Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 01/19/1981 Kent, wash.ington January 1.981 Regular meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 8:00 o ' clock p.m. by Mayor Hogan. Present: Mayor Hogan, Council.- persons Bailey, Hamilton, B. Johnson, J. Johnson, Masters, McCaughan and Mooney, City Administrator Cushing, City Attorney Mirk, Planning Director Harris and Public Works Director Wickstrom. Also present: Finance Director McCarthy, Parks Director Wilson and URS representa- tive Abed. Approximately 30 people were in attendance. CONSENT McCAUGHAN MOVED that Consent Calendar Items A through CALENDAR J be approved, with the exception of Item E, removed at the request of Parks Director Wilson, Item H, re- moved at the request of the City Attorney, and Item J, removed at the request of Councilperson McCaughan, be approved, Hamilton seconded. Motion carried. MINUTES (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5A) Approval of Minutes . APPROVAL of the minutes of the REGULAR. meeting of January 5, 1981 and the SPECIAL meeting of January 8, 1981. (Minutes of the January 8, 1981 Special Meeting were distributed at the Janu- ary 15, 1981 Special :Meeting. ) HEALTH & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5G) SANITATION Environmental Impact. Statement - Comprehensive , Sewerage Plan. ACCEPTANCE of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Comprehensive Sewerage Plan. The Review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement has expired and comments received have been incorporated in the Final EIS prepared by the Engineer- ing Department. (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5H) REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF CITY ATTORNEY MIRK Adoption of Comprehensive Sewerage Plan. URS has submitted the comPleted 1 80 Comprehensive Sewerage Plan and a resolut-on adopting the Plan as prepared s 1_ January 19, 1981 HEALTH & by URS is recommended by the Public Works Director. SANITATION Mirk explained that the resolution could not be adopted for seven days after acceptance of the Final EIS . Mayor Hogan expressed concerns about the EIS not addressing who would have the respon- sibility of receiving the sewerage and questioned whether Metro was in face: capable of so doing. MOONEY MOVED that Item 5H be held over for a period of two weeks, B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. Outside Sewer and Water Service Requests. The Director of Public Works has prepared a revised policy statement for water and sewer service to areas outside the Kent City limits. The new policy would allow service connection if the property owner were willing to provide an offsetting water supply. Should said offsetting supply appear to be capable of producing a significant amount of water, the City would have the option of developing it as a municipal source . The revised policy state- ment has been reviewed by the Public Works Committee and it is their recommendation that the revised policy be adopted. MOONEY MOVED that the revised policy statement for water and sewer service to areas outside the Kent City 1_imits be adopted, J. Johnson seconded. In response to B. Johnson ' s question, Mooney determined that the provisions of Resolution No. 822 regarding the execution of Annexation Covenants would still. apply. Motion carried. Garbage Rate Increase. In accordance with the City' s contract with General Disposal Corporation, the City 's garbage hauler, the service and rental portions of the rates are to be increased each January 1, based on the November t..c: November Consumer Price Index. The increase dur< incj ti._ic7 period in 1980 was 15 .03q. The increase wi ? _i rij­;t= ;.appear on the utility bills mailed to t. v ncl 17t i rnuary. A copy of the ordi- nance amend:inc4 the s leas been furnished to the Council =nld it �{.;r - nc d trial rates can take effect retroactiVe,1Y tc ?<rCittcla"y 1 1.981. J. JOHNSON MOVED that ()rdi.n,_,,n(_-e N() hc3 )_Loviding for the increase G january 19, 1981 HEALTH & in garbage rates be adopted, Hamilton seconded. SANITATION In response to questions from B. Johnson, Cushing noted that the CPI was figured in accordance with the contract. and that the contract still had three more years to go. He determined for B. Johnson that an inquiry could be made as to the possibility of further negotiation on the contract. In response to Masters ' questions, Cushing noted that the rate increase was not because of increasing dumping charges but applied only to the service charge. Motion carried. Midway Landfill Site. Mirk noted that a letter had been received from Jim Curran this date regarding the Midway Landfill Site. Mirk noted that in his conversation with Curran, Curran had indicated that his recollection of the situation insofar as the landfill site was concerned was that a permit was only required if putrescible wastes were being deposited at the site . He also suggested that the Council had authorized the operation by virtue of their approval of the City of Seattle/Romano Lease, which was later amended to include the City of Kent. Mirk referred to the amendment and noted that it. referred to Section 11 only which pertains to park lands. Mirk suggested that a further study of Curran ' s letter be made and the matter discussed at the January 26 workshop. Mirk noted that he had also informed Curran that even if a determina- tion was made that a permit was not required, the City would still have the right to conduct a hear- ing to determine what is presently being done at the site and whether it is in the public interest. It was determined for McCaughan that the Midway site is also being inspected. Midway Landfill SitejKent. Highlands Landfill Site/ Widing Trucking Co. e_Opration. Mooney noted that he and Councilperson Bailey had recently made a tour of the three sites accompanied by Harry Shutts, the City' s inspector assigned to check the sites. Mooney reported ghat Harry is checking to be sure adequate coverage is in place' and that the torches are burning. He also referred to trucks exiting the 3 - January 19, 1981 HEALTH & site leaving a slurry of mud on the highway and SANITATION that while there Harry had ordered the firm to bring street sweeping equipment to the site. It was also noted that the City of Seattle had water trucks standing by. Mirk determined that the site: was closed down until the equipment arrived after Harry ' s warning. Mooney noted that they had also driven through the Widing Trucking Co. site and during the course of their conversation with Mr. Widing, Harry had made several suggestions and recommendations and Mr. Widing had expressed his willingness to cooperate. Mooney commended Mr. Shutts on the excellent job he is doing and his ability to communicate well with people. In res- ponse to B. Johnson ' s question about visiting the site, Mooney suggested that the Public Works Depart- ment be contacted first and arrangements made for Harry to accompany those interested in touring the site. In response to 1lamilton ' s question, Mirk noted that there were no putrescible materials being placed at the Midway site but there had been several years ago. Mooney also noted that the Public Works Committee was going to make a recom- mendation regarding a possible change to applicable City ordinances covering trucks hauling fill materials in the area. TRAFFIC (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5F) SAFETY Traffic Safety Committee. Formation of this Committee was approved at the December 15, 1980 Council meeting. The Committee consists of the following: Mayor Hogan, Public Safety Committee Chairman Billie Johnson, Chief of Police Skewes, and Public Works Director Wickstrom. The three members of the community serving on this committee will be Karl Hart, Claudia Otey and Norman Anderson. POLICE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5C) Kent Police Guild Contract (1980-1981) . AUTHORIZATION for the Mayor to sign the Police Guild contract for 1980 and 1981. CITY HALL (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5D) First Floor Remodeling Project. ACCEPTANCE of the 4 - January 19, 1981 CITY HALL first floor remodeling project as complete per the specifications of the architect and the Finance Department so that the reta.inage can be released upon receipt:. of sales tax releases from the State . PERSONNEL Char me In Holiday Schedule. As discussed at the January 12, 1981 workshop, the City Attorney has prepared an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1985 , deleting February 12 (Lincoln ' s Birthday) as a City holiday and substituting another holiday to be scheduled by Administration. B. JOHNSON MOVED that Ordinance No. 2269 be adopted, Mooney seconded. Motion carried. HOUSING & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5I) COMMUNITY Resolution to Amend 1980 Housing__& Community Develop_ DEVELOPMENT ment Prue ram. ADOPTION of Resolution No. 912 amend- ing the 1980 Housing & Community Development Program by adding $8, 264 unexpended 1978 Pedestrian Walkways Phase TIT funds to the 1980 ^entral Business District Improvements Design Project as approved at the Decem- ber 1, 1.980 City Council regular meeting. REZONE Lincoln Properties Rezone (RZ-80-7) . The Lincoln Properties Rezone application for a rezone of 21.6 acres located south of. James Street, west of 64th Avenue, east of Russell Road Park, from GC, General Commercial , to MR-M, Multi.