 feet or less inter- vals and public parking facilities for up to 30 cars. 9. Adopt conditions 16 - 19, and 21 - 25 of proposed Green River Corridor Regulations . * NOTE: All setback distances refer to "Ordinary High Water Line. " A slide presentation of the river area was then presented by Uhrich who noted that some of these were used during the hearings on the amendments to the Shoreline Master Program but were within the confines of the Green River Corridor Study. He pointed out the boundaries of the Uplands property and that of Pacific Industrial Concepts,, noting that the rail services proposed or presently existing is within the suggested Special Interest District. A map was shown outlining the areas within Kent presently served by rails and Uhrich noted that most of the area south of S. 196th Street has not been served west of the main lines, noting the limitations which were imposed because of overhead utilities, the Puget Power right-of-way, a gas pipeline and drainage ditches. He referred to the Bicentennial Park in Tukwila, noting that this is one example of what could be done along the river to preserve the natural qualities from development, rather than referring only to what could not be done. He suggested that Kent would have to determine whether it has the resources to maintain such areas and to what degree along the Corridor. He also pointed out that if the buildings were correctly designed with proper landscaping they could be an enhancement to the River area rather than detract from it. He suggested a corridor, with berming, landscaping and pedes- trian access, 125 feet from the river to the parking areas of the buildings. He referred to the proposal being presented by Uplands and Pacific Industrial Concepts, namely, that they, as owners of the property, would donate all property that they own lying between the easterly high water line of the river and 200 feet. As part of that donation, they would agree to landscape the easterly 15 feet in accordance with City standards to provide the initial buffering screen from development. Once this strip was donated it would belong to the City and the City would be responsible for maintenance. With reference to the Special Interest District, he suggested that this was perhaps a compromise or modification to that. 14 - A January 12, 1981 He recommended that perhaps a minimum building setback of 250 feet be established, or an additional 50 feet from the Shoreline Master Program setback as established, with railroad spur tracks 30.0; feet from the River, and with the stipulation that all tracks and facili- ties would be visually screened. He also noted that under the guidelines established under the Shoreline Master Program for trucking and the orientation of buildings and parking, the first tier of development would lie between any rail-served development and the River for railroad tracks that run north and south. Referring to the east and west railroad tracks, he noted they would run between the buildings, that there would be no direct access from Russell Road, that the tracks would be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the end of the buildings, and that the tracks would be bermed and heavily landscaped so as to make them nearly invisible. He also noted that the tracks would be on private property and the landscaping would be maintained by the property owner and the City would therefore not be responsible for its upkeep. Referring to the handout presented to the Council, Uhrich noted that their proposal with regard to No. 6 was to employ some of the guidelines suggested within the District for their property. Referring to their proposal No. 8, he indicated this was what they would do within the District, whether it should be 1000 feet or 500 feet. He also noted that they were recommending that 16 - 19 be adopted, as well as 21-25 of the Regulations. He suggested that further study be made of. the Planning Commission recommendations for the Special Interest District Regulations. i In response to Mayor Hogan' s question, Uhrich noted that the rail lines would end approximately 150 feet from the transition area and that the transition area was 150 feet. In response to B. Johnson's question as to why Regulation No. 20 was omitted, Uhrich noted that even cul-de-sacs qualify for low- volume streets and even though Russell Road was to be kept out of the district, a cul-de-sac could have more than 500-1000 cars. Mayor Hogan questioned whether they were in fact suggesting a trade-off of land in lieu of some special development standards in the Special Interest District and Uhrich suggested that they were proposing land donations and additional development standards. The Mayor commented that the City should get more land than that 15 - January 12, 1981 being offered if it was to take on the responsibility of maintaining it. McCaughan referred to the fact that the City of Auburn has a great deal of property along the River, that is pretty much trails with a lot of public access and parking and not much landscaping-- only trees and a little grass. Masters questioned how the City was going to maintain more land if it was donated and Mayor Hogan noted that 300 feet of land was not very much, that 200 feet of this area is already under restrictions imposed by the Shoreline Master Plan, and that the area was not very much considering the Planning Commis- sion was looking at 1000 feet. Bailey suggested that the matter of the Special Interest District be tabled and that the Council take a tour the length of the River since no one seemed to be sure how much land was covered by the 1000 foot strip. B. Johnson pointed out that the Council should in fact know what they were regulating by setting up the Special Interest Districts ; that they were not stopping development of the area but merely imposing regulations. BAILEY MOVED that further consideration of the Green River Corridor Special Interest Districts be tabled until January 22, 1981. B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried, with Masters, Mooney and McCaughan voting against. It was determined that the tour should be set up to enable staff members to accompany the Council. Discussion then reverted to the UNIQUE and FRAGILE AREAS as set forth on Page 7 of the Green Book. . Mayor Hogan noted that a letter had been received from Jeannie Scott in this regard, copies of which have been furnished to the Council. HAMILTON MOVED to make the letter a part of the record,J:. