Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Meeting - Council - Minutes - 02/08/1984 Kent, Washington February 8, 1984 WEST HILL PLAN Proper legal notice has been given by the City Clerk for a Special Public Hearing before the Kent City Council. Mayor Hogan called the meeting to order at 7 : 00 o' clock p.m. at Totem Junior High. Present: Mayor Hogan, Councilpersons Bailey, Biteman, Johnson, Kelleher, Leahy, White and Woods, City Administrator Cushing, City Attorney DiJulio, Planning Director Harris and Public Works Director Wickstrom. Approximately 150 people were in attendance at the meeting. Mayor Hogan noted that the purpose of the meeting was to receive additional input on the Planning Commission recommendations on the West Hill Plan. The Planning Commission held numerous informal meetings starting in 1982, followed by public official hearings and the Planning Commission recommendation to the Council was made in August 1983. The matter was discussed at the regular City Council meetings of December 5, 1983 and Janaury 16, 1984 and at the workshop of January 11, 1984 . It was noted that the following additional correspondence had been received and distributed regarding the proposed West Hill Plan: Letter from Peggy Tauer, Coordinator, Citizens Against Midway Landfill, dated January 7 , 1984 ; Letter from Marguerite W. Frazier dated January 8, 1984 ; Letter from John C. O' Rourke dated February 8, 1984 . WOODS MOVED to make the letters part of the record, Johnson seconded. Motion carried. (Other correspondence filed for the record is listed in the December 5 , 1983 Council minutes. ) Jim Hansen, Principal Planner for the City, reviewed the background of the West Hill Plan at the request of Mayor Hogan. Hansen ex- plained that the purpose of the special hearing was to take addi- tional testimony on the Draft West Hill Plan and EIS which was recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission on August 9 , 1983 . Reviewing the 27 meetings on the plan, he noted that staff had begun gathering data on the proposed West Hill Plan in May of 1982, at which time the Council authorized funding of the West Hill - 1 - February 8, 1984 Plan as a special project. Hansen noted that a general citizens meeting was held in August of 1982 with approximately 45 people in attendance, the purpose of the meeting being to inform the public of the plan and to form a Citizen's Advisory Committee. This committee consisting of approximately 25 members, met 13 times between September and November of 1982. The purpose of the committee was to formulate goals, objectives and policies for the future development of the West Hill Planning area. The East Hill Plan, Valley Floor Plan and CBD Area plans were all used as guidelines in formulating the goals and policies. Ten meetings were then held with the Planning Commission, five being workshop sessions which included a tour of the West Hill. The purpose of the first five sessions was to review the draft West Hill Plan recommendations on an information basis. The last five meetings before the Planning Commission, held during the months of June, July and August were public hearings for a formal review of the draft plan with public testimony. All ten Planning Commission meetings were open to the public. After the completion of the meetings, the draft West Hill Plan and EIS document were prepared . Hansen pointed out that the document contains a six plan element addressing such items as future land use, human resources, public facilities and transportation. These elements were the essential part of the plan, which also included the goals, objectives and policies. After completion of the hearings, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the plan as modified, on August 9 , 1983. Hansen noted that the changes were summarized in a handout, available to the public and that 75 copies were distributed tonight. Hansen explained that Resolution 989 outlined the procedure for City Council review of Planning Commission recommendations re- garding the Comprehensive Plan, which does not include a formal pub- lic ,hearing before the Council. He noted that approximately 12 letters to date had been received objecting to the policy regard- ing public testimony and for this reason the issues were summarized in a handout for the January 11, 1984 special Council workshop meeting. Hansen stated that he felt staff had put forth a good effort to get input from citizens as well as provide notice of the meetings that were held. He pointed out that the Kent paper was not available to all residents of the West Hill and for this reason some notices were not seen by all. At the workshop meeting of January 11 , the City Council discussed the issues raised and the problems and the general concern over the lack of public involve- ment. He stated that notice of this hearing had been mailed with j utility bills. He referred to