--Family Residential Medium Density, was heard by t.(ze Hearing Examiner on Novem- ber 19, 1980. The Hearing Examiner has recommended that the application be approved with conditions as noted in the Findings and Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner:, as follows: "The issuance of development permits for the con- struction of residential units shall be dependent upon the provision of necessary and required im- provements to street and drainage systems as set forth in the approval of Short Plat No. SP-80-9, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. " J. JOHNSON MOVED that the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner be approved and that the City Attorney be inst-.ructed to draf':, the necessary ordinance, Hamilton seconded. Mot i on carried' . 5 - January 19, 1981 EAST HILL East Hill. Moratorium. The City Attorney has pre- PLAN pared a resolution setting a public hearing for February 17, 1981 to consider a moratorium, as discussed at the January 12, 1981 workshop. MOONEY MOVED to adopt Resolution No. 913, B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. ___ PRELIMINARY (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5J) PLAT (REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILPERSON McCAUGHAW Picardo Preliminary Plat (SU-80-5) . A public meeting date of February 2, 1980 was to be set to consider the Picardo Park Preliminary Plat. The Hearing Examiner has recommended approval with conditions. A letter request has been received on behalf of Towne Development Company, new owner of the property, requesting that the public meeting be held in abey- ance for at least one month. McCAUGHAN MOVED that. the letter be made a part of the record and that the public meeting on the Picardo Preliminary Plat be scheduled for March 2, 1981, Masters seconded. Motion carried. PARKS & (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5E) RECREATION (REMOVED AT THE REQUEST Off' PARKS DIRECTOR WI LSON) Kent Kind County Recreation Programming Contract. The Parks Committee has recommended authorization for the Mayor to sign the joint contract with King County for 1981 Recreation Programming. The amount for 1.981 is $25, 760.00, an 8% decrease from last year ' s amount, due to the budget restraints for 1981. Parks Director Wilson noted that the Parks Department wished to hold this item for at least a month because of the problems that the schools are experiencing with funding at this time. MOONEY MOVED that Consent Calendar Item 5E be held for a month, Hamilton seconded. Motion carried. RAILROAD In response to Mayor Hogan ' s question, Mooney referred CROSSINGS to correspondence with the Burlington-Northern Railroad regarding billboards to be placed next to the tracks. He noted that this was a policy which had been adopted in Minneapolis and that in response to Mr. Wickstrom' s request, an attempt would be made by the railroad to make sure that the billboards are not placed within the Kent City limits . It was determined that there is a State law which prohibits this type of sign in unincorporated areas . 6 - January 19, 1981 WATER East Hill Well Company. Mayor Hogan referred to the memorandums and information packet furnished to the Council regarding the history of the East Hill Well Company and the City. In response to questions from McCaughan, Mirk noted that he had been aware prior to the Council ' s request, for background information there were in fact two sets of. By-Laws in existence for the Company and questioned which set they were operating under. He noted that he had also ques- tioned the legality of the Company because of the 50 year period referred to in his memorandum dated January 15, 1981. He stated, however, that a letter had been delivered to his office today from the Secretary of State indicating that on April 6, 1980 Articles of Amendment had been filed for the East Hill Well Company making the existence of the corporation perpetual. _Mr. Couture of the East Hill Well Company noted that they had been advised by the Secretary of State that a corporation has ten years to file for an extension when its term - ends and that their filing had been accomplished in sufficient time. Mayor Hogan suggested that the decision must still. be made as to whether or not it is in the City 's best interests to proceed with the acquisition of the East Hill Well Company and if so, under what conditions . Hamilton noted that he was opposed to the acquisition and that if_t-er a review of the information fern-i shed J:� / admin:istr.ation he could find no promise or giar.antee by any official or employee of the City to b:i�,T the East Hill Well Company. He noted that- thero were some agreements to negotiate 1)ut that.. t h,_- dem:_inds seemed to be coming from the end a1.1 tl7e c.n,zcessi.ons were being m,ade that if a majorit.i of t �.e in = ,_sted on acquiring the Company , tirc):t-t: c .trt.i ;t .a �isi.at.ion should be made, incli_ui i_riq t i-o , ssets t-r) t,e acquired as compared to th[-= cost acid the l.iaj)il.ity that the City will hc� i ncur.r_ inq . E;(�! r:)ted 1-hat :in his opinion, aside from the lc_!gal ran�ii� ic :.t i[.�;� , if was a poor proposition for the City/ carid that until it was demonstra: ed t_() him tha t -it, woii- d be advantageous to the 'i ty fie 'w'c)(d d 7r'is iu :' (. 7T)pos- it. January 19, 1981 WATER HAMILTON MOVED that the City withdraw any offers being made to the East Hill Well Company, that the City not tender any further offers, and that. the City does not negotiate any further. McCaughan seconded. In response to Masters ' question' s about litigation which had been pending between the Company and the City, Mirk reviewed the events which had occured at the time the Department of Ecology issued a permit to the City to drill the well.. The Company had filed a protest with DOE and the City appealed to the pollution Control Board. The hearing on the matter was held at the Kent City Hall and the matter was resolved in favor of the City, the pollution Control Board upholding the decision of the Department. of Ecology in issuing the permit to withdraw up to 3 million gallons of water per day from the well . Mirk noted that the Board specifically found that there was no showing by the Well Company that there was not sufficient - water at the site. In response to B. Johnson 's question about. the Restraining Order which had been filed in Superior Court by the Company against the City, Mirk determined that the decision of the pollution Control Board had resolved that issue; that the Restraining Order merely stopped the City from drilling the we:11_ until the hearing was con- ducted. Cushing Further clarified that following the con- clusion of the deliberations which Mirk had referred to, representatives of the Company had discussed with him that they were considering the possibility of appealing the decision of the Board, but at that time also questioned whether the City would be will- ing to enter into negotiations to acquire the East Hill Well Company. Cushing also pointed out that at no time was it indicated to the Council nor to the Company that the City was committing to acquisi- tion. In response to questions from the Council, Mr. Couture noted that at the time of the conversations which _ 8 _ January 19, 1981 WATER Mr. Cushing referred to, the Company had 5 or 6 days to determine if they were going to pursue the Superior Court_ action to protest the findings of the Board. i-ie stated that the City was very anxious at that time to begin work on the well and the Company had decided to enter into negotia- tions for the sale of the Company rather than follow through with the litigation. Hamilton also referred to a letter dated November 20, 1979 from the City to the East Hill Well Company which indicated that the City ' s offer or interest in purchasing the Company was dependent on verifica- tion of the water supply. There was no further discussion and the motion CARRIED, with Mooney, Masters and McCaughan voting nay. CONDITIONAL Aral - Bell-Anderson Conditional Use Permit (CE-80-14) . USE PERMIT A public hearing was held by the Hearing Examiner on APPEAL October 15, 1980 to consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 40-unit multi-family complex on 2.67 acres in a CC, Community Commercial zone. The Hearing Examiner approved the request with conditions. On November 10, 1980 a written request for reconsideration was filed by Robert T: Beaty and denied by the Hearing Examiner. An appeal has been filed and is scheduled for hearing on January 19, 1981. BAILEY asked that he be excused from the public hearing. MOONEY SO MOVED, J. