Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 01/22/1981 Kent, Washington ,7anuar-y 22, 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 30 people were in attendance at the meeting. (McCaughan announced that he would have to leave the meeting at 5 : 00 p.m. ) Mayor Hogan noted that a number of items had been tabled with regard to the Corridor Study Special Interest Districts until the Council had made a tour of the area. It was determined that the discussion would begin with the Special Interest District Regulations appearing on page 24 of the Green Book. Mayor Hogan .referred to the tour which had been taken in an attempt. to determine how much area was covered by 1000 feet and also to look at the Unique and Fragile areas and the wetlands . Bailey suggested that the Council should discuss whether or riot they, were in fact going to pursue the Special Interest District along the Green River Corridor, and if so, it- what configuration. McCaughan referred to a proposal made by p :�_-ific Industrial Con- cepts and Upland Industries dated December 11, 1980 in which they offered to donate a 200-foot strip along the river from the high water mark back, or 100 feet from the road, with an additional 50 feet back past that to any building. iie noted that lie was con- cerned that there be some restrictions next to the river with regard to the size of buildings and any rail service that might parallel the river, but that he was not certain that he was in favor of the 1000 foot corridor. Bailey expressed concerns about the recommended restrictions placed in the area relative to build- ing size, particularly with regard tG deterimining what a large and box-like or unwieldy building was, and with railroad entry into the area. He suggested that a better definition was needed. He also noted that in certain aromas the railroad spurs could be placed and bermed and be useful. He also expressed concerns with giving the Planning Department, the unilat_(�:ral decision as to what was an acceptable building in the area. Bailey contended that if development was to be allowed in thy. area, consideration should be given to controlling the design under some type of PUD where various alternatives, geographical locations and building configurations would be to the degree spelled out so the developers would know exactly what could be done. Mayor Hogan pointed out that under a PUD certain criteria would still have to be developed and Bailey agreed, noting that the criteria was his concern. - 1 - January 22, 1981 In response to Mayor_ Hogan :ind Bailey, Harris 1-jote6 that the Planning Department does not require developers to submit several sets of plans. He did note, however, that if the Council were to go with the PUD concept they would be setting up more stringent rules than what was being considered at this time. He referred to the fact that the Planning Commission was considering a Business Park District as an addition to the Zoning Code and the Council was now being asked to consider this also. He noted that many people developing in the Valley seemed to be in favor of this concept. He pointed out that this designation would be spelling out in detail the height of buildings, the way buildings would be put together and the types of uses allowed, and that. development would have to be in accordance with these specifications . Harris stated that it would be up to the Council to determine what final.l.y went into the Business Park zoning district after a recommendation was made by the Planning Commission, noting that the designation is very specific and restrictive as to what could be placed there. He noted that people were coming in now to obtain Conditional use Permits to get the kind of use that would be allowed because they can get more office space than what would normally be allowed in an industrial zone. Mayor Hogan reminded the Council that when they decided to aliow development in this area they were concerned about its effects on the Green River, which does have State-wide significance. She referred to the fact that Kramer, Chin and Mayo had developed a concept to protect the river and that the question before the Council was whether they in fact did want the river protected and how much land would be declared as a non-buildable area. She suggested that this basic question should be answered first and the details of development could be dealt with later, since the Council must first decide if they were serious about protecting the river. She noted that from the tour it had been determined that even 200 feet from the river was not very far and that the Planning Commission and the consultants had recommended the 1000 foot area as being necessary for design criteria. She also made mention of the offer made by Pica.fic industrial Concepts and Uplands Industries and noted that she had previously stated that this was not a fair proposition to the City. Hamilton stated that it was his intent to suggest that the Council adopt the 1000 foot Special Interest District in principal but that the 25 Regulations should be gone over individually. HAMILTON MOVED that the City adopt the 1000 foot Special Interest 2 January 22, 1981 in principal, B. Johnson seconded. B. Johnson