the fact that this special meeting - 2 - i February 8 , 1984 of the Council was unprecedented, in that the Council had left its normal meeting place and was holding the hearing in the West Hill area. Hansen then referred to the difference between a comprehensive plan and zoning and noted that some confusion develops be- cause most communities differ in the way they handle the develop- ment of the comprehensive plan. Hansen opined that the method used in Kent seemed to be pretty standard, noting that Kent has an overall Comprehensive Plan and in addition has the East Hill Plan, Valley Floor Plan, CBD Plan and now the West Hill Plan, all of which are more specific than a general comprehensive plan. Hansen referred to definitions of a comprehensive plan, noting that one read: "A comprehensive plan is a series of elements always in the process of being fit together and being changed as new needs become apparent or as new information becomes available or as the City changes its objectives over a period of time. " He referred to the changes which are constantly taking place in the City of Kent. He gave another definition: "The plan is a state- ment that this is what we are trying to do, this is why we are trying to do it and this is how we propose to do it. " Referring to the public hearing, Mayor Hogan noted that the Council would take suggestions and comments, consider these at a workshop and at the next regular Council meeting following the workshop will either accept the Planning Commission recommendation, modify it or change it and then the plan will be adopted. The public hearing was opened by Mayor Hogan. DAN PAPKE, 4505 Somerset Court, co-president of the Star Lake PTA, presented a petition containing 744 signatures asking for sidewalks to be continued along Cambridge Drive, which joins 40th Avenue S. and 42nd Avenue S. He referred to the traffic increase over the past five years, noting that 750 of the approximately 550 students walk or ride bikes to and from school. Mr . Papke asked that the Council consider the petition and act on the request as soon as possible. KELLEHER MOVED to accept the petition from Star Lake Elementary School, Woods seconded. Motion carried. DON BARNES, 2907 S. 244th, expressed concern over the landfill site noting that under the terms of the agreement no development should occur during the probation period. He suggested that the owners had made enough profit from the land already and that it should be allowed to remain undeveloped for at least 20 years while the owners paid the taxes. 3 - i I February 8 , 1984 SARAH NASLUND, 23656 30th Avenue S . , Space 26, concurred with Mr. Barnes and his concern over the landfilll site. She also asked about the handout reference to page 26 concerning mining operations. Mayor Hogan clarified that mining operations meant any gravel pits or sites of that type. Naslund stated that the Midway Landfill site was at one time a gravel pit. i I Hansen further clarified that the Planning Commission and the com- munity were concerned about the various gravel pit sites and wanted to insure that these areas be reclaimed and restored in such a manner that they would look good and there would be no erosion. MICHAEL SMITH, Planning Consultant, 1140 140th Avenue N.E. , Bellevue, addressed the Council on behalf of Mrs. Frazier, 3615 S. 243rd Street. Mayor Hogan clarified that Mrs . Frazier' s January 8 letter had been accepted for the record previously. Smith noted that Mrs. Frazier had been working for a number of years on th is particular piece of property which was zoned Commercial on the comprehensive plan, and also designated as Commerical by the Citizens Advisory Committee working on the proposed West Hill Plan. He noted that the Planning Commission had recommended that the zoning be changed to Single Family at four to six dwelling units per acre. He referred to the fact that the property on the corner of S. 243rd and Military, was ideally located for commercial use since it was adjacent to Military Road, which is !I an arterial street, with a very high traffic volume. He also referred to its proximity to the I-5 Interchange located to the north. Reference was also made to the growth of the area expected in the future and the concentration of residential areas now existing and also plans for development. He argued that it was not conducive to any single family dwelling construction because of its location and noted that probably only one new home had been built on Military Road in the past ten years. He also noted that the potential land use pattern in the area was another factor in favor of designating the property for commercial use, referring to the City of Sea ttle reservoir site and the adjacent U.S . Govern- ment He sug- gested site and the existing commercial shopping ce me g , f the pro- perty that keeping the commerical zoning designation o p develo - I' perty would assist in maintaining the existing pattern of p ment. Referring to the history of the site, he noted that it had been designated commercial since the 1963 Comprehensive Plan was adopted, and that the Committee recommendation was the same. He pointed out that the Committee had erroneously extended the commer- cial designation but that the intent was in fact to refer only to the Frazier property. He pointed out that the property was buffered 4 - i February 8, 1984 i from the existing single family residential area and could be utilized for a potential commercial office type land use. MARGARET WARREN, 3809 S . 