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. HAMILTON asked to abstain from voting on the matter. MASTERS SO MOVED, B. John- son seconded. motion carried. The public hearing was opened by the Mayor. It was determined that no testimony would be taken, that this had all been taken at the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, and that discussion at this time would be limited to whether the decision of the Hearing Examiner was proper. Robert_ T BeaLy, the appellant, noted that he had filed the appeal in his .name on behalf of several 9 ._. January 19, 1981 CONDITIONAL members of the Kenthill Condominium Association, USE PERMIT and that he wished to comment about the Hearing APPEAL Examiner ' s decision. He first referred to the purposes for which conditional use permits are granted. He noted that the theory is that certain uses, considered by the Council to be essential or desirable for the welfare of the community and its citizens, are entirely appropriate and not essentially incompatible with the basic uses in a particular zone; but not without restrictions or conditions being imposed to prevent special problems to neighboring properties. He pointed out that uses generally treated in this manner are those serving large numbers of people, such as private schools, clubs, hospitals and churches. Beaty referred specifically to the Kent Zoning Code, Section 7. 3, General Conditional Uses, which states as its purpose "to identify certain types of land uses that usually require relatively greater freedom of location than other uses re- stricted to certain districts by this code. " He went on to note that Section 7. 3 of the Zoning Code also states the characteristics of General Conditional Uses as: 111. Public Necessity 2. Their characteristics are such that it is impractical to limit their location only to certain districts . 3. Even if the use fits #1 and #2 above, their impact on surrounding neighbor- hoods may be such that adequate per- formance standards are necessary. He noted that in tha.s case the Hearing Examiner only examined the possible detrimental effects cf the proposal on other uses and there was no showing as to public necessity of the proposal or that it had unique characteristics . Beaty alleged that the evidence presented at the public hearing made it clear that there was no public necessity for the conditional use permit; that in fact the proposal was in direct conflict with the public good since it will add to an already overloaded - 10 - January 19, 1981 CONDITIONAL supply of multi --fCAIli ly h ?usi.ng. Beaty further USE PERMIT alleged that thhere was nothing unique about the APPEAL characteristics of a condominium that makes it impractical to restrict their location to only certain districts . He noted that the proposal did not in, any way ineet the purposes for which conditional. use permits are granted--that no public need was being served and that the only need being served was the economic need of a realty company. He also noted that if the permit were granted it would be to the detriment or the public interest. He made reference to the fact that the Hearing Examiner had stated at the hearing that it was the best use for this particular piece of property and questioried that also, suggesting that it was only insofar as Bell-Anderson Realty was concerned. He contended that the perceived best use for a piece of property was not relevant to the granting of a conditional use permit and should not be considered. Beaty pointed out that the City has designated the site as commercial zoning and this is shown in the c)ni.ng code. He questioned whether the Hearing Exam.i...ner had the authority to change the decision based on the best use of the property according to her: views and that the only facts to be considered when reviewing an application for a conditional use permit are public need and uniqueness . With regard to the East Hill Plan, Beaty commented that the primary residential goals of the Plan are to provide a variety of housing types and that the proposed conditional. use was not consistent with these goals. fie noted that the East Hill area is currently experiencing a great imbalance in housing opportunities and that the Planning Department Staff Report on the matter :ata.tes that there is an abund- ance of vacant land available on the East Hill zoned multi-family residential. fie also noted from the Planning Department report that there are 1228 multi- family units hresent.ly being constructed or in the building permit process, that only 36 single family residence-, have been constructed in Kent during the past yeas-, with E_,ppr.oximate.ly 60 single family housing permits pending. He stated further that the Planning Department estimf t_es the.r_F, is adequate housing and - Il January 19, 1981 CONDITIONAL multi-family zoned property to meet the anticipated USE PERMIT needs of the East Hill for the next 18 years. He APPEAL pointed out there is currently an imbalance in hous- ing opportunities on the East Hill and by allowing the Conditional Use Permit the Hearing Examiner had directly violated the goals and purposes of the East Hill Plan and the Comprehensive Plan and that the law requires that all land use decisions be made in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Reference was also made by Mr. Beaty to the Hearing Examiner ' s Findings and Conclusions, namely No. 2, which reads as follows : "The present development pattern precludes the scale of office and intermediary uses as a buffer strip clustered around the commercial node as envisioned on the Land Use Maps. The small size of the site and its isolation from the existing commercial devel- opment tend to make viable commercial activity doubtful. " Beaty contended that there was no evidence presented at the hearing on which to base this conclusion and no facts to back it up. He suggested that the problem with the site is that:: it is behind the existing Albert- son' s store and is not visible from either S.E. 256th or 104th S.E. but that. there are many forms of uses which do not require a high degree of visibility, such as an office building. He added that the Planning Department would prefer to have an office building at the site, serving as a buffer zone between the commercial and residential property. Mr. Beaty con- tinued that the Planning Department had recommended denial of the Conditional Use Permit, mainly because it was not in line with the goals of the East Hill Plan. He noted that the Planning Department report states clearly that there is no public necessity for the proposed development and unless this necessity exists it was not proper to grant this type of permit. He also referred to a supplemental report from the Planning Department which had stated as follows: " . . . It is this Department ' s position that the location , 12 - January 19, 1981 CONDITIONAL timing and benefits to the community of such a USE PERMIT development plan and request should be in con- APPEAL formance with the City ' s Comprehensive Plan and East Hill Plan. The position of the Planning Department, as it relates to the East Hill Plan goal of providing a variety in housing opportunities, is that the East Hill area of the City is currently experiencing a great imbalance in housing opportuni- ties. . . " and . .It should be further noted that only 36 single family residences have been constructed this year within the entire city. . . " (Beaty noted that it was stated that there was a 13.4% vacancy rate on the East Hill last Spring and that this vacancy rate was probably higher now in view of the large number of multi-family units being constructed. ) Beaty noted that the Supplemental Report of the Planning Department went on to state: "The Planning Department, in review of the high vacancy rates as shown for multi-family development in the Staff Reports, finds a number of potential problems and concerns to the city. . . " and that the report further stated: "l. Police and fire services are more likely to be required as development experiencing high vacancy rates deteriorate due to lack of maintenance. . . " 2. Other city services such as utilities are not utilized to the capacities to which they are designed and therefore, the long-term expansion and payoff schedules may be affected. " 3. The aesthetics of the community suffer due to maintenance needs not being met. Landscaping and other Code related items are not kept to standards creating enforcement problems for those agencies charged with maintaining those standards. " Beaty also noted that the Planning Department had expressed concern over the inadequacy of the East Hill Plant which he noted was apparently being revised, 13 - January 19, 1981 - CONDITIONAL and also noted that the Council was declaring a USE PERMIT moratorium on building until this is accomplished. APPEAL He pointed out that as a resident of the East Hill he was extremely concerned over what appeared to be unchecked development and unplanned growth. He referred to the traffic problems which exist now in the area and the increase in crime and the lack of manpower in the Police Department to handle such problems . He also made reference to water shortages which have occurred, and suggested that unless the City makes some attempt to stop the growth, incur-- mountable problems will be experienced. In conclusion, Mr. Beaty contended that the recom- mendation of the Planning Department should not be cast aside by the Council and that the permit was granted by the Hearing Examiner in an unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious manner with no thought to the purpose for which Conditional Use Permits are granted. Hearing Examiner Burke addressed the Council, noting _ that copies of her reports and response to the appeal had been furnished to the Council. She noted that the main point of the appeal seemed to be public necessity and pointed out that the Zoning Code has two sections which pertain to Conditional Use Permits. She clarified that Section 7. 