noted that the 1000 foot area seemed to be the major issue and that perhaps this could be modified if necessary. She suggested that the Council now has the opportunity to preserve something for future genera- tions and that by controlling development along the river the land would be more attractive to everyone. The motion CARRIED, with Mooney, Masters and McCaughan voting against. Discussion then continued to the 25 Green River Corridor Special Interest District Regulations . MCCAUGHAN MOVED TO ADOPT Regulation No. 1, reading as follows: " 1. Every dwelling, building or lot shall have access to the Green River via sidewalks or a. common trail system connecting to the riverside public trail or scenic drive at 1000 foot or less intervals in industrial. development and 500 foot or less inter- vals in residential development. " Mooney seconded. Motion carried. MOONEY MOVED TO ADOPT Regulation No. 2, reading as follows: 112. In residential development, pedestrian access to the Green River shall be accomplished without crossing vehicular streets, unless this is clearly shown to be infeasible. This does not apply to crossings of riverfront roads . " Hamilton seconded. Motion carried. HAMILTON MOVED TO ADOPT Regulation No. 3, reading as follows: "3. Public parking facilities for access to the Green River shall be located as near as possible to riverfront parks and/or historic sites and shall be clustered in lots not exceeding 30 cars. The city may accept or require payment in lieu of providing the land and parking facilities on the applicant ' s property. Every public parking area shall be visible from a street accessible to the - 3 - January 22, 1981 public and be situated so that the public can clearly see riverfront open space and how to access �J the public portion of that open space. " k�t '20mt4EY MOVED TO ADOPT Regulation No. 4, reading as follows : "4. Loading docks shall not be located on river-facing sides of buildings . " B. Johnson seconded. Motion CARRIED. Later in the meeting, in response to questions raised by Dave Uhrich, HAMILTON MOVED to reconsider Regulation No. 4, Masters seconded. Motion carried. HAMILTON MOVED TO AMEND ADOPTED Regulation No. 4 to read as follows: "4. Loading docks shall not be located on river-facing sides of buildings on riverfront lots. " B. Johnson seconded. Motion CARRIED. MOONEY MOVED TO ADOPT Regulation No. 5, reading as follows : "5. Buildings beyond the 200 foot Shoreline Management Zone but within the "Special Interest District" shall not exceed 35 feet in height (see Implementation section for definition of the Special Interest Dis- trict) . " B. Johnson seconded. In response to questions from the Council, it was determined that this referred to buildings beyond the 200 foot Shoreline Management Zone but still within the 1000 foot area. In response to questions from Bailey, Volchok determined that the normal height of an office building is 12-16 feet for a one-story structure and 2.4-26 feet for two sto riesg He also indicated that M-1 zoning allows buildings up to 45 feet in height but that an office building is not allowed in that zone. The motion CARRIED, with Bailey voting nay. With regard to Regulation No. 6, Harris noted that a change had been recommended to add the words "along the river. After questions were raised by Volchok, HAMILTON MOVED TO ADOPT Regulation No. 6, reading as fo1 '_ows : 4 - January 22, 1981 "6. In order to avoid development which creates a "wall" of buildings on riverfront lots the building facade facing the river shall be limited to 200 feet. " B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. Harris pointed out that Regulation No. 7 reads as follows : "7. In order that there be sufficient area within which development can occur on riverfront lots, the sub- division of land for riverfront lots shall consider the public access easement and the "building setback line" requirements. In Industrial and Commercial zoned land, the minimum lot depth for riverfront lots shall be 500 feet as measured from the Ordinary High Water Line of the River. " Harris clarified that the public access easement is 50 feet from the centerline of the existing dike or Ordinary High Water Line if there is no existing dike so it is an area very close to the river. Referring to "building setback line" requirements, " he noted that this was 200 feet for industrial development and residential an average of 150 feet. Volchok raised questions over the fact that lots cannot be less than 500 feet in length from the Ordinary High Water Line and Harris pointed out that the intent of the Regulation was not to create variance types of situations. He noted that new regulations were being created and the possibility of subdivided lots in there and it was being said that up front the lots could not be less than 500 feet; that the lots could in fact be 750 feet or 1000 feet. In response to Volchok. ' s question as to owned the 200 foot strip, Harris referred to correspondence which indicated a willingness to donate it to the City, with an additional 50 foot setback. Dave Uhrich indicated that while he was not in disagree- ment with the proposed regulation, the City might wish to consider removing the 500 foot restriction, since