Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 01/15/1981 Kent; Washington January 15 , 1981 The special meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 4: 00 p.m. for the purpose of continuing the public hearings on the Valley studies . 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. Harris noted that at the January 12 meeting it was determined that discussion of the corridor material would be put aside until the Council toured the area and that it will be taken up at the January 22 special meeting. The hearing was reopened for discussion on the three policies tabled at the December 22 meeting and will then continue with unique and fragile areas . Tabled on December 22 : Green Book, page 4 , Objective 4 , Policy 1 , "Promote agricultural land retention and use on the west and south sides of the Green River. " Bailey stated that after having heard from land owners in the area that this policy would be contrary to the stated desires of what they want to do in the future. Harris noted that there were also those who are interested in weekend farming , noting the testimony from the man who had a strawberry farm an.! C' COI.Inell who boards horses. He pointed out that this was a general policy statement. BAII_,EY stated that policies have a habit of becoming regulatory and MOVED to delete it. Masters seconded and noted that prior discussion had occurred on the lack of clarification of what council wants and how the staff may interpret it. Carol Stoner read a letter from the Green River Study Group, dated January 8, 1981, noting that although large-scale farming might not be profitable, there were many people who farmed as a hobby who should be considered. The letter also favored having a fiscal analysis as proposed on page 5 , Goad. 1 , Policy 8 , and favored keeping large and bulky buil_dingss away from the river . The letter was filed for record. Joel Haggard submitted a letter ]ate l January 15 , 1981 and noted that he supports adoption of Bailey ' s motion for deletion, as it appeared contrary to the RA designation previously decided upon. The letter was filed for the record. The motion to delete Objective 4 , Policy 1 on page 4 CARRIED, with Tiamilton voting against it. Harris described the next tal,;led matter: Page 5 , Policy 8, Objective 1 , Goal. I. He read Policy 8 , as reworded on his - 1 - January 15, 1981 handout of December 22 : Rezoning of RA and MA lands to more intensive use shall be predicated upon the clear documentation of the need for additional residential , commercial or industrial land in Kent, i.e. , that the clear documentation shall consist of a fiscal impact analysis which deals with the direct public costs and revenues associated with the rezone . Harris noted that we must be aware of the public costs associated with private development, major rezonings, annexations or alternative land use plans. fie noted that the city would not delve into the developer' s private affairs but would need to know how much the needed service would cost the city. MOONEY MOVED to adopt policy 8 as read by Harris. J. Johnson seconded. Masters noted that most of the RA and MA zoned land north of 212th and west of the river was too unstable to get financing for development in the past and that these conditions still existed. Harris agreed that this was true of some areas but that south of 212th could be developed if they could get sewer and water. Haggard stated that he wished to withdraw his support of deleting policy 8 and suggested that the wording be changed to say that "a fiscal impact analysis of the direct public costs and revenues associated with the rezoning of RA and MA lands to more intensive uses shall be considered in such rezone. " Upon questions from the Council , Mir stated t .atent that the "need" was no longer present in Haggard' teen McCaughan stated that the Hearing Examiner should be g clear direction and that he favored Harris' version of policy 8. Volchok stated that the words "clear documentation of the need' were too ambiguous and asked who would make the decision as to whether there is a real need. Dave Uhrich, of Upland, stated that "need" and " fiscal impact to the city" are two separate situations. Several amendments were suggested and withdrawn. Mooney withdrew his motion to adopt policy 8 as written. MASTERS MOVED to adopt policy 8 reworded as follows: "Rezoning of RA and MA lands to more intensive use shall be predicated upon a fiscal impact analysis which deals with the direct public costs and revenues ass�hatsomeed l land th hwas edeveloped B. Johnson seconded. Masters noted by owners; it was not all done by developers . Bailey commented that the motion did not cover ever.ytning. Motion failed with only Masters supporting it. BAILEY MOVED that policy 8 be adopted as read by Mr. Harris , deleting the words "the clear. " B. Johnson seconded. Motion CARRIED with Masters dissenting. 