3 of the Code relates to General Conditional Uses, and that these apply to uses such as utilities , transportation, schools, cemeteries and the like--things that normally address community needs. She added that the standards for General Conditional Uses are based on public necessity and unique characteristics and the issue of making those public needs compatible with specific locations . Referring to the Bell-Andersen application specifically, she noted that this falls under the conditions of Section 8_3 of the Code which does not deal with the issue of public necessity or unique characteristics but merely deals with the class of conditional uses that basically come from the private sector and are not dealing with the broad community uses previously mentioned. 14 - January 19, 1981 CONDITIONAL In response to Mayor Hogan ' s question, Burke noted USE PERMIT that the only type of housing need addressed in the APPEAL Code related to old age and convalescent homes and that the question of housing being a general com- munity need would be another issue. She reiterated that the Conditional Use Permit under discussion fell under the provisions of Section 8. 3 of the Code so the question of public necessity and unique characteristics resulted from a misreading of the Code and that it was not part of her consideration since it did not apply in this case. Regarding the question of compatibility with the East Hill Plan and Comprehensive Plan, Burke noted that there was considerable testimony in the record and in the Staff Report, as well as in her report, regarding this and that it covered the policy issue. Burke also reminded the Council that about a year ago the Planning Commission had approved essentially the same project on the= same piece of land and she felt that this supported the contention that the City had found the use consistent with the East Hill Plan. She also noted that the other issue raised concerned the need for multi-family housing in the area and. suggested that in the absence of any policy or guide- lines which address the desirable mixes of different types of residential. housing or the ratios of hous- ing or some other definition or restrictions on growth, that this issue did not, in her opinion, con- stitute an adequate basis for de4ying the application. She noted that there was information given that ade- quate services were available, that the traffic generated from the proposed use would be considerably less than what could be expected under commercial uses, and that the possible adverse effect of traffic exiting on S .E. 256th could be dealt with by restrict- ing access to that street so that any cars would exit on 104th S.E. She concluded that the Staff Report indicates the proposal did meet all the standard criteria of the Conditional Use under the Zoning Code and after evaluating all the information, it was her opinion that the records comply with, support and give 15 - January 19, 1981 CONDITIONAL substance for approval, and her decision was made USE PERMIT on this basis. APPEAL In response to the Mayor ' s question about the adequacy of water service referred to in No. 8 of the Findings, Burke noted that the testimony given at the hearing indicated that water and sewer service was available and that developer agreements are executed with regard to upgrading the systems ; that these agreements would apply whether the project was approved or not. Mr. Beaty responded to Mayor Hogan ' s question by noting that the following comment had been contained in his appeal: "The role of the City Council is to represent the needs of the population as a whole. There is no place in the council ' s role for the economic enhance- ment of an individual at the expense of the public welfare. " There were no further comments and McCAUGHAN MOVED that the hearing be closed. Masters seconded. Motion carried. It was determined that all, correspondence and reports were part of the official records. McCAUGHAN MOVED that the decision of the Hearing Examiner be upheld, Masters seconded. J. Johnson pointed out that this item showed the importance of completing the East Hill Plan because of the many problems which exist in the area, and that the Council was attempting to address some of these problems which have not been dealt with in the past. Masters stated that while she did agree that the problems which Mr. Beaty referred to did exist in the East Hill area as well as in other areas of the City, she was still supporting the motion. She pointed out that the Zoning Code as it exists still has to be complied with by the Council. She expressed disagreement with the contention that the finding by the Hearing Examiner was unfair. The motion carried, with Bailey not voting and Hamilton abstaining. 16 - January 19, 1981 STORM It was noted that the Public Works Department would DRAINAGE hold a meeting on January 22, 1981 at 7 : 30 p.m. with people in the Valley for the purpose of putting together an LID for storm drainage from S . 212th to the Green River. VALLEY McCaughan noted that the Valley Studies would be STUDIES under consideration at a Special Meeting to be held at 4: 00 p.m. on January 22, 1981. It was determined that any decision regarding setting further Special Meetings should be made at. that time. Hamilton noted that he would like to have a workshop session to give staff further direction with regard to the Studies and that this also should be discussed on ,January 22. COUNCIL/ Bailey suggested that discussion would be held at MANAGER FORM the workshop on January 26, 1981 regarding the OF GOVERNMENT proposed. Council/Manager form of government since some determination had to be made prior to March 16, 1981. / COUNCIL Finance & _Personnel. J. ,Johnson noted that a decision COMMITTEES had been made at the last Finance Committee meeting regarding the appoint of Mike Webby to service as CITY alternate in the absence of Mr. Cushing to the insur- INSURANCE ance pooling Board of Directors. J. JOHNSON SO MOVED, Bailey seconded. Motion carried. "CC KENT COMMONS Parks Co_runi.ttee . Bailey noted that the Parks Committee had directed staff t.c> review the rental policies and cultural programs of the Kent Commons . He also deter- mined that the i:'c:,mmit.t.ee had sustained the action of administration with regard to the termination of a Parks Department F,.m :>l o}gee w Public Works Co*nm.ittee. Mooney stated that the Public Works committee would meet at 8:15 a.m. on January 21 , 1.981ry POLICE/FIRE Public Safety C(:)minittee. B. Johnson reported that MERGER the Public Safety Committee had taken up the first discussi >ns regar.:?ir.g the proposed Public Safety Officers aiid that. an update to the initial report 17 - January 19, 1.981 POLICE/FIRE had been provided by staff, which update the Committee MERGER was presently taking under consideration. She also noted that the matter would be further considered by the Committee on Thursday, January 22, 1981 at 3: 00 p.m. , as well as being discussed at the workshop of January 26, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. She noted that a recommendation was expected to be made to the Council at the February 2, 1981 regular Council meeting. FINANCE (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM 5B) Approval of Bills . APPROVAL of payment of the bills received through January 20, 1981 after auditing by the Finance Committee at its meeting to be held at 3 :00 P.M. on January 31, 1981 ADJOURNMENT McCAUGHAN MOVED that the meeting be adjourned at 9: 20 p.m. , Mooney seconded. Motion carried. Betty Gray, CPS Deputy City Clerk 18 -- Kent, Washington January 19 , 1981 A special meeting of the Kent City Council was called to order at 4:00 o'clock p.m. by Mayor Hogan. Present: Mayor Hogan, Council- persons 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 20 people were in attendance at the meeting. Mayor Hogan noted that tonight ' s meeting will be devoted to Amendments to the Zoning Code. Mr. Harris read from page 10 of the Planning Commission's Final Recom- mendation on the Valley Studies Program, section III AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE as follows : III . AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE The Planning Commission ra;-1c2 n�.i:,-,erous changes to the clui -it.ioiis proposed in Chapter 6 . Thos::., t l-iat �:tre being recommei,cio,f r: the City Council would amend the Zoning Code as fol ; .,,.