the first 200 feet was already in a Conservancy zone, and if the lots were 200 or 300 feet the potential would exist for sreialler buildings along the river. Harris contended that people would then apply for variances if the lot size were smaller. Volchok suggested that when the lots are platted, they are designed to get the maximum utilization of land without having to apply for variances; that if someone wanted a 5 - January 22, 1981 smaller lot that would be the one purchased. He also agreed with Uhrich that smaller lots could prevent the 200 foot "wall of build- ings" along the river. Joel Haggard suggested that Regulation No. 7 as presently written could create substantial ambiguities or difficulties if its intent is accomplished. He noted that he had problems with the language contained in the subparagraph of No. 7 reading " . . .the minimum lot depth for riverfront lots shall be 500 feet as measured from the Ordinary High Water Line of the River. " He referred to the fact that it a 500 foot lot existed, and there was a possibility that 200 feet would be donated to the City, that automatically a lot would be created that was less than 500 feet. He suggested that this lot would be contrary to the policies of the Zoning Code. Haggard clarified that he did not disagree with any of the substance of the regulation but was referring to problems which might occur. Mayor Hogan suggested that the Council would have to decide if they were intending to purchase the 200 foot strip or ask for land donations or if their intent was restrictions on building in that area. Haggard suggested that the regulation be rewritten to substitute the following language: In Industrial and Commer- cial zoned land, the eastern boundary of any lot developed for such purposes shall be no closer than 500 feet from the Ordinary High Water Line of the River. " Mayor Hogan contended that there still appeared to be a conflict of thought concerning the City purchasing the land or receiving it as a donation. McCaughan referred to two letters which had been received in which an offer was made to donate the 200 feet to the City. He suggested that if the City were to accept that offer it would help to fulfill some of the ownership along the shoreline, since the City was required under the Shoreline Manage- ment Act to have 25% of the shoreline in its name within the next 15 years. He suggested that maybe the easterly line should be 500 feet from the river, not from the 200 foot line. Haggard clarified that he was merely questioning the language and creating some possibilities which might be contrary to the Zoning Code. A gentleman from the audience suggested that since the river does not run true north and south and the fact that the Special Inter- est District covers both sides of the river, the words "upland boundary" should be used rather than "eastern boundary. " Haggard repeated his suggested language as follows : "In Industrial and Commercial zoned land, the upland boundary furthest from the River shall be no less than 500 feet from the Ordinary High Water 6 - January 22, 1981 Line of the River for lots used for such industrial and commercial purposes. " The Council concurred with the proposed change and HAMILTON MOVED TO ADOPT Regulation No. 7 reading as follows : "7. In order that there be sufficient area within which development can occur on riverfront lots, the sub- division of land for riverfront lots shall consider the public access easement and the "building setback line" requirements . ° ]hIndustrial and Commercial zoned land, the upland boundary furthest from the River shall be no less than 500 feet from the Ordinary High Water Line of the River for lots used for such industrial and commercial purposes. " B. Johnson seconded. In response to questions from B. Johnson, Mirk noted that the substituted language merely clarified the Regulation. Motion carried. Referring to Regulation No. 8, Masters questioned what constituted a flood control structure, Harris clarified that it could be a dike or a channel, anything that is used for flood control. McCAUGHAN MOVED TO ADOPT Regulation No. 8 re� as follows : "8. Development shall maintain or establish a permanent vegetative buffer of trees and shrubs between the development and the river, OR, between the development and any flood control structure or riverfront road or riverfront park of "unique and fragile" area, such buffer having an average width of twenty-five feet along the length of= the shoreline and minimum width of fifteen feet. ENi.sting unsightly land uses along the Green River shall have a permanent vegeta- tive buffer established between themselves and the river within two years of time of adoption of these regulations. These unsightly uses shall include: materials storage, truck maneuvering areas, equipment parking, junk yards, refuse storage and other such visually objectionable uses . " Mooney seconded. mcL.ior: 7 - January 22, 1981 Referring to Regulation No. 9, Mooney questioned whether they were to assume that the City would have a donation of land along the river and further questioned whether any land donations would be accepted beyond the present Russell Road Park. Mayor Hogan noted that the question seemed