2 January 15, 1981 It was determined that the next policy was on page 5, Policy 1 of Goal 6 relating to warehouses and other bulky structures near the river. McCaughan suggested that this remain tabled until the Corridor discussion was resumed on January 22 , and the Council concurred. It was discovered that the two policies voted upon tonight had not been officially removed from the table before the action was taken. Upon Mirk' s suggestion, B. JOHNSON MOVED to suspend the rules of procedure retroactive to 4 :00 p.m. this afternoon. J. Johnson seconded and the motion carried. Unique and Fragile Areas Harris noted that pages 7-9 of the "green book" had been discussed at the January 12 special meeting and pointed out that his hand- out had reworded No. 1 on page 7, for clarification, as follows: 1. 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. Bailey referred to No. 3 on page 7 noting that marshes and swamps can dry up and questioned whether landowners would be required to keep them as wetlands. He noted also that there is no drainage plan for the west side of the river. A letter from Pacific Industrial Concepts, signed by J. H. Barr, and D. L. Bendetti, dated January 13, was read into the record and distributed to the Council concerning the reference to the Kent Lagoon on page 8, No. 5 and page 9 , Item C East.side No. 1 and Eastside No. 3. The letter also referred to Policij 8 on page 1. The letter was then filed for record. A letter was read and distributed from Jesse Gray and Isabel Donofrio, fated January 15 , stating that p they did not want to articipate in the King County agricultural program nor to tie up their land for agricultural use only. The letter was filed for record. Referring to page 9 , Mooney asked Wickstrom about the 200 foot buffer strip around the Kent Lagoon noting the concerns listed in Pacific Concepts ' letter. Wickstrom explained that if we shifted the lagoon to the west, so instead of taking 200 feet on the east side, there would be 400 feet on the west side due to right-of-way restrictions and existing buildings . It was determined that the distance would be 400 feet from the center of the dike only on the west side and that the city proposed to acquire a]_1 properties through the LID. Mayor Hogan noted that Pacific Tncxustrial Concepts has stated that it should 3 - i January 15, 1981 be made clear that this is a drainage storage facility and not particularly a wildlife habitat. Wickstrom stated that it was felt that both could be done. It was determined that plans included a special person to be hired during the design of the facilities to ensure that the habitat for wildlife be retained. Harris determined that the sewage lagoon would not be acceptable as part of the 110 acres and that the 70 acres on the west side would be purchased. The Mayor noted that Pacific Industrial Concepts ' concern is that we are placing more emphasis on the lagoon as a wildlife habitat rather than a drainage area. She noted that the two can exist together if an area around the lagoon is protected. Haggard suggested that to save confusion, the Council should refer specifically to the maps , numbering them, and noting the map numbers and dates of any changes . He referred to page 9 , paragraph 7 B 2 noting that Council action shows a designation of RA and suggested that the wording be changed from "agriCulture" to "RA" in accordance with the Council' s action on this matter. He further suggested that Paragraph 7 C 3, referring to seasonal or temporary wetlands , be deleted in its entirety. Sally Millen, of the Mueller group, had questions about the map and Harris explained that "seasonally and temporarily flooded" areas were not considered unique and fragile but were shown on the unique and fragile map . Millen suggested that the maps be clarified. Volchok stated that the proposed West Valley drainage system LID map recently sent out by the city showed that the area from 212th to Meeker Street would be drained, thus eliminating the wetlands and so recommended that Item 3C be deleted from page 9. Goldsmith referred to his letter of January 12 , and agreed with Vofchok ' s reference to the city' s proposed drainage LID in the area. He suggested that this area be deleted as Unique and Fragile and that the city retain the lagoon for a wildlife habitat and for- a storm water retention site. Jim Workman, an ecological consultant formerly with Jones and Jones, opined that the Kent Lagoon was most important to water- fowl and that a buffer zone was needed for nesting and to protect the habitat. He said that the area was unique in the sense that it was becoming very rare. I,es Samford read into the record a letter dated January 12, 1981 , from T. McCann stating that the land west of the river could be 1)ui.lt upon