-. A. Amendment to the purp1 - ,it,atements for RA and districts . The proposed amendment sets fo; th st .:in,iar t for achiev.inq the stated ar-,al of RA and MA zon i riq c! i.,tri nts (i .e. compact anci order iv l _velopment) and provi,iF,:, .i rner.h- anism to more adt-:c:luat(�ly r-l-view rezone requests . Furrf :r more, the amendments c:r<,u :i impl,.Twnt the poposc i os in the Valley Floor Plan (Fconomic Goal I : Page 5 of this report). B. Create a Valley Combining District. C. Create a Transition Ai.-ea Combining District. Combining districts are ;L;upe.rirr1t)osed on already e�.i stin t zoning districts and contain regulations that enhance the existi.nq regulations of the underl.y: inch ginning district. i.lx-arlrp.lo : j1 person developinq in ci.n M- 1 1 ; 1 district w.i t!; c o)T i ni.nq district overlay would f,;i i )f the reuulat : )r-is c„ the M-1 zone plus all of the r;- ,., ! ,: i rns of the coml,i!, .ing district- . He then referred to the next section, Sections 3 . 1 and 3 . 16 . He noted that the staff has recommended several changes. He read from a handout UNIQUE AND FRAGILE AREAS as follows: AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE 1 . Sections 3 . 1 and 3 . 16 (Page 10) (Clarification) Change to read: -1- January 19, 1981, i I 1. Sections 3 . 1 and 3 . 16 Amend the Zoning Code to include the following in the purpose statement for RA and MA zones : The city has, through its RA and MA zones , the key to assuring efficient and attractive growth. It j is essential that the city avoid excessive zoning far in advance of demand. Speculative rezoning takes land out of agricultural or other open space use and tends to foster scattered , disconnected development. Ro7ou i.nc1 of RA and M!1 lands to more intensive use shall he predicat.nd upon the clear documentation of the need for additional residential , commercial , or industrial laud ill Kalif . This documentat:i.orr , at a minimum , shall consist of a market lindlysis showin(; the other lands a .l.rcady zoi)ed and ac+'essible t_o muiii_c pal sorvic;es are not- su f f i,, i oiit and/or suitahl.e to ;.,cc ommoc.iate demand i or the proposed uses and that- the market demand for the 1>ropos(:-d develoln;ient is sufficient to cterierate the rOvOTRIW; IWCCssary to build and operate sewer , water, and dr1inI , faci . it^iiI:, required b�7 the project (see Appen(li.x A for deLin.i tion) He noted an additional change on the last paragraph, line 5 where "market analysis" has been changed to "fiscal impact analysis" . He noted that the material he just read enhances the purpose statement of the RA and MA zoning districts . B. Johnson favored deleting the word "clear" from the second line of the last paragraph. After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Council to delete the word "clear" from the last paragraph under consideration. Mr. Joel Haggard referred to page 4 of his letter dated 12-22-80 previously distributed to the Council where he felt the term 1. "clear documentation" in Policy 6 is confusing and unnessary. He pointed out that the Council subsequently deleted the word "clear" for clari- fication of the Policy. He then referred to page 7 of the letter which addresses the Zoning Code Amendments and stated that he feels that it is appropriate for the City Council and Hearing Examiner in making a recommendation to have information regarding the fiscal costs to the public and to the City of providing the services as a result of a rezone. Lastly, he referred to his letter submitted and distributed to the Council on 1-15-81. On Page 2 , Item 6 of the letter, he pointed out that this summarizes all his remaining points of concern. He felt some minor modification should be made to the language he proposed under paragraph 6 because of the Council ' s r �- vious action, particularly to the second sentence regarding the phr "should be based on a fiscal impact analysis of the rezone" . `.. -2- January 1.9 , 1-981 Heexpressed a concern with the purpose statement of the RA and MA zoning districts in that it may be misinterpreted at a later time by someone who might not know the Council ' s intent at this time. He disagreed with the first paragraph of the staf_f ' s proposed amendment to the purpose statement for RA and MA zones . He felt it could be interpretated that RA and PA land is a holding zone . He favored using RA and MA zoned land as transition zones and he felt that this is the intent of the City Council- as well. . Regard- ing the second and third sentences of the .first paragraph which state, "Speculative rezoning taker land out of agricultural or other open space use and tends to foster scattered , disconnected development" , he felt was not an accurate statement. In support theory that Comprehensive planning and zoning should not be predicated upon site development plans. He felt that planning and zoning should take place, and then judge developments in accordance with them. He futher stated that before an owner can commit funds to pursue development, he has to have reasonable proof of the permitted use of that land. He stated he disagreed with the third sentence which he felt would create more than a normal burden upon a rezone appli- cant. Therefore, he favored deleting the second and third sentences of the first paragraph of the proposed purpose statement. Mayor Hogan asked for comments from the Council on this suggestion_ Bailey felt both paragraphs of the purpose statement should be deleted. McCaughan asked Harris if there has been a case where a time limit is imposed whereby the original zoning designation becomes effective if the property owner does not develop underc_the new rezone . Harris replied that this can happen only in the case of a combining district. Relative to the specult.ative rezoning occurin -; ir,. the City he used the Okomoto rezone as a case in point . Be st:, r= d t:ha this land now lies unused. B. Johnson favored deleting all but the first sentence in the first paragraph of the purpose statement , and approve the second paragraph as amended. Haggard concurred. Discussion ensued on the Okomoto rezone. Master questioned what constitutes "excessive demand" . Haggard discussed contract rezones and favored using this type of approach in the city of Kent. McCAUGHAN MOVED that the first two sentences of the first paragraph of the purpose statement be accepted . B,. ,Johnson seconded the motion. Hamilton asked if this motion constituted an amendment to the 'Zoning Code, or if it was in clarification in the language. It was determined that it was in clarification of the langU agt� used in the purpose ,-- statement. -3- January 19 , 1981 Mayor Hogan called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried approvinc the first paragraph of the purpose statement. It reads as follows : The city has, through its RA and MA zones , the key to assuring efficient and attractive growth. It is essential that the city avoid excessive zoning far in advance of demand. Mayor Hogan directed the Council' s attention to the second paragraph. Haggard favored amending the first sentence in t -te second paragraph. to be consistent with the Council ' s action on Goal 1. ?obey 8 . He also favored deleting the end of the last sentence of this second paragraph, " (see Appendix A for definition) " . He felt the Council should adopt Appendix A before adopting anything referring to it. He discussed Appendix A and disagreed with many of the paints contained in it. He also felt tt)e phrase "at: a minimum" shouldi be deleted . MASTERS MOVED to delete "at a minimum" in the second sentence of the second paragraph. B . Johnson seconded the motion. Motion carried with Hamilton casting the one dissenting vote . The second paragraph with the previous changes made by the Council reads as `Lfoll.ows : Rezoning of RA and MA lands to more intensive use shall be predicated upon the documentation of the need for ad- ditional residential, commercial, or industrial. land in Kent. This documentationshall consist of a fiscal / impact analysis showing the other lands already zoned and accessible to municipal services are not sufficient p , and/or suitable to accommodate demand for the purposed uses and that the market demand for the proposed develop- ment is sufficient tc generate the revenues necessa.rc to build and operate sewer , water , an;: drainage facilities required by the pro ect . Haggard asked for clarification on the intent of the phrase "accessible to municipal services" relativ( to the approval. or denial of a rezone . Harris felt that the question of whether or not a rezone would be approved or denied on the basis of accessibility to municipal services would be determined. by the Hearing Examiner or City Council at the time the rezone was heard. Discussion ensued on this point and it- was determined that regardless of the staff' s position on a rezone application, the final determination would be made based on all the :facts presented at the time the rezone was