to be whether the donations were going to be required as a consideration for development and expressed the opinion that any land donations should not be tied into the kind of development to be allowed. McCaughan questioned with regard to the fact that if there were no land donations and the City did not purchase the property if the Public Improvements Ordinance would apply for the development of Russell Road. He pointed out that there were lots which would front on both roads, the access road on the easterly side and also on Russell Road. Mirk contended that if they did not have access they could not be required to improve it. B. JOHNSON MOVED to .ADOPT Regulation No. 9, reading as follows : "9. Landscape screening and buffer strips shall be planted so as to be harmonious with those already planted on adjacent properties and consistent with L�,K Kent Landscaping Requirements. " ! U Harris noted that Regulation No. 10 had been changed as set forth in the Planning Department handout, namely to change "Kent Green River Corridor Plan" to"Special Interest District. " Bailey ques- tioned how the Regulation could be adopted until the "Unique and Fragile Areas" map were adopted. After further discussion, Hamilton suggested that there was no problem with adopting the Regulation at this time and the map later, and it was noted that the map would show the date of its adoption by the Council. HAMILTON MOVED TO ADOPT Regulation No. 10 as amended, reading as follows: "10. There shall be no disruption or destruction of areas identified as "unique and fragile" in the Special Interest District, OR, in the event that disturbance is demonstrated to be unavoidable, disruption or des- truction shall be " fuily mitigated" by the applicant through complete land reclamation and restoration of vegetation. New dikes or levees will be set back around "unique and fragile" areas. The "unique and fragile" areas shall be clearly defined on a detailed map. " 8 January 22, 1981 B. Johnson seconded. In response to the Mayor 's question as to adoption of the Map, Masters requested that further action on this point should be deferred until the entire Council was pre- sent, noting that McCaughan had left the meeting at 5:00 p.m. The motion adopting Regulation No. 10 carried. MOONEY MOVED TO ADOPT Regulation No. 11, reading as follows : "ll. Areas proposed for donation as parks or wildlife areas shall conform to recommended parks appearing in the Kent Green River Corridor Study. Additional park lands may also be accepted. " B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. Referring to Regulation No. 12, Haggard suggested that the word "recommendation" be changed to "requirements, " noting that he has dealt with a lot of situations where recommendations are made at a staff level that are not embodied in any permit and do not reflect the official position of agencies. BAILEY MOVED TO ADOPT Regulation No. 12 with the recommended change, to read as follows : "12. The applicant shall follow any applicable require- ments of the State Department of Fisheries and State Department of Game for preventing and mitigating adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources and enhancing wildlife habitat. " Mooney seconded. Motion carried. With reference to Regulation No. 1.3 Mirk suggested that it might not be possible to enforce this item as written and suggested that the words "where possible" be added. MOONEY MOVED TO ADOPT Regul.ati.on No. 13 with the suggested change, reading as follows : "13. If public funds are used in the construction of flood control works (dikes , levees , flood walls) , public rights of access to such works are required prior to construction where possible. " B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. 9 - January 22, 1981 y B. JOHNSON MOVED TO ADOPT Regulation No. 14 reading as follows: 1114. Surface drainage facilities such as drainage channels and retention areas shall be designed to be integral parts, if possible, of any common trail and open space system connections to the riverfront. " Mooney seconded. Masters expressed opposition to the Regulation, suggesting that it was not a good policy for the Council to pursue and noting that some of these facilities may have to be fenced for security reasons. She also questioned why the City wished to encourage the general public to cut through a busy industrial area when a scenic corridor was being provided along the River. The motion CARRIED, with Bailey and Masters voting no. Harris noted that the Planning Department had recommended a change to Regulation No. 15 as follows: "15. There shall be no rail or rail spurs within 1, 000 feet of the river or west of the new Russell Road alignment, whichever is greater. " He noted that this item had been the subject of discussion at a recent workshop. Bailey suggested that it was possible to design rail service so that it would not be visible. B. Johnson questioned whether the number of rail spurs crossing Russell Road to service people on the west side should be limited. Masters expressed concerns that rail spurs had to meet required curvatures and contended that 500 feet was a reasonable figure to uphold. BAILEY MOVED to TABLE Regulation No. 15, Masters