243rd Street, extended greetings to the Council from Senator Eleanor Lee. She referred to the fact that the property that Mrs. Frazier owns is on Military Road and has been vacant for many years. She noted that the commercial property that Mr. Smith had referred to was on the other side of the Seattle water shed and that all were familiar with the site because of the controversy over a proposed elevated water tower. She pointed out that a green belt now exists ox,,ned by the City of Seattl e which buffers the particular articu lar area from the commerical property referred to. Mrs. Warren also pointed out two houses had been built in the past two years so it was not true that there had been no development on Military Road. She suggested that there was a good reason for the site in ques- tion not being recommended for commercial zoning. RUBY VAUGHT, 26020 44th Avenue S. , referred to a site on London- derry Lane, also known as S. 260th, which she believed to be a State-owned parcel of land. She pointed out that people were using it asasite for trash dumping. She asked that the City put up signs noting "No Dumping" , and get the property cleaned up. Ms. Vaught referred to the need for more street lights in the wooded area between 42nd Avenue and 44th Avenue, and in addition, asked for a new street sign for Londonderry Lane. She complimented the Council on getting the park across Reith Road but expressed concern over ingress and egress to the park on the narrow road that exists and the large volume of traffic on 42nd Avenue. She expressed the need for some sort of traffic control, possibly a four lane road. Mayor Hogan noted that the to receive meetingwas intendedinput on the West Hill Plan but that the citizen complaints were being noted for the record. LLOYD ERDAHL, 3911 Cambridge Court, raised questions about Glenn Nelson Park, noting that if the entrance to Cambridge was designated commercial property, it should be changed to single family, since they wanted to change Mrs. Frazier ' s property to single family designation. He asked whether the commercial designation for j property west of the Glenn Nelson Park was still in the plan or if it had been deleted completely. Hansen noted that the current zoning for the area next to Cambridge, housing the City water tower, is currently zoned commercial. The plan recommends that it be designated a park site. The Planning Commissi on had noted that i 5 - i February 8 , 1984 there was no funding for the City to purchase that parcel but merely wanted to show their intent for its use. He noted that at one time a commercial area was shown west across Military from Glenn Nelson Park. At the request of Erdahl, Hansen pointed out the area on the map. He clarified that in the plan the Plan- ning Commission deleted that commercial use and recommended single family with four to six units per acre. Erdahl questioned the ownership of the land north of Glenn Nelson Park where the water tower is situated and Hansen clarified that the City owns the water tower site but the remainder (approximately eight acres) is owned by a private partnership. Erdahl also raised questions about the proposed zoning for the Kent Highlands and ref erred d to the number of rats which were still coming up to his property even though the City of Seattle was to have cleaned up the site. He suggested that the site was not being properly monitored and that the torches were not kept going during the daytime. Hansen pointed out the site on the map, noting that it covers approxi- mately 253 acres but that he believed the total parcel owned by ds was approximately 350 acres. The current zoning Kent Highlands p g P RA which is approximately one dwelling unit per site is PP of the s , acre. He referred to an approximate 8-acre site at the corner of Kent-Des Moines Road and Military Road which is presently zoned commercial. He noted that the Plan calls for a Planned Unit Development which is a package of a development which could include in this case commerical and various types of residential, but essentially a mixture of residential uses . . sin le g , multi- family, condominiums or apartments—combined with perhaps a con- vention center or something of that type. Hansen clarified that a PUD essentially shows a very general use but the actual