heard. For the purpose of clarification , haggard suggested chang.i.ng the second sentence of the second paragr_ap.n. of the purpose: statement to read : " . .to accommodate demand for the proposed uses and sewer , water , and drainage facilities required by the project can be available without significant detriment to the city. " He explained that this language means that the market demand is sufficient. to generate the services . -4- January 19 , 1981 McCaughan stated that in some cases it would be a detriment to the city to extend services . He related a case in point . Discussion ensued on this point. McCAUGHAN MOVED to adopt the second paragraph of the purpose statement for RA and MA zones deleting the word "clear" , retaining the phrase "fiscal impact analysis" , deleting the phrase " (see Appenidix A for definition) " and "at a minimum" , and it is also the intent of the motion that the language of the first sentence be consistent with the language of Goal I Policy 8 as amended by the Council at an earlier hearing. Bailey seconded the motion . Motion carried . The second para- graph reads as follows : Rezoning of RA and MA :lands to more intensive use shall be predicated upon the documentation of the need for ad- ditional residential ; commercial, or industrial. land in Kent (the language of this first sentence being con- sistent with Goal I Policy 8 as amended by the Council at an earlier hearing) . This docummentation shall consist of a fiscal impact analysis showing the other lands already zoned and accessible to municipal services are not suf- ficient and/or suitable to accommodate demand for the proposed uses and that the market demand for the proposed development is sufficient to generate the revenues necessary to build and operate sewer , water' , and drainage facilities required by the project . HAMILTION MOVED to adopt paragraph one of the purpose statement: for RA and MA zones (as amended by the City Council) as an amendment to the Zoning Code. Mooney seconded the motion. Motion carried . Haggard asked for clarification relative to when -these amendments to the zoning code will. be effective . Mirk stated that it is effective immediately. Cushing asked a question relative to last sentence of the second paragraph which states " . . .the market demand for the proposed development is sufficient to generate the revenues necessary to build and operate sewer, water, and drainage facilities required by the project. " He asked if there is a reason that it is limited to just these services . Mayor Hogan favored adding 'transportation ' and Masters favored includ- ing streets, police, and fire. Bailey commented that these utilities would be covered under the utilities ordinance. Mayor Hogan sug- gested that the language be changed to read, " _ . revenues necessary to accommodate all municipal services required by the project , " Haggard felt that proper notice has nc`-- been diver: tc) all citizens affected by changes in RA and MA zonincl rec,ulations . Cushing asked if the Council intented to ins'° udt: a 1.1 iunicipal services in the language of this statement . MASTERS MOVED that municipal services include sewer , water, streets police, fire, and drainage facilities for purposes of discussion. 1—.5... January 19 , 1981 B. Johnson seconded the motion. Upon a suggestion made by the Mayor MASTERS AMENDED the original motion to identify the services include ._. by listing them in parenthesis after "municipal services" . B. Johnson seconded this amendment. Masters asked Don Mirk if it would not be appropriate to notify the citizens who own MA and RA land before changes are made in the Zoning Code. Mirk answered that he did not know of any other RA or MA lands outside the study area. Harris conunented that there is a strip along the Valley Freeway north of 212th which is RA. Mirk also stated that since this is not rezoning property, then notice to the citizens is not necessary. He further commented that proper notice was given at the time the Planning Commission was deliberating on the Valley Studies. McCaughan felt that the requirements of the fiscal impact analysis is being too specific. Discussion ensued on this issue. Mayor Hogan suggested that the amendment to the or-ginal motion be changed. She felt it would be more appropriate to amend the motion to read: " . . .revenues necessary to accommodate municipal services (sewer, water, drainage, streets etc. ) . . " MASTERS WITHDREW the AMENDMENT and B . Johnson withdrew the second to the amendment. B. JOHNSON AMENDED the orginal motion to strike the phrase " . . .to _ build and operate sewer, water, and drainage facilities , and insert, "The proposed development is sufficient to generate the revenues necessary to provide municipal services (included but not limited to police, fire, streets , water, drainage, sewer) required by the project" . J. Johnson seconded the motion. Haggard felt that action on the purpose statement for RA and MA zones should be tabled until next Thursday. Mayor Hogan Called for a vote on the motion. Motion FAILED by a vote of 4 to 3 . MASTER MOVED to reconsider both paragraphs of the purpose statement on Thursday for the purpose of clarifying the language that should be used in the statement. B. Johnson seconded the motion. Motion carried. The question was .raised as to whether the action taken earlier to amend the Zoning_ Code to include the purpose statement is in effect. Mirk stated that it is effective immediately. In response to a question posed by Haggard, Mirk replied that the amendments would not apply to a rezone currently before the Hearing Examiner because is is already in the hearing process. The next item for discussion was the Valley Combining District. Mr. Harris explained that the Valley Combining District would become a nei3 section to the Ionincg Code and read from the staff report as follows - VALLEY COMBINING DISTRICT (Add last sentence) I'tirpose Statemerit- (Wage 11) January 19 , 1981 Purpose. : tt is the purpc�sf:, of this District to provide for .y t.lie .mplementatinn of specific cjoals and policies of the Valley Studies Program , thus allowing the District to develop in an orderly and efficient manner with regard to the economic , social , and environmental quality of the district. furthermore , the regulations are intended to create a sense of homogeneity throughout the District. Valley Combining District regulations shall be superimposed over tlt zones within the District . The Valley Combining District is defined on the official Zoning Map. He referred to the display map which outlined the Valley Combining District. He pointed out that the last sentence of the purpose statement was an added item which states that it is defined on the official Zoning Map. MCCAUGHAN MOVED and J. Johnson seconded a motion to approve the addition of the last sentence of the purpose statement of the Valley Combining District. It reads : The VAlley Combining District is defined on the official Zoning Map. Dave Uhrich, Upland Industries wished to address the purpose statement of the Valley Combining District. He felt proper notice should be given to citizens whose property would be affected by the Valley Combining District. He felt that the map displayed was not the map that was discussed at the Planning Commission. He did not agree with the concept of an overlay zone such as the Valley Combining District and that each individual zoning district in the Zoning Code should be dealt with on an individual basis if it is determined that such these regulations should be imposed on them. Mayor Hogan asked Mr. Harris if the map was discussed at the Planning Commission. He replied that the map per se was not, however, the Valley Combining District concept was discussed with the Planning Commission. He further explained that although the area covered by the Combining District was not specifically delineated, it was implied that it covered the intensive developed area of the Valley Studies area. Mooney asked Harris what impact this would have on the Goodnews Bay property. Harris replied that development of the property could be done in such a way as to resul._t in a net density of 16 units per acre. Mooney felt that proper notification had not been given to the owners of the Goodnews Bay property and therefore, he could not vote in favor of this Valley Combining District. Harris stated that notice had been given in the newspaper at the time the Plan- ning Commission was holding public hearings on this area. MASTERS MOVED to defer consideration of the Valley Combining District -7- January 19 , 1981 until appropriate notification has been provided to all property owr. . — that would be affected. B. Johnson seconded the motion. Mayor Hogan pointed out that there was a motion currently on the floor for consideration referring to approval_ of the last sentence of the purpose statement of the Valley Combining District. McCAUGHAN WITHDREW his mot]Lon approving the addition of the last sentence of the purpose statement of the Malley Combining District. Mayor Hogan drew the Council ' s attention to the motion