and should not be held for open space any more than land east of the river. The letter stated that land south of 212th and north of 216th does not support waterfowl or wildlife activity. The letter was filed as part of the record. Samford stated that"unique and fragilelis a vague and ill-defined term and that the owners of land south of 212th t a designation of unique and fragile, and north of 216th do not wan 4 - ,January 15 , 1981 He suggested that land south of 21.2th be eliminated from the unique and fragile designation. Dan T.,e0ijarld, of the Planning Department, explained that past _fl_oora_ng records , aerial photos , field records , topography maps and a combination of techniques lead to the final mapping designations . Bailey suggested that maps proposed for adoption would be obsolete if the draiange project is completed and asked for a clarification of long-range designations of seasonally flooded or wetlands . Dan Leonard noted that it was recognized, that .hedrainage cbannel would be built and that the map could be sub-)ect to ch,-ange as development took place . It was determined that the area south of 212th to South 216th would be designated Unique and Fragile, ed•andtie Mnoted thatd ooney state that f' ood . a drainage he had never seen that property i district north of 212th used to keep fields free of water by pumping over the dike before someone stole the pump. Leonard stated that Jones and Jones defines Temporarily Flooded and Wetlands as not only areas that are flooded by standing water, but also where localized flooding could occur or where water is at or near the surface . BAILEY MOVED to accept the map as the official map, excluding the asterisk. B. Johnson seconded. Masters had questions as to whether the map is accurate as to what constitutes the wet area in the L-5 area. McCAUGHAN MOVED to amend the mot-lion to state th�it 1-Ind south of 212th not be included in the map as an i'l-5 area• nooney seconded. mirk noted that since the Council was going to tour the area, action could be delayed until after that time . HAMILTON MOVED to table the matter until after the tour. Mooney seconded and the motion CARRIED. Upon McCaughan' s suggestion, the text of I"fn1crue and Fragile Areas starting on page 7 in the "green book" was considered next. HAMILTON MOVED to adopt No . 1 as recommended by Harris , shown on page 3. McCaughan seconded . B. JOHNSON MOVED to amend the motion to substitute �tll lagoon for the words "former sewage" lagoon. Amendment CARRIED with -Hamilton voting nay. At Sally Millen' s suggestion, MOONEY PROPOSED an amendment to add the words ,officially mapped" all. ,porlcIs , marshes, etc. McCaughan seconded and the amendment CAPIP117-5. Uhrich expressed concern in stati.ng awidth for the buffer strip TjjA7til the city had actual] y retai-ned a wildlife biologist to assist with the design. He suggested that the words "adequate" buffer be used in place of the reference to the 200 feet. Hamilton stated that 200 feet is the starting point and if that is too much, we can take sorne off . Haggard stated that some- place ,official map" should be iclei-itifled. Mooney noted that the consideration of adopting the map woi.Od be after the tour of the January 15, 1981 area. The motion as amended CARRIED and. now reads: 1. Designate all officially mapped ponds, marshes and/ or swamps, riparian woodlands , undiked shorelines, flooded wetlands and 2.00 feet around the city lagoon as Unique and Fragile Areas. Wetlands defined as Other Wetlands shall not be defined as Unique and Fragile Areas . HAMILTON MOVED to adopt No. 2 on page 7 . McCaughan seconded, motion CARRIED. McCAUGHAN MOVED for adoption of No. 3 on page 7, Hamilton seconded. Motion CARRIED with Bailey voting against. MCAUGHAN MOVED to adopt No. 4 on page 8, Hamilton seconded. Motion CARRIED. HAMILTON MOVED to adopt No. 5 on the top of page 8, changing the wording to "the city shall maintain and manage the old Kent Lagoon as a dual purpose facility: A) Storm water retention site, B) Wildlife habitat area. The city shallcosult the lagoon' s wildlife biologist for design assistance to protect wildlife habitat value. " Mooney seconded. Motion CARRIED. McCAUGHAN MOVED to adopt No. 6 on the top of page 8. Hamilton seconded. Motion CARRIED. (Bailey left at this point) a e 8, correcting McCAUGHAN MOVED for adoption of Item 7 a 1) on page it to L-5 instead of L-6 . J. Johnson seconded. Jack Martz read letter into the record stating that the policy of protecting a adopted unique and fragile areas should be pursued but not ad p y the City Council as policy until the Council has been presented with the total plan ccomple�te w of ��e economic Mottion toa adopt t7 a 1) The letter was made p CARRIED with Masters voting nay. McCAUGHAN MOVED to adopt 7 a. 2) on page 8, Mooney seconded. Motion CARRIED. MOONEY MOVED to adopt 7 a 3) on page 8 , B. Johnson seconded. It was determined that this a�3u�ha�ndhessitethe itselfselection contained this 70-acre parcel by SCS more than 70 acres. Mooney noted that SCS requiresfee owowner- ship of 100 acres of land by the sponsoring agencies the first dollar being spent for the project. Motion CARRIED. 