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. Quoting from the Green Book, Harris read as follows: "II. UNIQUE AND FRAGILE AREAS "Information and Unique and Fragile Areas was presented in both the Land Use Study and the Green River Corridor Plan. Because each report studied different areas and presented the data in a different format, the Planning Commission requested Jones and Jones to do a more detailed analysis, classification and mapping of the Unique and Fragile Areas throughout the study area. "The Unique and Fragile Areas report identified those areas that provide habitat value to wildlife according to existing conditions in the Valley. The consultants make recommendations concerning - 16 - Jonuary the amount and types of inique and Fia(lil.o Areas that should be maintained in order to preserve the ex.i.stAng diversities of wild- life. "During their review process, the Planni.nq Commission found it. necessary to examine addit_.innal criteria in determining the values of the mapped Unique and Pr.agile Area, . } nth social, and economic values of each site were =i.l l:ttc d before the Plan- ning Commission made their final. recommendations . "The Planning Commission concluded that. the unique and Fragile Areas were valuable as wildlife habitats, open spaces and scenic areas, but that it is nc.>t practical for the City, to preserve all. the Unique and Fragile Areas formulated by Jones and Jones due to the continued escalati.nn in the economic value of land and the increased pressures for development on land lying east and north of the Green River. The results of the Planning Commission ' s analysis is to preserve Unique and Fragile Areas on the west and south sides of the river, while preserving only the most signifi- cant Unique and Fragile Areas on the east side of the river. (Harris pointed out the areas on the map, noting as follows : ) "Unique and Fragile Areas 1. On the east side only, exclude all Unique and Fragile Areas except for the Sewage Lagoon, designated as L-15, the 200 foot buffer strip around the Lagoon, and L-7 . All other areas to the east of the river would not be regarded as Unique and Fragile. (It was determined by Mayor Hogan and Harris that there might be some constraints regarding the 200 foot buffer strip around the Lagoon due to the fact that this might be included in the land held for Agricultural purposes but that agricultural. purposes and wildlife habi- tats go together. ) 2. Areas officially mapped as Riparian Woodlands shall be pre- served and protected. 3. All areas officially mapped as marshes and/or swamps shall. be preserved and protected . 4. Those areas identified as undiked shorelines shall be pre- served and protected according to regulations of the Kent Shoreline Master Program. (These areas were pointed out on the map by Harris) . - 17 - January 12, 1981 5. The city shall maintain and manage the Old Kent Lagoon for its wildlife habitat and recreation values. The Lagoon may be utilized as a storm water retention site if adequate measures are taken to protect the Lagoon ' s function as a wildlife habi- tat area. Should the city elect to designate the Old Kent Lagoon as a storm water retention site, the city shall con- sult a wildlife biologist for design assistance to protect and/or improve the Lagoon ' s wildlife habitat value. (Harris noted this work had begun last summer and there may be some update at this point. ) 6. All officially mapped ponds shall be preserved and protected. 7. Seasonally and Temporarily Flooded Wetlands a) West Side 1. Designate Area L-5 as a "unique and Fragile" area to be preserved and managed to support wildlife habitat; specifically, migrating waterfowl. 2. Maintain RA zoning in Site L-5 . (Harris pointed out the area encompassed by Site L-5 and referred to the lake that exists there during much of the winter months . ) 3. Endorse the SCS selection of 70 acres within Site L-5 as a portion of the required mitigation for the East Side Watershed Project and recommend that the City participate in the acquisition of the 70 acres with the other East Side Watershed Project sponsors . 4. Encourage property owners with property located within Site L-5 to participate in the King County Agricultural Retention Program. (Harris noted that some may have already signed lip. ) 5. Present a bond issue to voters to acquire the wetlands in Site L-5 that are not eligible to participate in the King County Agricultural Retention Program. 6. Direct the staff to develop a program to manage "Unique and Fragile" areas acquired by the City. (Harris pointed out that it was necessary to some program on the operation of these areas . ) - 18 - b) South of River 1. Designate areas L-27 and L-29 as "Unique and Fragile" areas that are to be preserved and managed to support wildlife habitat, specifically migrating waterfowl. (Harris pointed out that this was in the County and that it included the Mullen Slough and the Auburn Mill Creek; also that a portion of it had been pur- chased by the County. ) 2. Maintain Agriculture designation for Site L-27 and L-29 in the Valley Floor Plan. (Harris noted this was done on January 8 when the Council went with the Valley Floor Plan map. ) 3. Limit the extension of water and sewer services to Sites L-27 and L-29. 