to defer consideration of the Valley Combining District until appropriate notification has been provided to all property owners that would be affected. Mayor Hogan asked what procedure should be followed should notification be given to property owners relative to the Valley Combining District. Mirk commented that the Council can hold its own public hearings or direct it back to the Planning Commission for public hearings. McCaughan asked Harris for clarification on whether this would affect the zoning already existing on property within the Valley Combining District, or if it would only affect new property. Discussion ensued on this issue. Harris pointed out that the major item that would affect property would be the limiting of an overall average density of 16 dwelling units per net acre to residential development. He _. suggested that the Council direct the staff to bring the concept of the Valley Combining District back at a later time with further. clari- fication. Hamilton favored discussing whether or not to even to consider a Valley Combining District concept before deciding whether or not to hold public hearings at any level. MASTERS WITHDREW the motion to defer consideration of the Valley Com- bining District until appropriate notification has been given. B. Johnson withdrew her second. Hamilton felt the issue of whether or not to consider a Valley Combining District concept should be discussed at this time . Mooney asked if anything would be taken away from property owners in the area covered by the Valley Combining District should the Council approve such a concept. Mirk and Harris answered no. McCaughan asked if the Planning Commission has ever seen the map depicted on page 3 of the Unique and Fragile Area staff report. Harris pointed out that they had seen it because it had been taken from a picture in the Land Use Study element of the Valley Studies Program. However, he pointed out that the staff is now recommending that changes be made to it. In response to a question posed by B . Johnson, Harris replied that by approving the Combining District, it would not result in down- zoning. However, the density would have to be refigured to obtain the January 19 , 1981 required open space. Bailey asked Harris how this action would affect the Arrow Development project. Harris replied that the Hearing Examiner has stated their net density is 16 units per acre. Mayor Hogan asked for comments on the question of residential density relative to the Valley Combining District. Harris explained that the staff proposes a change to the Residential Section of the Valley Com- bining District. He read from the memo to the Council dated 1-15-81 as follows: Residential Density Change #1 pg 11 to read: 1. Residential development in the Combining ;district shall be limited to an cr.Jerall average density of 16 dwelling units per neL. acre . Any density greater than 16 dwelling units T)er ace,- shall be obtained only through the P .U .D. ,:ror^ss . The area used for calculating numbers of Lesident-La' units allowed shall exclude portions of sitf:�s to public streets or access waJS and mayor open , -S in required w� i n :- rit,+ _ r.idor dedications . Area!; a l.lo� «1 t.i f gar LY structures in densities greater in.' iln:its per net acre shall be distri: ute(� hat. Lhey don ' t occupy more than 10 contigl'l u <i_.r i.n anv . e L:lace . Clusters of mutt i-- 1.ngs at "Ease densities t ' h1z' �r '_c ' )i" +:'Ii Sr'3( E_' areas that. must be separa _ a effectively screen c,i 1,: ( r, Cluster From an (fencing may not b,_, used ;;creeni.riq ) . Delete No. 2 - 5 . He stated that Salley Millen was present representing Arrow Development to add further clarification as this relates to their project. Salley Millen, representing Arrow Development encouraged the Council to avoid any further delay in coming to a decision on the Valley Studies so the Lakes development can proceed. She stated she had a letter for the Council. She distributed this letter. McCAUGHAN MOVED to accept this item as part of the record. Mooney seconded the motion. Ms . Millen suggested specific modifications could be made to the change just read by Harris. She suggested that the second sentence of the paragraph read by Harris be deleted. It reads : "Any density greater than 16 dwelling units per acre shall be obtained only through the P.U.D. process . " She also favored changing the language relative to screening one 10-acre cluster frcm another which appears in the last sentence of the paragraph. She described the proposed - configuration and location of high density dwelling units and -9- January 19, 1981 low density dwelling units . She read the proposed change as follow 1. Residential development in the Combining District shall be limited to an overall average density of 16 dwelling units per net acre. Any development at greater than 16 dwelling units per net acre shall be developed according to a master plan approved by the City Council as part of an application for (a) a zoning reclassification, (b) a formal subdivision, (c) a planned unit development, or (d) such other similar review process established by the City Council. The area used for calculating numbers of residential units allowed shall exclude portions of sites devoted to public streets or access-ways and major open spaces including required wetlands and river corridor dedications . Areas allowing multi-family structures in densities greater than 16 dwelling units per net acre shall be distributed so that they don't occupy more than 10 contiguous acres in any one place and shall be separated from each other by green open space areas which effectively screen or create a visual break between such areas . It was suggested that copies be made of this suggested change for the Council to review. Mayor Hogan called for a motion to accept the letter previously distributed by Ms. Millen as part of the record. Motion carried. Harris referred to the setback chances and read from the staff ' s change sheet as follows : (Clarification) Setbacks (pag 12) Change to read : Se thacks 1 . Front yard dc,l;ths .in the zoning code shall apply to each distiiict in the study area . Setbacks along arterial streets nc,cd(.,d to handlF the valley ' s planned ultimate dc-volopmient shall be rn-_:tired from the edges of the rights- of-w-Iy to he dedicatc d ,)r those arterials , as offically recorded on the Planned Streets Map. Hamilton asked for clarification on this section. Harris stated that rights-of-ways will be clearly defined and therefore, setbacks will be more clearly defined as to where they shall be placed in relation to these. Mayor Hogan directed the Counc:il ' s attention to the changes Ms. Millen proposed Copies of this proposed change were distributed to the Council for review. Mayor Hogan asked Harris if the requirements stated referred to developments with less than 16 dwelling units per net acre. Harri - replied no. In response to a question posed by McCaughan, Harris st that the new owner of a portion of the Arrow Development property we �.. have to abide by the plan approved by Council or come before the Coun.._1. -10-- January 19 , 1981 with a revised plan for approval. Mayor Hogan called for further comments on the proposed change submitted by Ms. Millen. Haggard favored changing the first two words from Residential devel- opment to "Residentially zoned land" . He felt that the language of this first sentence was ambiguous . He questioned whether the maximum density applies to development or zoned land. He felt that it is pos- sible that, in some cases, this proposal could result in down-zoning a piece of property. Harris responded by using the Goodnews Bay property whereby they could develop at a higher density on some portions of their property and a much lower density on other portions. He stated that by developing at a higher density, this would result in another property owner developing at a lower density, resulting in an overall density of 16 units per acre. He further stated that the Council is already considering limiting the density to 11 units per acre. Mooney felt proper notification should be given to all property owners affected by this concept. He also expressed a concern that the right to develop at a higher density may be taken away from a property owner. Discussion ensued and it was pointed out by Harris that there are few pieces of property where it is possible to develop at 23 units per acres and larger areas where development can take place at a much lower rate, thus permitting the overall average of 16 units per acre. He explained that some property owners are not opting to develop at the highest density allowed in their zoning district thereby allowing another property owner to develop at a higher density. He felt there were about 35 to 40 acres of land available to be developed at 23 units per acre in the whole area under consider- ation. John O'Rourke, attorney for Kent Highlands , felt that the effect of the 16 dwelling units per acre restriction would result in reducing density in the Combining District by 35% to 40% . He felt