use is unknown until an application is filed with the Planning Department, at whi ch time an evaluation is made and the environmental issues addressed as well. LILLIE POUSMITH, 24917 38th Avenue S. , referred to the fact that the Kent Highlands landfill was put in the area many years ago of the Wes t Hill She ex- pressed the objections of the citizens - J Bible develo ment over landfill pressed great concern over any pos P sites of any kind, not only for the legal ramifications but for the well-being of the people who might unsuspectingly move into such an area. Mayor Hogan commented that building on any landfill site was a long term proposal because of the many years it takes for a site to settle. She pointed out, however, that some of the site pro- posed for housing was not part of the landfill . �I - 6 - i February 8, 1984 i CAROL SOWDON, 3640 Manchester, asked for a more detailed explan- ation of the maps which were displayed since it was the first meeting she had attended. Hansen explained the color designations and different types of zoning on the maps. He noted that portions of the area shown were in King County. e Hansen pointed out areas which King County had surveyed and which were known as "sensitive lands" . He explained that these areas may have erosion problems or might be earthquake hazard areas and for this reason they are classified as having constraints because they could present problems to urban development. He clarified that for the most part they coincided with the 40% slope along the West Hill and a few oth er area s which were wet- I lands or marshes. At Biteman' s request, Hansen referred to a handout entitled "Planning Commission Recommended Land Use Plan" , consisting of 13 items which represented changes to a portion of the Land Use Plan. He specifically addressed Item #7 1130th Avenue South" which reads "Indicate a maximum of 24 dwelling units per acre he for this area. Hansen noted th at this was the area near MidwayDrive-in which had a mixture of multi-family and other „ ical No. 8 Mrs. Frazier s Co mmerical" , , type uses. Referring to Item , yp b other n addr essed previously y he issue ha d been P he noted that t members of the audience but clarified the Planning Comm fission, s recommendation as objecting to "strip commercial" . He further noted that the Planning Commission felt that there was an abun- dance of commercial uses along Pacific Highway South and on the West Hill . He noted that item #9 , "Commeric al West of Glenn ,� and to Item #10, "Resi- ed. With re Nelson Park had been cover g dential Area West of Cambridge (West of Military Road) " , he pointed out that he had previously addressed this issue and noted again that the area is undeveloped,, primarily woods at �� this time. Hansen stated that Item 11 , North of Lake Fenwick" and Item 12, "Skyline Park" were both developments which were underway during the long process of the hearings, so it was decided designations along this area accordingly. He g to change the g s pointed out the Swiss Gable location of the Apartments and Skyline Park consisting of 192 units . On Item #13, "The Area East of Midway Drive-in" , Hansen noted the property owners had requested community retail zoninq and the Planning Commission had concurred. Referring to Item #5, „ locat ion of the ro- �� Hansen pointed out the loc P Curran Property" ,, Han p P are a and southeast tip of the study a perty, situated at the far so P designated as one dwelling unit per acre. He noted that it was in the vicinity of S. 277th and that at this time it was still under the designation of Open Space. - 7 - I I i February 8 , 1984 _DON KNAPP_, 25047 38th Avenue South, noted that he had lived in the area for approximately 25 years and had a couple of questions about the garbage dump. He noted that he was concerned about fires because of the type of materials being dumped there. He also expressed concern over the drainage problem for the landfill site area, pointing out that there has always been a water pro- blem on the West Hill. He also expressed concern over the traffic problems in the West Hill area. GLORIA HEEMINK, 25285 45th Avenue South, noted that she had lived in the area since 1962, and stated th at Lake Fenwick has become nothing but a mudhole. She stated that the traffic situation was such that it could not handle another park. She complained about the parties at Lake Fenwick and the problems which resulted there and suggested that the same type of thing could happen at thought was being that not much t g the new park. She suggested g givento lighting, protection and the fact that the new park would also become a teenage hangout. Mrs. Heemink also referred to the gravel pit at the end of her street and noted that the operation was to end this year, at the conclusion of a second ten year permit. Upon her question, Hansen clarified that the i area across the upper portion of the gravel pit was designated as a park and that the lower portion was zoned MRM. Heemink expressed concern about the traffic problem and the unsafe con- ditions which existed at Lake Fenwick Park. KEN GETTMAN, Lake Fenwick Road South, noted that he owned 1. 