4. Encourage property owners with property located in Sites L-27 and L-29 to participate in the King County Agricultural Retention Program. c) East Side 1. Designate a 200 foot buffer strip around the perimeter of the Old Kent Lagoon in area L-14 to be preserved and managed to support wildlife habitat, specifically migrating waterfowl. This buffer strip may be used to accommodate the main trunk channel for Surface Water Management. 2. Direct the staff to develop a program to acquire this buffer strip. 3. The City shall encourage all owners of land with land designated as Seasonally or Temporarily Flooded lands on the east side of the river to preserve these lands for the purpose of wildlife management. (Harris deter- mined that the seasonally and flooded lands shown on the map were lying around the sewage lagoon and south of it and in that general vicinity. He noted that it was originally an area designated as "Unigue and Fragile" but that during the hearings the Planning Commission had removed this designation, and this was now their proposal . ) 19 - January 12, 1981 Referring to page 7, item No. 3, Bailey questioned what would happen if it were determined there were no more swamps or marshes on a piece of property due to drainage changes. Harris responded by noting that this was a problem which the City faces by allowing a tremendous amount of development in the Valley and that measures should now be taken to prevent this from happening. He suggested that it was a detriment to the community to allow such things to happen because of a lack of protection. In response to Bailey's questions as to whether it was economically and logically possible to control the hydraulics in the area so development would continue to preserve the marshes and swamps, Wickstrom noted that it could be done through design of the drainage systems. Wickstrom also noted for Hamilton that the proposed drainage LID provides for obtaining 200 feet on the south side of the lagoons and 400 feet on the west side. Gary Young of the Polygon Corporation referred to a letter which was submitted to the Council on December 18, 1980 for the record and a second letter which he was submitting this date. He noted that the December 18 letter addressed the question of whether or not presently zoned M-1 and M-2 lands would be included as part of the Valley Studies . He pointed out the location of the land in question as being on the southwest corner of S . 228th and the WVH. It was determined that there were certain provisions of the Studies - which would impact the area. Young referred specifically to the "Seasonally or Temporarily Flooded" designation referred to on page 9, item C (3) and references to encouragement of their pre- servation. It was determined that the corporation will be going before the Hearing Examiner on January 21, 1981 to seek Preliminary Plat approval and it was possible a decision would be reached and the matter come before the Council before the Studies were completed. Mirk clarified that subdivision approval merely shows how a piece of property is going to be divided; that the subdivision regulations should not be confused with building regulations. Mirk further clarified that if the Preliminary Plat was approved they would be entitled to bring in the Final Plat based on Preliminary Plat conditions for approval, regardless of what action the Council takes on the Studies if the Preliminary Plat were approved prior to the adoption of the Valley Studies. He noted this would not affect the plat but there may be building regulations which would prevent development as originally planned. HAMILTON MOVED to accept the letter from the Polygon Corporation for the record, B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. 20 - January 12, 1981 Harris referred to a handout which was presented to the Council recently and noted that there had been a change under the "Unique and Fragile Areas" shown on page 7 and that item #1 should be changed to read as follows: "l. Designate all ponds, marshes and/or swamps, riparian woodlands, undiked shorelines , flooded wetlands and 200 feet around the former sewage lagoon as Unique and Fragile Areas . Wetlands defined as Other Wetlands shall not be defined as Unique and Fragile Areas . " Jim Goldsmith of Goldsmith & Associates addressed the Council on behalf of several property owners in the general north and east area from the river, including the Polygon Corporation, who are involved in the Temporarily and Seasonally Flooded wetlands issue as well as the LID for drainage. He submitted a letter to the Council for the record, together with an addendum relating to the sewage lagoon and wildlife habitat shown on page 8, item 5 of the green book, suggesting new wording for the particular item. With regard to the flooded wetlands in the area, he pointed out that most of this was caused by development in nearby areas which resulted in blocked drainage to his clients ' properties. He referred to the large amount of land covered by the LID for storm drainage and the cost to the property owners he represented. He suggested that this was a significant point for the Council to consider if they were to ask that the land be maintained for wetlands under these conditions . MOONEY MOVED to accept the letter and addendum for the record, B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. BAILEY MOVED that the meeting on the Corridor Study be continued to January 22, 1981 at 4: 00 p.m. , B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried with McCaughan and Hamilton voting nay. McCAUGHAN MOVED that the hearing beginning with "unigtie and Fragile" areas and continuing on from there be cons-i i-aied to ,ranuar.y 15 Thursday, at 4 :00 p.m. Bailey seconded. It: was determined that discussion on the Corridon Plan was tabled to the meeting of January 22, 1980. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 6 : 30 o ' clock p.m. Betty Gray, CPS Deputy City Clerk 21 -