seconded. Motion carried. BAILEY MOVED that staff give consideration to developing different language to give the developer an opportunity to use his facilities within the 500 feet. Moonev seconded. Plotion carried. B. Johnson suggested that Bailey wanted language in the Regulation specifying buffers so that the rail spurs would not be visible. Bailey noted that it was intent to allow buildings within that area having rail service, properly bermed, screened or camouflaged, which the developer could still utilize. He also stated that the regulation as written was denying economic development. In response 10 - I January 22, 1981 to Mayor Hogan ' s question, Bailey concluded that it was his intent to give the developer the right to use the building with rail ser- vice to within 500 feet. Mirk questioned whether they were asking staff to write something that would provide visual screening, berm- ing and landscaping, and that rail service would be allowed within 350 feet of the High Water Mark if this was provided. Questions were raised as to the intent and Bailey noted that he wished the Regulation to say that the building could be constructed and rail service allowed, with a 50 foot restriction from the end of the building with proper screening. HAMILTON MOVED TO REMOVE Regulation No. 15 from the table and reconsider it at this time, Mooney seconded. Motion carried. HAMILTON MOVED that Regulation- No.- 15 egulationNo. 15 BE ADOPTED, reading as follows : "15. There shall be no rail or rail spurs within 350 feet of the river and any rail. spurs on riverfront lots shall be screened from the view of those per- sons along the river. " Bailey seconded. In response to questions from Uhri.ch, it was determined that staff would-come back with specific regulations to be attached to the policy and the stipulation that no rail- road cars would be visible from the river. Hamilton suggested that it might be possible to screen rail spurs but questioned whether or not this could be done with the railroad cars. Harris commented that they were also thinking of both visual and noise problems. After further discussion, HAMILTON WITHDREW THE MOTION, Bailey the seconded. BAILEY MOVED that Regulation No. 1_5 be ADOPTED to read as follows : "15. There shall be no rail or rail spurs within 250 feet of the river and all rail facilities shall be adequately bermed and landscaped, including spurs, boxcars and switches, in accordance with the recommendations of the Planning Department. J. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. MOONEY MOVED that Regulation No. l_6 BE ADOPTED, reading as follows : - 11 - i i January 22, 1981 "16. All new lots and buildings must have road access without using Scenic and Recreational Roads as defined by the Green River Corridor Study (1980) ." Masters seconded. Motion carried. MOONEY MOVED that Regulation No. 17, Regulation No. 18, Regulation No. 19, Regulation No. 20, and Regulation No. 21 BE ADOPTED, reading as follows: "17. Development shall include no street connections to Scenic and Recreational Roads. " 1118. Development shall not force or encourage property outside the proposed development to use a Scenic or Recreational Road for access . " 1119. Development shall not force or encourage traffic from the proposed development to use a Scenic or Recreational Road for access . " "20. Roads within the Special Interest District shall be designed for low-volume local traffic. "21. Overhead utilities will not be allowed unless underground placement is clearly demonstrated to be infeasible. " B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. MASTERS MOVED TO DELETE Regulation No. 22, B. Johnson seconded. Motion CARRIED. HAMILTON MOVED TO ADOPT Regulation No. 23 , reading as follows: 1123. Applicant shall not locate uses on Riverfront lots which would adversely affect the shoreline environ- ment. These uses include: - outdoor storage of materials or equipment - heavy industry - "strip" commercial - shopping centers . " B. Johnson seconded. Mo,U_ion CARRIED . 12 i January 22, 1981 HAMILTON MOVED TO ADOPT Regulation No. 24, reading as follows : "24. No natural or constructed features of potential historic, cultural and educat-l.orzal significance shall be destroyed or modifi.e6 so as to negate its value to the public. " B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. HAMILTON MOVED TO ADOPT Requlation No. 2 , reading as follows : " 25. That Southcenter Corporate Park property be exempt from the Green River Corridor Special Interest District Regulations . " B. Johnson seconded. Motion carried. It was noted by Mayor Hogan that a letter had been received from Pacific Industrial Concepts dated January 20, 1981. B. JOHNSON MOVED that the letter be accepted for the record, Masters seconded. Motion carried. Receipt was also noted of a letter from Lester Sanderson regarding the "unique and fragile" areas . B. JOHNSON .MOVED that the letter be made a part of the record, Masters seconded. Motion carried. In response to questions from Sally Millen, reference was made to the Kent Green River Corridor Definitions which appear in the Green Book. Harris determined that these definitions were pre- viously adopted as part of the Shoreline Master Plan and