6 - January 15 , 1981 McCAUGHAN MOVED for adoption of 7 a 4) , B. Johnson seconded. Volchok expressed concern as to how owners would be encouraged to participate. Motion CARRIED. HAMILTON MOVED to adopt Item 7 a 5) , I3 . Johnson seconded. Mayor Hogan noted there hud been some disc'u"ssiora on changing the wording to "pass" a bond issue . MOONEY MOVED to reword 5) to say that we will participate with the sponsoring agencies to acquire the wetlands inside the L-5 area needed by the SCS project. Dan Leonard explained that this item was for acquiring land above and beyond the 70 acres , and both motions were with- drawn. Mooney opined that the people Of East Hill and West Hill would not endorse a bond issue . Mayor Hogan noted that if we have a storm water utility to pay for the program, a bond issue to the public will not be necessary. MOONEY MOVED to adopt 7 a 5) as written on page 8. Hamilton seconded; motion CARRIED. HAMILTON MOVED to adopt Item 7 a 6) on page 8 as written. B. Johnson seconded; motion CARRIED. HAMILTON MOVED to adopt 7 b 1) on page 8 as written. B. Johnson seconded. It was noted that this was outside utsi deeecity lfitsthe but that the city wanted to have some p_ _. Y established area. McCaughan questioned whether roads could be put through. if these areas were accepted as Unique. Zind Fr<<gile. Goldsmith com- mented that L-27 is probably the one tnat will be a-ffected by SR 516 and that L-5 will be affected by the drainage canal . He noted that a policy of declaring unique- and. Fragile areas could create delays relating to the environmental issues. The routing of SR 516 was shown on the map and it was noted that L-5 had not yet been established. ^IcCaughan suggested that the area could be declared Unique and Fragile , except for rights of way for roads and utilities. Mirk stated that this would defeat lthe p uapose. Goldsmith noted that he had addressed th � is would be nd that without adopting the maps , surveying the boundary difficult. Haggard suggested that perhaps the city could later define an area for a roadway or utility corridor, declaring that part as removed from the L-5 Unique and Fragile Area. Motion failed with only Hamilton voting in favor. It was noted that it had been deci(ie� -O maineta8n the RA so designation for Item 7 b 2) aVotiorit CARRIED.g Mirk questioned MOVED, B. Johnson seconded. previous action relating to this, and Iiar;iilton stated that at a previous meeting his motion to change all the area marked "A" in yellow on the Valley Floor Plan map to' RA' was passed. McCAUGHAN MOVED to delete item 7 b 3) on the top of page 9 . on FAILED with only McCaughan, Masters seconded. The mot' Masters and Mooney voting in favor. 7 - January 15 , 1981 HAMILTON MOVED to adopt 7 b 3) as written. J. Johnson seconded. The vote resulted in a tie with J. Johnson., B. Johnson and Hamilton in favor and Mooney, Masters and McCaughan against. (Bailey was not present for this action. ) Mayor Hogan then voted in favor and the motion CARRIED. MOONEY MOVED to adopt 7 b 4) as written. B. Johnson seconded. Motion CARRIED. Mirk questioned whether there were inconsistencies in the Council' s actions and Mooney stated that he would like to see farms, such as Smith' s , retained if the county program provided enough money to the farmers . It was determined that residential and agriculture were both allowed in RA zoning and that farmers could build houses and live on their farms . Item 7 c) East Side B. JOHNSON MOVED to adopt Item 7 c I) . Mooney seconded. Volchok commented on the 200 foot buffer provision in connection with the city' s proposed LID in the area . Wickstrom clarified that the LID map was very general and not meant to be exact. B. JOHNSON MOVED to amend the motion to change the wording of 7 c 1) to: 1 . "Designate a 200 foot buffer strip, or equivalent around the perimeter of the City Lagoon" . Mooney seconded and the amendment CARRIED. Motion to adopt 7 c 1) as amended CARRIED. MOONEY MOVED to adopt 7 c 2) on page 9 . Hamilton seconded. Motion CARRIED. MOONEY MOVED to delete 7 c 3) on page 9 . Hamilton seconded. Motion CARRIED. It was determined that the hearing on the Green River Corridor plan would be resumed at a special meeting at 4 : 00 p.m. on Thursday, January 22 . McCAUGHAN MOVED to hold a special meeting at 4 . 00 P.M. January 19 , prior_ to the regularly scheduled Council meeting of that date. B. Johnson seconded, motion CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 6 : 45 p.m. Marie e �, CMC City Clerk 8 -