8 acres on the hill east of Lake Fenwick. He disagreed with the decision to limit this area to one single family dwelling per acre, noting that many owners of small areas had planned to divide their land into two parcels. He suggested that it would financial burden on the property owners if they were bec ome a P P not allowed to do this. He noted that his property was currently zoned to allow two to three dwellings and asked that this down- zoning not be allowed. ROY LANE, 35th Place South at S. 247th, raised questions about the water pressure problems on the West Hill . At the request of Mayor Hogan, Wickstrom noted that the Council had authorized ' s proceeding with individual pumps to boost the existing g pressure and work was progressing on the design of the pressure stations. Upon a question from the audience Wickstrom determined that building permits had not been curtailed. Questions were then raised as to the advisability of further building when there o handle exi sting is insufficient pressure at the present time t 9 dwellings. Mayor Hogan noted that the City did at one time have 8 - February 8, 1984 a moratorium on building until we had a better handle on water problems. Mr. Lane stated that they had moved into the area in 1960, that they reside halfway between the dumps, and that no putrescible materials were supposed to be dumped in the Mid- way area. He referred to the "Black Hole" which presently exists and suggested that the organizations involved had gone back on their word. Regarding the Highland Landfill, Mayor Hogan noted that the dumping would cease at the end of 1985. ARTHUR WALDEN, 25616 Lake Fenwick Road, expressed his concerns over some of the existing zoning at Lake Fenwick Park and sug- gested that it constitutes a real hazard as well as a nuisance. He recommended that fences be installed and the gates locked at a certain time in the evening to eliminate some of the parties that take place in the area. He asked for the support of the Council in alleviating the problem. GIL HOTCHKISS,25234 29th Avenue S. , asked that he be allowed to comment on Mrs. Frazier' s situation. He suggested that the Council had acted in a very arbitrary manner in suggesting the zoning changes, noting that the Committee had recommended one thing and the Planning Commission had changed their recommenda- tion. He stated that he felt the fact that the Council had made a special attempt to hold the meeting in the West Hill area and this had changed his thinking on the Council action that might be taken. He requested that Mrs. Frazier ' s property should be retained as commercial and asked that the Council investigate the matter further. Hansen responded that the Planning Commission had felt that there was sufficient commercially zoned property on Pacific Highway South. ILONA FEICHTINGER, 25665 Lake Fenwick Road, expressed concern not only for the Lake Fenwick area but the entire West Hill community. She referred to the fact that most of the residents of the area go to Federal Way to shop and suggested that perhaps a shuttle bus could be put on the West Hill for easier access to Kent and its shopping areas , especially for Saturday. She also suggested that the Lake Fenwick Park be fenced and gated. JUAN ROBERTSON, 4330 S. 263rd Street, asked that the Council con- sider four separate items. He noted that he was a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee and referred to the long deliberations over the aspects of the plan and its effects on the entire area. He suggested that there were too few people who had seen the plan at all and too few who had seen it in detail . He suggested that Committee members had little opportunity to address their_ - 9 - i February 8, 1984 own concerns but instead were limited to an agenda provided to them during the course of their deliberations. He opined that not enough time was allowed for those participating to do a good job and also referred to the lack of notice that was given even for this special meeting. He referred to the handout listing changes to Alternate #3 and suggested that given suffi- cient time, the Committee could have come with quite different alternatives. Robertson also pointed out that he regretted the recommendation for aPUD in the Midway area and suggested that the Advisory Committee had had insufficient information, Robertson stated that it was still his belief that it was necessary to include increased and improved water pressure in this plan for water delivery for fire protection. He suggested that the Council consider giving a second committee or another committee some additional time to come up with another alternative. MARVIN