that they should be adopted in connection with the Green River Corridor- Special Interest District were applicable. Harris further clari- fied that the definitions were previously adopted by the City and State for the 200 ' shoreline area . MASTERS MOVED that the Kent Green _River Corridor Definitions BE ADOPTED wh e a Y River Corri Tdor PTan;�. .:Thnson tic � eseconded. carried. "Scenic and Recreational Roads/Drives : 1. Frager Road throughout its Iericgth within the City of Kent. 2. Russell Road from the eastern end of the proposed Russell 13 - I i I i January 22, 1981 _. Woods Park as designated in the Green River Corridor Plan north to the point where it leaves the River (approximately at 200th Street) . " "Common Trail System: Pedestrian and/or bicycle accessways which are shared (held in common) by a group of landowners and occupants of a subdivision but which may not be accessible to the general public. " "Riverfront Road: A public street or road which lies alongside the Green River and which has no major development between it and the river. " "Riverfront Park: A publicly owned open space which lies along the Green River, along a Scenic and Recreational Road/Drive, or along a Riverfront Road. " "Ordinary High Water Line or Markl_: "Ordinary high water mark" on all lakes, streams, and tidal water is that mark that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting up-land, in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971 or as it may naturally change thereafter; PROVIDED, that in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide and the ordinary high water mark adjoin- ing fresh water shall be the line of mean high water. (RCW 90.58.030) (2) (b) "Riverfront Lot: Any lot or land parcel. which is adjacent to the Green River, a Scenic and Recreational Road/Drive, a Riverfront Road or a Riverfront Park. " 14 - January 22, 1981 "Unique and Fragile Area: An area of special environmental significance for wildlife habitat, threatened plant communities, and/or natural scenic quality. The geographic boundaries of these areas shall be officially mapped. " Truck Maneuvering Area: An area of a site used by trucks for turning and backing or for access to .loading/unloading areas. " "Over-Water Structure: Any structure projecting over the ordinary high water mark of the Green River. " "Revegetation• The planting of vegetation to cover any land areas which have been disturbed during construction. This vegeta- tion shall be maintained to insure its survival and shall be consistent with planting requirements of the Kent Landscape Code. " "Conservancy Zones : The objective in designating a conservancy environment is to protect, conserve and manage existing natural resources and valuable historic and cultural areas in order to ensure a continuous flow of recreational bene- fits to the public and to achieve sustained resource utilization. The conservancy environment is for those areas which are intended to maintain their existing character. The preferred uses are those which are nonconsumptive of the physical and biological resources of the area. Noncon- sumptive uses are those uses which can utilize resources on a sustained yield basis while minimally reducing opportunities for other future uses of the resources in the area. Activities and uses of a nonpermanent nature which do not substantially degrade the existing character of an area are appropriate uses for a con- servancy envi.ronrient. Examples �)f uses that might be 15 - January 21, 1981 predominant in a conservancy environment include diffuse out door recreation activities, timber harvesting on a sustained yield basis, passive agricultural uses such as pasture and range lands, and other related uses and activities . The designation of conservancy environments should seek to satisfy the needs of the community as to the present and future location of recreational areas proximate to concentrations of population, either existing or projected. For example, a conservancy environment designation can be used to complement city, county or state plans to legally acquire public access to the water. (WAC 173-16-040 (4) (b) (ii_) . " B. Johnson seconded. Motion CARRIED. Haggard questioned the Zoning Code Amendments and asked for a clarification as to their effective date. Mirk clarified that anything that was adopted during the course of the hearings that was an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan would have to be done by resolution and further the amendments to the Zoning Code can be made at a regular or special Council meeting by motion so if anything adopted were effective it would be these amendments . Tom O'Connell addressed the Council and expressed concerns over the wetlands designation for some of his property, contending that the land did not fall within this designation since it could be drained. Bailey noted that this was also a concern which he had addressed previously. It was determined that further action should be held over until the entire Council was present and BAILEY MOVED that the hearing be continued to January 26, 1981 at 4 : 00 p.m. B. Johnson. seconded. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 6 : 00 p.m. Betty Gray, CPS Deputy City Clerk - 16 - it