that this results in an economic impact to developers as well . He pointed out that the density is figured on net acres instead of gross acres which further penalizes the developer. He stated that this point was also made on page two of his letter dated 12-11-80 previously sent to the Council. He also felt that, in some cases , there is nothing wrong in exceeding the limitation of 16 dwelling units per net acre distribued and occupying more than 10 contiguous acres. James Goldsmith, of Hugh Goldsmith and Associates , felt that it is a penalty rather than an incentive to compute density on net acres rather than gross acres . He pointed out using this formula makes a substantial difference on the number of units permitted on a small piece of property which also places a hardship on smaller property owners. He also felt it was unfair to those property owners who develop at a later time who are limited to 6 or 8 units per acre. Haggard concurred with the comments made by Goldsmith and O'Rourke. He stated that in some cases the requirement of a buffer might prove to be a hardship on some property owners who develop at a later time . Harris stated that some relief from that requirement may be able to be offered in extreme cases where a hardship exists . Haggard disagreed. He favored deleting the entire Valley Combining District concept. Discussion ensued on ways of relief from the buffer requirement -11- January 19 , 1981 Mirk felt that the Ms. Millen' s proposed modification is geared to one particular development. He felt that it should also have general application. Masters felt that the city is becoming too restrictive on development of the city. Ms. Millen pointed out that the phrase "10 contiguous acres" is not drafted for the Lakes project alone, but taken from the Land Use Study. She urged the Council not to delay in coming to a de- cision. After some discussion , Harris suggested that the staff review the Valley Combining District and bring it back to the Council with some revisions at a later time . BAILEY MOVED that the purpose statement of the Valley Combining Dist- rict be referred back to the staff for further clarification and brought back to the Council for reconsideration at the Thursday, January 22 , 1981 meeting . B. Johnson seconded the motion. Motion carried. Hamilton MOVED that the Valley Combining District be deleted entirely and not be considered as an amendment to the Zoning Code. Master seconded the motion. Harris asked how this concept should be dealt with. Hamilton replied that each section of the Zoning Code should be amended to reflect these changes . Masters felt that the concept of the Valley Combining District constitutes downzoning of property. Also, all citizens affected by these regulations should be given appropriate notification of a public hearing. Mayor Hogan called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried. Harris asked for direction from the Council as to how to proceed . After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Council that the material covered under the Valley Combining District be reviewed at a later time and added to each individual. zoning district in the Zoning Code if approved . The next item for consideration was the Transition Area Combining District which is a new section to be added to the Zoning Code. NHarris pointed out that the staff is recommending that a purpose 5�� statement be added this new section. Bailey stated he supports the concept of a Transition Area Combining District. Haggard disagreed and felt it should be deleted for the same reasons the Valley Combining District was deleted. He stated the proposed regulations relative to setbacks , sight screening, etc. are adequate as they presently exist in the Zoning Code. He felt any changes that the Council feels need to be made should be made to each zoning district on an individual basis. Masters asked Harris if these regulations already appear in the Zoning Code. Harris replied that the height restriction for example, applies only to buildings in an area close to the Green River within the Valley Studies area. The Transition Area Combining District area map was displayed for review by the Council. In re- sponse to a question posed by Bailey , Harris replied that these proposed regulations would provide for a smooth transition from industrial and commericial development to residential_ development such as would occur around the Polygon development . Haggard felt that these regulations would apply throughout all areas of the city. The staff pointed out on the display map the areas outlined as fal.l.i.ng under the regulations of t _ Transition Area Combining District . Bailey asked Harris if these regulations conflict with any existing ._12_ January 19 , 1981 zoning regulations. Harris replied that these regulations supercede existing regulations. Goldsmith expressed a concern regarding who would be responsible for providing the buffer. Harris replied that it would fall on the commercial or industrial property owner. Goldsmith asked the Council to' consider the equity of this policy. Masters felt these types of regulations should be included in the Comprehensive Plan, not in an overlay zone which adds further regu- lations and stalls development. Bailey expressed a concern as l� to the equity in requiring only commercial and industrial property \_ owners to provide buffers. Mirk commented that it only becomes a 6v problem when it can be proven in an specific case where it would be so onerous that it would take away any probability of a reasonable return on a property owner ' s investment; however, individual cases cannot be considered when dealing with a general concept . McCaughan favored buffers to protect residential development from commercial and industrial activity. Hamilton asked the staff a question regarding the height limitation. Harris replied that the height limitation_ only applied to only the areas defined on the display map. B. Johnson spoke in favor of a Transition Area Combining District. She sited an example of a property owner who appealed to the Council for relief from the impact of industrial activity next to his property. McCaughan concurred with B . Johnson' s remarks . Masters stated she intended to vote in opposition to the Transition Area concept for reasons stated earlier. Haggard felt that relative to providing buffers , the owners of commercial and industrial property occuring within this area were unduly penalized compared to owners of commercial and in- dustrial property in other parts of the cite . He favored amending each zoning district if the Council approves these additional reg- ulations . J. JOHNSON MOVED that the Transition Area Combining District be approved with the staff revisions and t.ne addition of L_re purpose statement . McCaughan seconded the motion. It was clarified that the staff ' s revisions include a change on page 13 of the Green Bock from "Building Length" to "Building Setback" . Also unc'er this regulation the addition of the phrase "Building length limited to 30,11 feet. " In addition, under Sight Screening regulation . " fso7_id green.) " should be changed to " (solid screen) ' . �Jhrich -asked for clarification of the building setback requlaticn. riar _s explaine6 the setback regulation. Haggard commented on the ::ppsrent ireruity cc tr,e bu"er regulation to commercial and industrial pro •ertV owners . Mayor Hogan called for a vote on the motion . rt. t.i_cr. carried. Paul Pitts asked for clarification un t.ie Principal Access regulation relative to the extension of Russ=_il Road near the KOA Campground. This regulation states that access to any use in a transition area shall be such that traffic does not travel through or past residential districts. Harris explained that the owners of the KOA Campground has given the reservation to the city some time ago to build the street. There was some confusion as to the result of the vote on the motion to approve the Transition Area Combining District. Mayor Hogan asked -13- January 19 , 1981 for a show of hands. Motion carried by a vote of 5 to 2 . Ms. Millen asked for clarification on the Council ' s action to eliminate the Valley Combining District and how it will affect the Lakes develop- ment process if the Council should choose to reconsider the regulations contained in the Valley Combining District as applied to the whole city. Mayor Hogan explained that the Lakes development will be affected only by the regulations coming from the Valley Studies program. HAMILTON MOVED to officially adopt the Transition Area Combining District map. Bailey seconded the motion. Motion carried with Masters ' casting the one dissenting vote . HAMILTON MOVED to continue the hearing until Thursday, January 22 , 1981 at 4:00 p.m. McCaughan seconded. Motion carried. It was determined that the Green River Corridor and the Unique and Fragile area map would be items under consideration at this meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 6 : 45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joanne JAnson Recording Secretary Pro Tem -14-