VON BEHREN, 23806 39th Avenue S. , recommended that no changes be made on the West Hill until improvements were made to the existing area. ED LABOUNTY, 25405 45th Avenue S. , questioned whether the street name changes had been completed, noting that his address had been changed three times in the past 20 years. He also com- plained about the water pressure and suggested that in addition to the booster pumps, that the City consider installing filters. He stated that it was sand that clogged the pipes, not rust or corrosion. JOHN O'ROURKE, attorney for Kent Highlands, stated that he had neven seen such a well attended meeting of West Hill residents for either the Planning Commission or City Council. He referred to the comments by Mr. Hansen and Mr . Robertson and opined that remanding the West Hill Plan to the Planning Commission would certainly cause an extended delay. He pointed out that half of the commissioners were recently appointed and had never even seen the Plan. He asked that the Council deliberate, take their action and bring the matter to a conclusion. NANCY RUDY informed Mayor Hogan that she would submit a letter to the Council. Mayor Hogan explained the procedures which the Council will follow and that an attempt would be made to respond to the con- cerns expressed. She expressed appreciation to those who had 10 - i February 8 , 1984 attended the meeting. A woman from the audience was advised to call King County Councilman Grieve about cleaning up the area across from Cambridge. Another lady questioned whether there was an alternative for the park on Reith Road since many who lived near parks had encountered problems. Mayor Hogan noted that the sentiment had always been expressed that another park was needed on the West Hill and it should be a neighborhood park, not open to the public at night and this was the reason that new park was not lighted. The woman noted that there was a meeting when the gravel pit site was ready to be turned over to the City, and it was determined that there was new housing in the area and young people with children in the area and that a park was desirable. Mayor Hogan noted that concerns had been expressed about the winding road but pointed out that Reith Road would be realigned to provide a safer intersection. Another lady who identified herself as a West Hill Committee member, noted that they wanted to make the Council aware that they did not want Lake Fenwick improved any further until the existing problems were resolved. She pointed out the need for better policing of the area and noted that meetings had been held with the Police Department but the area remained a pro- blem, both in the daytime and at night. Mayor Hogan pointed out that unfortunately this was a common problem to all our parks and noted that the most successful deterrent to vandalism and that type of activity was to program the parks with positive activities . She referred to the diffi- culty in doing this at Lake Fenwick because it is mainly for boating and fishing recreation and not suitable for other activities. The lady added that they had asked the police to issue warnings to the kids about drinking and parties but they had not been successful. Mayor Hogan pointed out that the police department does not have the manpower to effectively police the area and that perhaps a neighborhood type of policing would solve some of the problems. MRS. NASLUND, 23656 30th Avenue S. , suggested that in view of the large turn out at this meeting, that perhaps more meetings would be held in the West Hill area. Mayor Hogan noted that the comments recorded from the meeting tonight would be considered by the Council along with comments from the staff at a workshop at City Hall. Following that, the Plan would be adopted at a regular Council. meeting, either in the form recommended by the Planning Commission or with modifi- - 11 - February 8 , 1984 cations. She noted that there would be an opportunity for the public to come and hear the Council ' s response and consideration of the comments made tonight. Another lady questioned whether it would be possible to hold another meeting in the area again. The Mayor confirmed that the next meeting on this subject would be at a Council workshop at the City Hall. A man noted that he did not receive the Kent papers and suggested that future notices be sent out with the utility billing. It was pointed out that this meeting was scheduled to coincide with the West Hill utility billing mailing date, but that such notifi- cation would not always be possible. The Council was commended for bringing the meeting to the West Hill for the residents of the area. BITEMAN MOVED to close the public hearing with a note of congrat- ulations to the many residents of the area who had attended the meeting, Woods seconded. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8 : 45 p.m. Marie Jens n, CMC City Clerk - 12 -